Support NeoGAF

polyh3dron · Apr 25, 2012

neoanarch said:
Most tv shows are shot at 30fps a minority at 24fps. Only rarely do sporting events get broadcast at 60fps.

dude no.

I work in post production for TV and film.

Scripted TV is shot either on film or digitally at 24FPS, and then a telecine process (also referred to as 3:2 pulldown) is done with the 1080i master to effectively change it to 30FPS. However the master a show works with throughout the entire post production process is a 1080p/24FPS master. Only when they make the dubs from that master is the framerate changed in a process that has been used FOREVER with filmed shows that were all shot at 24FPS.

Also, all live sporting events get shown at 60FPS, and live events have been shown like this since pretty much the dawn of TV.

It bugs the shit out of me when people that don't know what the fuck they're talking about speak like they're an authority on something.

Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew · Apr 25, 2012

Raistlin said:
Ah thank you. Wasn't aware of that, though I wonder if we should shy away from it since most use p to represent progressive resolutions? Will probably confuse most people.

That said, fps is not inherently a gaming term, just as Hz is not inherently a TV term. Hz is a refresh rate, while fps (or p) is a frame rate of the underlying content. They are not specific to a type of display nor to a type of content. Nor are they directly tied together (though they are indirectly for practical purposes in most situations).

Agree on all counts. They are not directly related but that's how they are advertised to people who have no clue about it.

Loofy · Apr 25, 2012

bluerei said:
I'm off to go shoot some test shots at 48 and 24p with the RED, brb.

If you can, can you do simple shots of a person walking. Like say, someone entering a door.

lazybones18 · Apr 25, 2012

Some positive, some negative

I personally would love to see the footage myself before the movie's release just to see what I'm in for

Eight Diagram Bat Fighter · Apr 25, 2012

Loofy said:
If you can, can you do simple shots of a person walking. Like say, someone entering a door.

Yeah, motion will be the key thing.

Branduil · Apr 25, 2012

Vire said:
Sounds awful.

The CGI will become very noticable at 60 FPS. This isn't like games where higher framerate = better.

You will most certainly lose out on that cinematic feeling and it'll suddenly feel like a cheap Soap Opera episode or some reality TV show.

Ugh, what a terrible decision.

Sounds like you're upset that PJ has taken his talents to 48 fps.

cutmeamango · Apr 25, 2012

shagg_187 said:
A lot of TV shows are shot at 60i, thus the soap opera feel.

In fact, mostly all were shot at 60i until HD era kicked in and they started filming at 24p. Think of 80's news channel.

Vire said:
Nearly every reality tv show, sporting event, soap opera, late night show are all shot at higher framerate.

Shows like Bones or CSI, Law and Order, Dexter or any drama are all shot at 24 fps.

But 60i isn't 60fps.

Vire · Apr 25, 2012

"The clips Jackson went on to show looked much more like visiting the set of a film than seeing the textured cinematography of a finished movie. While most films aim for a soft, natural glow, this had a more stark and fluorescent lighting style."

Sounds absolutely dreadful.

Can't wait to see it in motion.

Branduil said:
Sounds like you're upset that PJ has taken his talents to 48 fps.

Hahaha, well done.

Loxley · Apr 25, 2012

Vire said:
I don't think you realize how big of a deal this is. Movies have been shown at 24 frames per second for nearly 80 years.

It warrants discussion.

Well, you think wrong. I also think you're mis-reading what I wrote. I've made a number of posts in The Hobbit OT saying exactly what you're saying, I agree with you completely. Of course I realize how big of a deal it is, of course it warrants discussion. My point was that the majority of the blogs out there are focusing solely on the frame-rate change and are just completely avoiding talking about the specific content of the scenes they were shown.

Most of them are saying "Yeah there was CG and looked shitty, yeah there was this sweeping vista and it looked great. But why talk about details when I could simply go on for three paragraphs about why I think 48p is underwhelming and not the future of cinema to get some clicks?"

Point is, we're on the same team here.

-Mikey- · Apr 25, 2012

Hopefully a 48fps trailer is attached to TDKR this summer. I want to see it for myself before calling a film a complete disaster 8 months out.

