Support NeoGAF

[Necromanti]

So is the sped-up/fast-forwarding effect a consequence of not being used to the higher framerate? Because both my friend and I noticed occasions where it seemed like Bilbo was on crack. I can't remember if the effect dissipated with time. I think it only stood out with certain scenes.

 

[StuBurns]

The animation is bad, but it is in lots of films which are 24fps. In terms of fully animated stuff in the vain of Pixar, it'll be interesting to see, but that seems to be about those short, snappy but very fluid animations, I'd imagine 48fps would just improve that, with very little additional work required, but who knows.

 

[bud]

It's not is it? They're just taking every other frame.

you're right. my bad.

 

[Xun]

The animation is bad, but it is in lots of films which are 24fps. In terms of fully animated stuff in the vain of Pixar, it'll be interesting to see, but that seems to be about those short, snappy but very fluid animations, I'd imagine 48fps would just improve that, with very little additional work required, but who knows.

As an animator I've upped some animation to 48fps before to see how it looks and it certainly loses some life.

More work would be required.

 

[abstract alien]

I've yet to see it, but people have been complaining about the animation.

It's less of an issue with games because you're not as fixated on the animation until the cutscenes (which is usually shown at 30fps).

It's mostly an issue with environmental stuff. Things that always tend to look a little messed up, but it was never to much of a problem. Things like Golem looked incredible though, but you can tell they paid special care to objects that were a real focal point. Some of the action scenes had this care as well, and things were just far ahead of what we are used to seeing. I can only imagine what a good action flick would be like.

 

[Zoe]

There were a couple of shots where I thought the environment (mostly trees and grass) looked like plastic miniatures.

 

[StuBurns]

As an animator I've upped some animation to 48fps before to see how it looks and it certainly loses some life.

More work would be required.

But have you seen it on a monitor that supports 48fps display? Because if not you're going to get inaccurate refreshing which would notably affect how it looks.

This is the big problem with 48fps for The Hobbit, you can't see it anywhere other than at the cinema, because our TVs and PC monitors can't display it.

 

[jett]

But have you seen it on a monitor that supports 48fps display? Because if not you're going to get inaccurate refreshing which would notably affect how it looks.

This is the big problem with 48fps for The Hobbit, you can't see it anywhere other than at the cinema, because our TVs and PC monitors can't display it.

They sure can, but you have to deal with pulldown.

 

[StuBurns]

They sure can, but you have to deal with pulldown.

And pulldown gives an inaccurate representation, which was my point.

There must be some 144Hz monitors though.

 

[Stallion Free]

The TF2 Meet the Videos look amazing when rendered out at 60 fps and I imagine the animation work flow in those trailers is similar to Pixar's.

Here is part of one: http://www.mediafire.com/?aziiudjj0b5g1vk

(60 fps, absurdly high DOF/motionblur samples)

 

[Skellig Gra]

So is the sped-up/fast-forwarding effect a consequence of not being used to the higher framerate? Because both my friend and I noticed occasions where it seemed like Bilbo was on crack. I can't remember if the effect dissipated with time. I think it only stood out with certain scenes.

I think so, yeah. Upon a second screening I didn't think anything look sped up which was a big difference from the first time.

 

[Branduil]

They sure can, but you have to deal with pulldown.

On monitors and TVs that run at 60hz the pulldown jitter would be worse than with 24fps. 120hz would basically be the same.

Well, I guess it's a moot point since bluray doesn't support 48fps and by the time it does, 120hz will be common anyways.

 

[kaizoku]

I have the option to go see this in non-HFR and 2D with some friends tonight.

Or should I break away and go see it in HFR on my own? the only seats left central are like front row, and there are some seats free down the sides - if I go HFR where should I sit?

I've never sat front row at IMAX but it's never looked particularly pleasant, and I'm always dubious about 3D if you're not central. Don't wanna sell my friends out for a shit experience.

 

[zoukka]

The animation is bad, but it is in lots of films which are 24fps. In terms of fully animated stuff in the vain of Pixar, it'll be interesting to see, but that seems to be about those short, snappy but very fluid animations, I'd imagine 48fps would just improve that, with very little additional work required, but who knows.

The more you see the animation, the more work is required for it to look flawless. It's very simple.

 

[StuBurns]

The more you see the animation, the more work is required for it to look flawless. It's very simple.

Why do all games look so much more fluid at 60fps then?

