I strongly suggest before you read my opinions, watch the film first and render your own thoughts...
First on the 3D
The far distance is only as far as you sit away from the screen. So I sit in the very back by the projector. If I had the option of watching in 2D at 48 Hz, I would have taken that. I feal like the stereo is a distraction only because sometimes it does not work (for example backgrounds will always be flat) and that pulls me out of the film.
48 Hz
My feeling from watching the Hobbit is that 48 Hz increases the ease at which film can fall back into the uncanny valley. 48 Hz raises the skill required. When it works, it feals much more real than 24 Hz, but when anything subtle is wrong, it is very easy to spot, and will distract from the experience. At the very beginning of the film for example, the tempo feels wrong, as if the movement is just slightly too fast. I have a feeling they adjusted some scenes to fit by scaling the video temporally before mastering the audio? Other parts, including CG parts, felt natural to me.
I wish the film industry would skip 48 Hz and move right along to 96 Hz or 120 Hz so they can skip either digital projectors holding the frame, or scanning projectors scanning the 48 Hz two times at 96 Hz, or worse temporal up-scaling to 60 Hz and then holding 60 Hz or scanning 60 Hz two times at 120 Hz.
Anyway looks like 48 Hz is a required stepping stone to something better, and I'm happy some are taking the risk and venturing forward.
First on the 3D
The far distance is only as far as you sit away from the screen. So I sit in the very back by the projector. If I had the option of watching in 2D at 48 Hz, I would have taken that. I feal like the stereo is a distraction only because sometimes it does not work (for example backgrounds will always be flat) and that pulls me out of the film.
48 Hz
My feeling from watching the Hobbit is that 48 Hz increases the ease at which film can fall back into the uncanny valley. 48 Hz raises the skill required. When it works, it feals much more real than 24 Hz, but when anything subtle is wrong, it is very easy to spot, and will distract from the experience. At the very beginning of the film for example, the tempo feels wrong, as if the movement is just slightly too fast. I have a feeling they adjusted some scenes to fit by scaling the video temporally before mastering the audio? Other parts, including CG parts, felt natural to me.
I wish the film industry would skip 48 Hz and move right along to 96 Hz or 120 Hz so they can skip either digital projectors holding the frame, or scanning projectors scanning the 48 Hz two times at 96 Hz, or worse temporal up-scaling to 60 Hz and then holding 60 Hz or scanning 60 Hz two times at 120 Hz.
Anyway looks like 48 Hz is a required stepping stone to something better, and I'm happy some are taking the risk and venturing forward.