Evlar · Apr 25, 2012

Remember, if you're trying a test-shoot to compare to Hobbit, that PJ and Lesnie are going with 270 degree shutter angle...

Marty Chinn · Apr 25, 2012

cutmeamango said:
But 60i isn't 60fps.

Of course there are always issues of interlacing and resolution, but let's not act like it's a night and day difference in what a 60 hz refresh rate looks like.

Mind you in all this, I'm not shitting on The Hobbit being done at 48 fps. I'm excited to see it. What bothers me is the notion of the industry moving in this direction. Sorta like how every damn movie has to be 3D now.

Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew · Apr 25, 2012

cutmeamango said:
But 60i isn't 60fps.

Yeah, agree.

neoanarch · Apr 25, 2012

Marty Chinn said:
Rarely? Sports are almost always at 60hz. In fact I hate watching sports when it's not 60hz.

Depends what network your watching. But I meant sports is one of the few places where you actually get 60fps. But even then if its 1080i its probably 30fps.

Solo · Apr 25, 2012

Still can't get over people equating it to motion interpolation. A soap opera on a $5 budget shown on a TV that is inserting a frame that doesn't actually exist every second frame is in no way, shape or form comparable to true 48 FPS multi-million dollar production in a properly calibrated theatre with good equipment.

Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew · Apr 25, 2012

Solo said:
Still can't get over people equating it to motion interpolation. A soap opera on a $5 budget shown on a TV that is inserting a frame that doesn't actually exist every second frame is in no way, shape or form comparable to true 48 FPS multi-million dollar production in a properly calibrated theatre with good equipment.

Don't worry, I'm going to create something that will explain this better so people have a better feel of what the discussion is.

Marty Chinn · Apr 25, 2012

neoanarch said:
Depends what network your watching. But I meant sports is one of the few places where you actually get 60fps. But even then if its 1080i its probably 30fps.

It's 30 fps, but it's 60 hz. Forget the fps, it's the refresh rate that matters.

LightofRohan · Apr 25, 2012

You get it used to it... then you can't go back.

EmCeeGramr · Apr 25, 2012

Vire said:
"The clips Jackson went on to show looked much more like visiting the set of a film than seeing the textured cinematography of a finished movie. While most films aim for a soft, natural glow, this had a more stark and fluorescent lighting style."

Sounds absolutely dreadful.

"The unfinished movie looked like an unfinished movie instead of a finished movie."

Marty Chinn · Apr 25, 2012

Solo said:
Still can't get over people equating it to motion interpolation. A soap opera on a $5 budget shown on a TV that is inserting a frame that doesn't actually exist every second frame is in no way, shape or form comparable to true 48 FPS multi-million dollar production in a properly calibrated theatre with good equipment.

I'm not talking shitty production values. I'm talking about framerate. Always have. I can tell. I'm quite sensitive to framerates and will spot the difference between 24/30 and 60 ten out of ten times. I'm talking about examples like The Twilight Zone which still seems to be ignored.

nomis · Apr 25, 2012

You know what else made poorly done prosthetics, wigs, beards, and CGI look more flawed?

480i -> 1080p

Guess what, people are buying blu-rays.

Solo · Apr 25, 2012

Give me 4K @ 60 FPS and a box of kleenex.

Flying_Phoenix · Apr 25, 2012

Draconian said:
All of these "What was Peter Jackson thinking?" posts remind me of the "What was James Cameron thinking?" hilarity after the debut trailer of Avatar when the initial response was "lol blue people."

And that movie was horrible.

Nappuccino · Apr 25, 2012

So... why did they show 10 min of unfinished footage?

Shouldn't they have wanted to put the best foot forward for 48p? I mean... obviously someone thought this was good enough to show... so are we to conclude that the unfinishedness of the footage wouldn't alter that experience or should we throw the results out the window because it isn't finished?

nomis · Apr 25, 2012

Solo said:
Give me 4K @ 60 FPS and a box of kleenex.

DUDE, that would look so real that it would look fake!

