Support NeoGAF

[Raistlin]

so thats what that is...ill have to turn this off on my moms tv. Everyones mouths are out of sync with the audio. Ill have to look in the settings

As has been stated countless times ... and people keep disregarding the facts of the matter ... it is quite likely the TV offers multiple settings. It is very possible in a low settings, you'd like it.

Regardless the sync issue should have nothing to do with interpolation unless your set is really butchering things. It should buffering the audio to match any sort of frame delay.

 

[TheListener]

This shit is maddeningly bad. I just saw it on my mother in law's TV for the first time and I could not believe it's on by default. These TV manufacturers are getting out of control with the "extras" BS they're packing into their TVs. Gotdayum "surround mode" out of stereo spekers can DIAF as well.

Just concentrate on getting as pristine a picture as possible to my eyes. And put some decent speakers in it for god's sake. Leave the rest how it is!! The last thing we need is TVs becoming as foul as recievers. Maybe we should process the image so it looks like I'm watching it in a concert hall! That'd make Lawrence of Arabia better. /spits on their boots.

 

[-KRS-]

Do you have 120mhz on your monitor? :lol :lol

I do, actually. Would it work on a 120hz capable CRT? :>

 

[StuBurns]

The problem is what do you mean by 'major' release? Hollywood blockbusters? Basically the movies with a 80+ million dollar budgets? As I said, I agree with that ... the problem is that isn't the majority of film releases. It may seem that way due to advertising, but 99% of advertising dollars go to like 5% of movies.


While a point of contention was whether or not it will cost more than 3D, you never argued it would cost less. So let's say they are equal? That still favors my argument. If 3D was cheap, other than the directors that object to it personally, all movies would use it. They don't - and it's known to be a cost issue.


I never said it shouldn't. Much the opposite. Actually I'd argue it's probably more important for 3D. Just think of those costs though

I guess by major releases I really meant any 'professional' film, anything shot on a nice digital camera essentially.

I'm sure 3D is more costly than 2D 48fps, it's just not more to render the effects in post, 3D requires more expensive cameras at the very least.

3D in live action isn't big yet because Hollywood moves very slowly, if a film went into active development after Avatar made 3D popular, we wouldn't see it for another two or three years from now. The releases at the moment and upcoming were either going to be 3D anyway (TinTin for example), are dimensionalized (Clash of the Titans) or it's a CG film where producing the second video channel can be done perfectly in post (Up).

It's interesting, film development isn't anymore expensive today than it ever was really. Metropolis with inflation cost over $200M. The infamous 'million dollar shot' in Titanic, Cameron said would cost a tenth of the cost only seven years later.

There would, without doubt, be a budget increase with doubling the framerate, but I think the chance of it being enough to stop it happening is very remote.

However, I see no agreement in our reach, so we should agree to disagree I think. I have enjoyed the chat though.

 

[Raistlin]

I do, actually. Would it work on a 120hz capable CRT? :>

You can get a good approximation with the vids I linked to. It doesn't require 120Hz, it demonstrates how native 60fps content looks versus 30fps and 24fps.

 

[Raistlin]

I guess by major releases I really meant any 'professional' film, anything shot on a nice digital camera essentially.

You may want to look at the median cost of films. It's a great disservice to many people to claim major releases are the only 'professional' films.

There would, without doubt, be a budget increase with doubling the framerate, but I think the chance of it being enough to stop it happening is very remote.

However, I see no agreement in our reach, so we should agree to disagree I think. I have enjoyed the chat though.

Again though, the 'professional' film as you'd frame it is actually not the vast minority of released films. I never said it would stop, just that I wouldn't imagine it to be implemented in the majority of films. Granted, a decent chunk of non-blockbusters have little in the way of effects. In those cases costs really wouldn't be affected much since there's little post-production to worry about.


What I'd like know though ... let's say you're right an at some point most stuff is at 48Hz or more. I wonder if TV's will actually offer a film mode that drops things down to 24Hz for those that like it :lol

 

[StuBurns]

What I'd like know though ... let's say you're right an at some point most stuff is at 48Hz or more. I wonder if TV's will actually offer a film mode that drops things down to 24Hz for those that like it :lol

I wouldn't be surprised if they did, a lot of people are deeply against higher framerates because of the 'soap' look (although I believe that's more to do with those being interlaced frames as appose to progressive).

What I think would be lame is if people tried to 'upscale' framerates of existing films. Colorization and dimensionalization are kind of acceptable, but for some reason I think of the idea of adding theoretical frames as considerably worse.

 

[Raistlin]

I wouldn't be surprised if they did, a lot of people are deeply against higher framerates because of the 'soap' look (although I believe that's more to do with those being interlaced frames as appose to progressive).

Agreed. Soaps had that Tekken, etc PS1 effect. 60fps interlaced ... ie interlacing artifacts galore.

I have yet to view a current, HD soap. Are they still interlaced (though at 30fps)? Or are they broadcast at 720p60? Either way, I suspect you are right. While obviously things look quite different at higher framerates, they don't automatically look 'cheap' like interlace 60Hz material.

