Quote

Then there's the resolution.  The image resolution has been increased far beyond current HDTV standards.  The images in The Hobbit  will have 4 - 5 times more pixels than a standard 1080p HD image.  So the image will be immensely sharper, too.

Even most digital presentations far exceed 1080P, and film stock definitely does.  48FPS is not about the resolution of the frames, but the number of them.  The 24FPS version will have the same resolution, just fewer frames.  The 4K is completely independent of the 48FPS.  Most BluRay discs masters are 4K transfers downgraded to 1080P.

That said, I agree with all your points.

Uh, Jim...

You didn't happen to notice that there are a series of points in the post you quoted, right?

First, the frame rate.  They decided to go for 48 FPS because that was a rate at which motion blur became minimized.  24 FPS has a long history, but it was based in economy.  That was the lowest frame rate at which film could be projected without the viewer noticing the space between frames.  Essentially, it was done in order to save film stock (and print stock, too).  But during high speed movement 24 FPS will show motion blur.  The 48 FPS specs eliminate a lot of that blur.

Then there's the resolution.  The image resolution has been increased far beyond current HDTV standards.  The images in The Hobbit  will have 4 - 5 times more pixels than a standard 1080p HD image.  So the image will be immensely sharper, too.

That first graph is about the frame rate.  And the second one was specifically addressing the 4K scanning technology.  Pardon me if I didn't make that abundantly obvious in the original post.  I was going based off of the radio interview I had caught with Andy Serkis.  In addition to his role as Gollum, Serkis has also served as a director for Second Unit shoots for The Hobbit.  And part of his interview got into the varying layers of new technology that the upcoming Hobbit trilogy would be introducing to audiences.  Among them the 48 FPS frame rate and the 4K scan technology.

For clarity's sake, existing film stock for the past forever still contains more image "data" than HD or even the new 4K process.  This 48FPS does not contain more "resolution" than a 24FPS presentation does, just twice as many frames per second.

I don't think anyone said that.  The 4K process is what adds the higher resolution.  48FPS helps to elimate motion blur.

But film stock is far more tempermental to work with.  And it's also more expensive to buy and process.  It also doesn't hold up well in the post-production process.  Then there's exhibition.  A film print quickly degrades, and after perhaps half a dozen showings it will show significant degradation.  All of these reasons are why the industry has been moving away from 35mm film stock.

There is definitely the likelihood that movie-goers who have been watching films as far back as the 1980's are going to find the 48 FPS / 4K presentation TOO VIVID for their tastes.  But this seems to be a harbinger of things to come, and we're probably going to see more movies shot this way.

Yeah.  The absence of the Imperial Naval Commander and Emporer's Royal Guard are pretty glaring if you're going to call this wave "Fan Favorites".

I caught a good deal of the press tour that some of the cast was doing in New York.  One of the topics that kept coming up was how the movie was shot.  And it's definitely cutting edge technology.

First, the frame rate.  They decided to go for 48 FPS because that was a rate at which motion blur became minimized.  24 FPS has a long history, but it was based in economy.  That was the lowest frame rate at which film could be projected without the viewer noticing the space between frames.  Essentially, it was done in order to save film stock (and print stock, too).  But during high speed movement 24 FPS will show motion blur.  The 48 FPS specs eliminate a lot of that blur.

Then there's the resolution.  The image resolution has been increased far beyond current HDTV standards.  The images in The Hobbit  will have 4 - 5 times more pixels than a standard 1080p HD image.  So the image will be immensely sharper, too.

Add in the 3-D component next, and you're adding depth to the image.

As for viewer reviews?  I heard one avid movie-goer describe it as being an amazing visual experience.  One comparison I heard was that it was akin to watching a stage production, since the images were that vivid.  Younger viewers who are active video gamers will probably be drawn more into the experience than people who have more traditional film tastes.

Saw about a dozen TVC Falcons at a local TRU store today. Now selling for $199.99 each.

Happy to help!  These flash deals are pretty nice.

I have a good number of TRU stores near me, but I had to do some searching to find one store locally that had them in stock.  But it's a weird arrangement.  You have to wait for an email from TRU stating that it's ready for pickup.  I'm wondering if I go into that particular store with my email receipt if they'll just give me mine.  Because part of the deal is that you have to make the pickup within 5 days.

Yeah, that $96.08 price was tough to pass on.

Did you opt for shipping or the store pickup? 

Oh, and this sale was part of TRU's flash deals.  They're updated pretty frequently, so you may want to check that page periodically.