 

[orioto]

I just realized a very near theater has the movie in HFR with a 4k projo (really rare in france...) and and and... in dolby atmos. I'll go see the movie there on saturday i think. WIll be my first HFR, my first 4K and my first Atmos! Exciting! Next gen am here!

 

[Zoe]

Why do all games look so much more fluid at 60fps then?

Maybe your mind overlooks it because the level of realism can't compare.

 

[Edmond Dantès]

The Natural History Unit (BBC) may well be shooing a few of their 2013/2014 3D nature documentaries in 48fps. Something to keep an eye on. The Natural History Unit are pioneers in this field so it's not surprising.

Unfortunately the upcoming BBC Africa (Jan 2) isn't one of the 3D 48fps series.

 

[StuBurns]

Maybe your mind overlooks it because the level of realism can't compare.

Very possible. There's no doubt if they made a scene in Avatar, once at 60fps of captured movement data, once at 30fps of capture data and interpolated the missing 30 frames, I'm sure the second would be worse. But if we're talking about the animated features, the way they move seems so deliberate and smooth that I think you'd fair much better at that, but yeah, I don't know for sure of course.

 

[Peterthumpa]

Very possible. There's no doubt if they made a scene in Avatar, once at 60fps of captured movement data, once at 30fps of capture data and interpolated the missing 30 frames, I'm sure the second would be worse. But if we're talking about the animated features, the way they move seems so deliberate and smooth that I think you'd fair much better at that, but yeah, I don't know for sure of course.

Actually the answer is because games don't have motion blur applied to all their objects.

What gives that "smooth" feeling even when we are watching movies @ 24 FPS is basically the "cost free" motion blur from the camera movement. In gaming scenarios, this is still pretty rare (and hardware taxing), but that's one of the reasons why a lot of people love to say that Crysis felt good even at lower than 30 FPS.

 

[JJDinomite]

48fps makes everything look like a Mexican soap opera. 3D makes my eyes bleed. The future scares me.

 

[Septimius]

So is the sped-up/fast-forwarding effect a consequence of not being used to the higher framerate? Because both my friend and I noticed occasions where it seemed like Bilbo was on crack. I can't remember if the effect dissipated with time. I think it only stood out with certain scenes.

This is the exact thing I've been contemplating. I know where the effect comes from. It doesn't come from not being used to higher frame rate, because if that were the case, why would our brains be convinced it's fast-forward?

The explanation is rather easy. Take MacGyver. He's driving down the road in a blasting 80 mph, with the bad guys chasing! 24 fps, right? Well, not this shot, because he's driving at 40 mph, and it's played back at double the speed to give the impression of 80 mph. I imagine a lot of 80s series have used this effect a lot. Maybe in the later years they've been smart enough to subtract the superfluous frames when doing the same.

Anyway, that's why we experience this effect. We associate 48 fps as sped up 24 fps. If you've watched more high fps soap operas, then your brain thinks soap opera. I think fast forward. It's really annoying, because it's my only gripe with 48 fps movies. I love the clarity, and I think the 'hyper-realism' thing is just a matter of what we're used to. It's pretty much the uncanny valley on some level. We'll adapt.

 

[Reiko]

48fps makes everything look like a Mexican soap opera. 3D makes my eyes bleed. The future scares me.

Real life is scary.

 

[zulfate]

I always hated that smooth motion in my shows/movies but honestly after the hobbit i am a fucking believer put that shit in my veins. Now i know the 120hz stuff isnt the same like HFR but what is the best tv out there that has the "TRUE MOTION"? I want it now...my precious.....

 

[soco]

I tried the hobbit in HFR 3D, but it was terrible. The only thing it really did was fix the darkness issue. The smoothness was improved, but it has that side effect of unnatural motion and the speedups.

I'd prefer a 48fps 2d version.

 

[Reiko]

I always hated that smooth motion in my shows/movies but honestly after the hobbit i am a fucking believer put that shit in my veins. Now i know the 120hz stuff isnt the same like HFR but what is the best tv out there that has the "TRUE MOTION"? I want it now...my precious.....

Realtime Interpolation sucks.

Offline interpolation is higher quality.

http://www.spirton.com/convert-videos-to-60fps/

 

[maharg]

I tried the hobbit in HFR 3D, but it was terrible. The only thing it really did was fix the darkness issue. The smoothness was improved, but it has that side effect of unnatural motion and the speedups.

I'd prefer a 48fps 2d version.

Wait, so the only thing it improved for you was something to do with 3d, but you'd rather it be in 2d where it would only have the problems?