What I think would be lame is if people tried to 'upscale' framerates of existing films. Colorization and dimensionalization are kind of acceptable, but for some reason I think of the idea of adding theoretical frames as considerably worse.

I don't know if they would come out good or bad, but I'm not sure why it is worse than the other processes? If anything, one could argue that it would involve the least guess-work.

Since de-judder processing continues to evolve though, I don't really see a reason for such remastering. You can just do it in real time on your TV.

 

[Myke Greywolf]

If you want to see a movie filmed in 60 FPS, watch "Public Enemies", directed by Michael Mann. It's not a great movie, and it's plagued by uneven photography, but it shoud give you an idea of what to expect if 60 FPS comes to be the norm in moviemaking.

Trailer here

 

[Macho Madness]

I don't think Panasonic Plasmas have this. Right?

 

[Shin Johnpv]

Hand animated CG effects? Care to name some? Even if you can, just because someone key frames 24 frames every second, doesn't mean they have to start key framing 48, they could interpolated the missing frames, i.e. no extra work.

Some of the stuff on Salt was hand animated. Usually even when you see debris shots and things like that the big chunks or "hero" debris is usually hand animated to get exactly what the director wants.

Also you're wrong, just changing from 24 - 48 fps isn't as simple as interpolating the missing frames. It doesn't work that way. If you moved to 48fps you'd have to animate at 48 fps.

Just because Cameron does something or wants to do something doesn't mean everyone will. Hell alot of places completely disagree with him on his a whole performance capture bullshit.

Doing effects heavy or animated features at 60fps is asking for shit to cost at least 2.5x as much just going by man hours.

Also just so you know they don't animate fx shots, or animated films that are in 3D at 48fps. All that stuff is still animated at 24fps, each frame is just rendered from 2 angles. There's a huge difference in cost and time needed, from rendering every frame twice, and actually making/animating at 48fps.

 

[StuBurns]

Some of the stuff on Salt was hand animated. Usually even when you see debris shots and things like that the big chunks or "hero" debris is usually hand animated to get exactly what the director wants.

Also you're wrong, just changing from 24 - 48 fps isn't as simple as interpolating the missing frames. It doesn't work that way. If you moved to 48fps you'd have to animate at 48 fps.

Just because Cameron does something or wants to do something doesn't mean everyone will. Hell alot of places completely disagree with him on his a whole performance capture bullshit.

Doing effects heavy or animated features at 60fps is asking for shit to cost at least 2.5x as much just going by man hours.

Also just so you know they don't animate fx shots, or animated films that are in 3D at 48fps. All that stuff is still animated at 24fps, each frame is just rendered from 2 angles. There's a huge difference in cost and time needed, from rendering every frame twice, and actually making/animating at 48fps.

No, you don't "have to", you could hand animate all frames, or you could not.

We shall see what influence Cameron has with higher framerates, but I think you're wrong.

I don't believe for a second it will cost double. A vast amount of cash on something like Avatar is asset production, something which isn't affected by higher framerates. There is no way Avatar 2 is going to cost double Avatar 1 because it's meant to be double the framerate.

The final paragraph I think you must have confused something I posted earlier.

 

[Raistlin]

I don't think Panasonic Plasmas have this. Right?

Actually there are Samsung and Panasonic plasma models that offer de-judder as well.

 

[Barkley's Justice]

I don't think Panasonic Plasmas have this. Right?

nope.

 

[Raistlin]

nope.

ummm ...

 

[Barkley's Justice]

ummm ...

raistlin, i read your replies in 120hz.

 

[Shin Johnpv]

No, you don't "have to", you could hand animate all frames, or you could not.

We shall see what influence Cameron has with higher framerates, but I think you're wrong.

I don't believe for a second it will cost double. A vast amount of cash on something like Avatar is asset production, something which isn't affected by higher framerates. There is no way Avatar 2 is going to cost double Avatar 1 because it's meant to be double the framerate.

The final paragraph I think you must have confused something I posted earlier.

Yes you do have to. That shit will look awful if you don't. The computer is not an animator, it doesn't know how to make things look good. There's no magical double the amount of frames and look nice button in any program.

I would almost guarantee animation costs more than modelling, rigging, and texturing (which are the main assets to produce) on any FX flick. Which is most certainly affected by higher framerates. They're going to be doing 2.5 times more work, that's either highering 2.5 more people or working 2.5 x longer. Which means huge increase in cost.

 

[StuBurns]

Yes you do have to. That shit will look awful if you don't. The computer is not an animator, it doesn't know how to make things look good. There's no magical double the amount of frames and look nice button in any program.

I would almost guarantee animation costs more than modelling, rigging, and texturing (which are the main assets to produce) on any FX flick. Which is most certainly affected by higher framerates. They're going to be doing 2.5 times more work, that's either highering 2.5 more people or working 2.5 x longer. Which means huge increase in cost.

Well animators use intermediate automated frames right now, quite often. So no, they don't need to, or they would.

And we'll have to see, if you think Avatar 2 is going to cost $460m, you are wrong.

 

[Mudkips]

Yes you do have to. That shit will look awful if you don't. The computer is not an animator, it doesn't know how to make things look good. There's no magical double the amount of frames and look nice button in any program.