JB1981 · Apr 25, 2012

So it basically looks like that ClearMotion or MotionPlus garbage on 120hz LCD TVs. No thanks.

Solo · Apr 25, 2012

lolololol, another one :/

omnomis said:
DUDE, that would look so real that it would look fake!

"not cinematic enough. plz lower the rez and framerate plz"

Wingfan19 · Apr 25, 2012

Slash Film has their impressions up as well

http://www.slashfilm.com/cinemacon-...ates-cinematic-future-james-cameron-promised/

Not too impressed with it either.

neoanarch · Apr 25, 2012

Marty Chinn said:
It's 30 fps, but it's 60 hz. Forget the fps, it's the refresh rate that matters.

Not for the purpose of this conversation surely.

Vire · Apr 25, 2012

I think something a lot of you are missing is that technology doesn't always enhance everything.

While switching the framerate may seem like an obvious improvement to some of you, it completely alters the tone and feeling of a film. I can't even fathom to think what a David Fincher film at 48 frames per second would look like. You would most certainly lose out on some of that foreboding dreading feeling that seeps into every scene.

Who knows though, maybe it suits the film and each scene is designed with it in mind. But I remain extremely skeptical, especially after the less than impressive impressions.

Solo · Apr 25, 2012

Vire said:
I think something a lot of you are missing is that technology doesn't always enhance everything.

While switching the framerate may seem like an obvious improvement to some of you, it completely alters the tone and feeling of a film. I can't even fathom to think what a David Fincher film at 48 frames per second would look like. You would most certainly lose out on some of that foreboding dreading feeling that seeps into every scene.

Who knows though, maybe it suits the film and each scene is designed with it in min

Are you kidding me? Fincher will probably one of the first big name directors to jump on this, and guess what, his movie will be gorgeous. It's not the tech, its the talent behind it.

Marty Chinn · Apr 25, 2012

neoanarch said:
Not for the purpose of this conversation surely.

Well when we're talking about the enhancement of the motion due to the refresh rate, then yes. You don't have the concept of interlaced and progressive when it comes to film. Saying every sporting event on TV is 30 fps is misleading because there is a clear difference between something running at 30hz and 60hz even if that 60hz is technically 30fps.

C.Dark.DN · Apr 25, 2012

Raistlin said:
For everyone freaking out about 48fps 'not being cinematic' ... that isn't inherently true. Yes reducing the active 'shutter' time by half will give things a different look, but that doesn't actually have to occur - on quality analog and digital cameras, it is adjustable. A director could quite easily increase the capture time to bring back the 'film look', but still benefit from the reduced judder. Similarly, motion blur could always be added in post.

Long-term, I suspect most directors will find a happy medium. They will increase the capture time a bit from default, but not so much as to lower temporal resolution as much as traditional film. That would yield a crisper, smoother image ... but still have a bit of that 'film gauze'.

Ah thank you. Wasn't aware of that, though I wonder if we should shy away from it since most use p to represent progressive resolutions? Will probably confuse most people.

That said, fps is not inherently a gaming term, just as Hz is not inherently a TV term. Hz is a refresh rate, while fps (or p) is a frame rate of the underlying content. They are not specific to a type of display nor to a type of content. Nor are they directly tied together (though they are indirectly for practical purposes in most situations).

Well, it's context.

What has and would even use a resolution of 24p, 48p or 60p ?

Raistlin · Apr 25, 2012

neoanarch said:
Most tv shows are shot at 30fps a minority at 24fps. Only rarely do sporting events get broadcast at 60fps.

Actually most TV's shows are shot at 24fps.

As for sporting events, many are actually shot at 60fps ... and the network that broadcast in 720p are doing a 60fps broadcast.

The issue is when a network that broadcasts in 1080i gets a hold of 60fps content. If they aren't actually reducing it 30fps, what happens to the image is entirely dependent on the video processor of your TV or cablebox. If it's doing things right, it will essentially line-double it. While that yields interlacing artifacts, at least the motion is correct. On the other end of the spectrum is it attempting to actually de-interlace the image. That will create a huge mess.