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

I always hated that smooth motion in my shows/movies but honestly after the hobbit i am a fucking believer put that shit in my veins. Now i know the 120hz stuff isnt the same like HFR but what is the best tv out there that has the "TRUE MOTION"? I want it now...my precious.....

No no no no no no. It isn't the same at all. Stop it!

 

[Reiko]

No no no no no no. It isn't the same at all. Stop it!

In fluidity of motion it is similar, when you slow it down frame by frame... It's not.

 

[zulfate]

Realtime Interpolation sucks.

Offline interpolation is higher quality.

http://www.spirton.com/convert-videos-to-60fps/

how weird ill have to try that, thanks

No no no no no no. It isn't the same at all. Stop it!

I know its not the same but .....i want to believe *begins crying*

 

[Xun]

I've yet to see it (hopefully next week), but I personally think 60fps would be the way to go, but with 24fps style motion blur as mentioned by Doug Trumbull.

It would keep the "film" look, whilst eliminating the only major problem I see in 24fps (judder/strobe).

Motion blur is something I personally like, but I know not everyone would agree.

It's mostly an issue with environmental stuff. Things that always tend to look a little messed up, but it was never to much of a problem. Things like Golem looked incredible though, but you can tell they paid special care to objects that were a real focal point. Some of the action scenes had this care as well, and things were just far ahead of what we are used to seeing. I can only imagine what a good action flick would be like.

Thanks for letting me know!

But have you seen it on a monitor that supports 48fps display? Because if not you're going to get inaccurate refreshing which would notably affect how it looks.

This is the big problem with 48fps for The Hobbit, you can't see it anywhere other than at the cinema, because our TVs and PC monitors can't display it.

I've not, but it's quite clear that more work would need to be done to ensure the animation isn't floaty.

I'm mostly curious as to how animation directors view HFR, and what it would mean for the industry.

 

[SapientWolf]

The animation is bad, but it is in lots of films which are 24fps. In terms of fully animated stuff in the vain of Pixar, it'll be interesting to see, but that seems to be about those short, snappy but very fluid animations, I'd imagine 48fps would just improve that, with very little additional work required, but who knows.

After The Hobbit, Brave's animation looked godawful in motion. I'm kind of pissed that 48fps isn't the norm for CG now.

 

[Xun]

After The Hobbit, Brave's animation looked godawful in motion. I'm kind of pissed that 48fps isn't the norm for CG now.

What.

Godawful? Really?

 

[StuBurns]

After The Hobbit, Brave's animation looked godawful in motion. I'm kind of pissed that 48fps isn't the norm for CG now.

I watched Tangled a few days after seeing the Hobbit, still blew me away, incredible work.

 

[Ridley327]

Just got back from seeing it in HFR.

This was basically me nearly the entire way through:

It did the things I expected it to: it brought a new level of clarity and detail to the picture, it helped to make the great CG look even better (Gollum, Azog, and the eagles were glorious to behold), but also served to make the dodgier moments that much more noticeable (especially the lesser green-screen backgrounds, like Radagast escaping the orcs and the meeting of the Council), it made the big, fast pans that Jackson is so fond of look absolutely sublime (with special mentions to the entire Goblin Town sequence, holy shit), and it certainly made how each scene was lit that much more important, as the gathering of the dwarves in Bilbo's home looked barely different in motion, outside of the flames, while anytime it was outdoors or on a wider soundstage, the increase in framerate was immediately obvious. I don't know if it's the right decision for every kind of film out there, but I do know that I will absolutely be seeing any future film that is available in HFR in that format.

That being said, my brother wasn't nearly as taken with it, as he holds the common complaint about the actors looking sped up, and the way I explained it to him why I didn't feel the same way was doing a comparison between a console version and a PC version of the same game, which he seemed to understand right away. He still prefers 24fps, but he definitely made note of many of the same improvements that I just described.

 

[G0DLIKE]

I just saw this in 3D + HFR. I thought it was incredible.

One of my favorite cinema going experiences. Ridiculously underrated movie imo.

I'd love to see more movies shot @ 48fps.

 

[Xun]

People probably wouldn't view it as sped up if the adverts before the film were also at a higher frame rate.

 

[Xun]

So I just got back from it, and I did find it impressive.

I still personally prefer 24fps though, but I do think it could potentially serve well for certain movies. I will say however that I don't think 48fps is good enough just yet for HFR, but it is an interesting step for the film industry.

The price of the ticket was ridiculous though, and what they're charging for it is an absolute ripoff.