ElFly · Apr 25, 2012

Vire said:
I think something a lot of you are missing is that technology doesn't always enhance everything.

While switching the framerate may seem like an obvious improvement to some of you, it completely alters the tone and feeling of a film. I can't even fathom to think what a David Fincher film at 48 frames per second would look like. You would most certainly lose out on some of that foreboding dreading feeling that seeps into every scene.

Who knows though, maybe it suits the film and each scene is designed with it in mind. But I remain extremely skeptical, especially after the less than impressive impressions.

You seem to think that 24fps is something that cinema agreed upon due to its artistic merits.

Joe Shlabotnik · Apr 25, 2012

Solo said:
Still can't get over people equating it to motion interpolation. A soap opera on a $5 budget shown on a TV that is inserting a frame that doesn't actually exist every second frame is in no way, shape or form comparable to true 48 FPS multi-million dollar production in a properly calibrated theatre with good equipment.

Look, you're obviously right on the merits. No one in this thread has really truly seen what actual 48fps looks like, especially in a theatrical environment. And so comparing it to motion interpolation is a bad idea, when all you've seen is motion interpolation.

THAT SAID, a significant number of people who just saw the real thing have found it seriously off-putting. So while it's something we should ultimately reserve judgment for until we see it for ourselves, it's also apparently not self-evident that it is a good idea.

ElFly said:
You seem to think that 24fps is something that cinema agreed upon due to its artistic merits.

No, but the vocabulary of cinema has evolved almost entirely around 24fps. It's possible that 48fps makes it not-what-we-call-cinema, in terms of what and how we know to work with the medium.

RoadHazard · Apr 25, 2012

I think this could be absolutely great for 3D movies, because when watching those the jitter and blurriness of 24p really have a negative impact on the immersiveness of the experience. For 2D movies, I'm not as convinced. I, like many others, am a bit scared of the "home video effect". But I'm not gonna judge it before I've seen it.

ZombieSupaStar · Apr 25, 2012

seems like a troubling tradeoff to have clearer 3d, and less choppy quick pans.

but there will be no going back, so might as well learn to like it guys.

Vire · Apr 25, 2012

ElFly said:
You seem to think that 24fps is something that cinema agreed upon due to its artistic merits.

Um yeah? Framerate is a conscious decision made by the director. Do you think they just pick whatever they got lying around - just because?

I would hope you would give directors a bit more credit than that.

Joe Shlabotnik said:
Look, you're obviously right on the merits. No one in this thread has really truly seen what actual 48fps looks like, especially in a theatrical environment. And so comparing it to motion interpolation is a bad idea, when all you've seen is motion interpolation.

THAT SAID, a significant number of people who just saw the real thing have found it seriously off-putting. So while it's something we should ultimately reserve judgment for until we see it for ourselves, it's also apparently not self-evident that it is a good idea.

LALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU.

cutmeamango · Apr 25, 2012

Solo said:
Still can't get over people equating it to motion interpolation. A soap opera on a $5 budget shown on a TV that is inserting a frame that doesn't actually exist every second frame is in no way, shape or form comparable to true 48 FPS multi-million dollar production in a properly calibrated theatre with good equipment.

Haha they'll accept they were misinformed comes december.

shagg_187 said:
Don't worry, I'm going to create something that will explain this better so people have a better feel of what the discussion is.

Is it a paint drawing?!

Marty Chinn said:
It's 30 fps, but it's 60 hz. Forget the fps, it's the refresh rate that matters.

Marty Chinn said:
I'm not talking shitty production values. I'm talking about framerate. Always have. I can tell. I'm quite sensitive to framerates and will spot the difference between 24/30 and 60 ten out of ten times. I'm talking about examples like The Twilight Zone which still seems to be ignored.

The recorded fps because it tells the amount of information captured in a passage of time. The refresh rate matters because that directly affects how that information will be displayed in the same passage of time.

But as to discuss filming itself, the frames per second isn't a deterrent of quality. That's all.

JB1981 · Apr 25, 2012

Solo said:
lolololol, another one :/

"not cinematic enough. plz lower the rez and framerate plz"

what's so LOL about it? you haven't seen what it looks like .....

Stinkles · Apr 25, 2012

Marty Chinn said:
Well when we're talking about the enhancement of the motion due to the refresh rate, then yes. You don't have the concept of interlaced and progressive when it comes to film. Saying every sporting event on TV is 30 fps is misleading because there is a clear difference between something running at 30hz and 60hz even if that 60hz is technically 30fps.

Human brain can't detect the difference between 10 and 30 fps anyway. And can't see more than 256 colors. Without Monster Cables the whole thing is a waste of time, IMO.

On a more serious note:

When I moved to US from UK, the difference between Pal and NTSC freaked me out. I thought I would NEVER get used to broadcast TV's "smeared, weird" look. Cut to present day, totally used to it. Of course there was an HD/Digital transition in there too.

Solo · Apr 25, 2012

Joe Shlabotnik said:
THAT SAID, a significant number of people who just saw the real thing have found it seriously off-putting. So while it's something we should ultimately reserve judgment for until we see it for ourselves, it's also apparently not self-evident that it is a good idea.

They also saw a very rough cut, which I don't think can be stressed enough. Show these same people the finished product in 6 months and lets see how they feel then.

Evlar · Apr 25, 2012

Vire said:
Um yeah? Framerate is a conscious decision made by the director. Do you think they just pick whatever they got lying around - just because?

Standardization certainly wasn't a conscious decision made by "the director".

polyh3dron · Apr 25, 2012

yay another thread shitted up by people spouting disinformation about framerates that a bunch of use all scramble to refute

it's always so much fun

KevinCow · Apr 25, 2012

I remember the first time I played a 60fps game. It was Jak & Daxter on the PS2.

I hated it. I didn't even know why. There was just some weird quality about it that I couldn't quite place that felt so weird.

I didn't realize what that quality was until I came back to that game years later, after gaining more knowledge about framerates and experience with other 60fps games. I was able to immediately recognize that the framerate was why it felt so off the first time I'd played it, except this time, I fully appreciated it and how it helped make the animations so smooth.

So this is pretty much what I expected. At first it's all, "THIS IS WEIRD AND DIFFERENT, I HATE IT," but people will get over it. Some people will cling to 24fps as being more cinematic, just as some gamers do with 30fps, or how some people currently cling to film grain, or how I'm sure people in the past must have clung to black & white movies and silent movies. But hey, you're always gonna have a few people who hate progress.

ZombieSupaStar · Apr 25, 2012

JB1981 said:
what's so LOL about it? you haven't seen what it looks like .....

yeah whats going to happen if/when the masses say, "looks like some weird home movie", does that then validate it as a mistake, or do they just go "oh well get used to it TROLOLOLOLOL"?

edit: I could hardly play tony hawk 3, on ps2 for that same reason kevin, although I've never watch a movie going, omg this fps is hideous, either.

Vire · Apr 25, 2012

Evlar said:
Standardization certainly wasn't a conscious decision made by "the director".

I'm talking about TV production.

Solo said:
They also saw a very rough cut, which I don't think can be stressed enough. Show these same people the finished product in 6 months and lets see how they feel then.

Fair enough. I'll be here, with an open mind. I'm genuinely excited to see it now.

polyh3dron · Apr 25, 2012

Stinkles said:
Human brain can't detect the difference between 10 and 30 fps anyway. And can't see more than 256 colors. Without Monster Cables the whole thing is a waste of time, IMO.

this is absolutely true

i thought your avatar was a real live photograph for a moment actually

Nappuccino · Apr 25, 2012

Solo said:
They also saw a very rough cut, which I don't think can be stressed enough. Show these same people the finished product in 6 months and lets see how they feel then.

They shouldn't have shown anything other than the final footage if they didn't want to have this kind of reaction. Obviously they knew 48p would be hard for them to get into else it wouldn't have been 10 min of footage. This is assuming that finished footage would look that much different.

Support NeoGAF

The Hobbit 48fps first impressions

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Unconfirmed Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Post Count: 9999

Member

Banned

Gold Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Clothed, sober, cooperative

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Similar threads