I would almost guarantee animation costs more than modelling, rigging, and texturing (which are the main assets to produce) on any FX flick. Which is most certainly affected by higher framerates. They're going to be doing 2.5 times more work, that's either highering 2.5 more people or working 2.5 x longer. Which means huge increase in cost.

For CG, there absolutely is a magic button that lets you specify the frame rate of the render.
Hand-tuning the render and meshing it with the live action shots will take new frame rate / old frame rate as long, yes. And the CG renders will take somewhere between exactly as long and new frame rate / old frame rate as long. Hand-tuning CG animations isn't much more work either. For motion capture stuff they just use more of the existing data. For completely synthetic stuff, they do have to do more work, but it's no where near as bad as having to do new frame rate / old frame rate as much work. Compared to doing work at the old frame rate, each frame at the new frame rate will take at most the same amount of time, and at best practically no time at all, depending on what specifically is being animated.

Furthermore, "2.5 times more work" is just wrong. Even if your argument that work is directly linearly correlated with frame rate was correct, it would be 2.5 times AS MUCH work, or 1.5 times more work, to go from 24 to 60 fps.

Bumping up the frame rate will increase costs, but only a small segment of the total cost of the production. And that effect will NOT be directly linearly proportional to the increase in frame rate. Doubling the number of frames by making the movie twice as long would have that effect. Doubling the number of frames by doubling the frame rate would not, because most of the extra frames are derived from work (both human and computer) that is done and then thrown out in the old version. You don't run your physics simulations at your target output frame rate. You don't plan the motions of your animated dance scene at 24 distinct frames per second. And you don't motion capture your fights only once every 42 milliseconds.

 

[gohanrage]

My Dad just Bought a 55 Inch HDTV 120hz.
I put hooked up my PS3 and put on some blu-rays and my dad says he doesn't like it everything is too clear that everything looks fake. it looks like a Soap Opera. I had to play around with the settings trying to make the picture softer. I had Pearl Harbor on Both Blu-ray and DVD. After my dads complaining I switched to the DVD version. It wasn't much softer so I did a search for people who thought the same thing and they suggested enabling game mode which disables the 120hz. Dad said it looked better. I am the one who said to get this TV over others because of the 120hz I always heard 60hz have issues when watching sports, playing video games or action movies. My dad probably would of been happier with one of those 60hz TVs

 

[Byronic Hero]

3 year old thread buddy.

 

[Darth Pinche]

The real problem is that you're watching Pearl Harbor.

in all seriousness, I agree I don't like the higher frame rates for cinema. But for sports it is awesome.

 

[Pagusas]

I went holy shit the first time I saw it in a store. I wanna watch a movie like that one day.

Go watch the Hobbit Sequel in 48fps when it comes out.

... oh wow, 3 year old thread.

 

[huxley00]

That's what that is. I thought it was just a byproduct of the clarity of 1080p, which is why I haven't bothered to upgrade my 720p plasma set. It makes everything look so cheap and awful. So glad to hear it's just a mode that can be disabled. I'm going to go into every electronics store in Los Angeles and shut that shit off on the display models so people don't get the same wrong idea.

Holy shit, I am in the EXACT same boat. All this time, I thought that was just what true 1080p looked like (and I thought it looked like complete shit). I haven't upgraded purely because of this. OP, you have blown my mind...now...time to buy a new tv.

 

[Raistlin]

dat necro bump

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

My Dad just Bought a 55 Inch HDTV 120hz.
I put hooked up my PS3 and put on some blu-rays and my dad says he doesn't like it everything is too clear that everything looks fake. it looks like a Soap Opera. I had to play around with the settings trying to make the picture softer. I had Pearl Harbor on Both Blu-ray and DVD. After my dads complaining I switched to the DVD version. It wasn't much softer so I did a search for people who thought the same thing and they suggested enabling game mode which disables the 120hz. Dad said it looked better. I am the one who said to get this TV over others because of the 120hz I always heard 60hz have issues when watching sports, playing video games or action movies. My dad probably would of been happier with one of those 60hz TVs

You don't have to switch it to game mode. Go into the picture settings and turn off the fucking MotionPlus/TruMotion/Motion Interpolation bullshit.

 

[Shambles]

I looove high frame rate recordings.

I haaaate motion interpolation.

 

[MilesWebber]

SciFi Channel used to air Twilight Zone episodes that way and I thought it was neat because the people looked like they were live and putting on a production

In a strange way it gave me a better sense about the people in that time

No you were probably seeing middle seasons where they were filming with cheaper cameras rather than film. I had this question while watching on netflix.

 

[jmdajr]

Luckily my Plasma doesn't do any of this bullshit. Don't even have to worry about turning it off.

 

[captive]

dat necro bump

you were quite active in this thread.

also motion interpolation still sucks, three years later.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

Motion interpolation is worse than converted 3D.

 

[jett]

I puke a little bit inside my heart whenever I see motion flow demos in electronics stores.



I hate that shit. haaaaaate it.

It's meant to hide the hideousness that is LCD motion blur, which all LCDs suffer and will suffer until the end of time. I agree that the results I see of this shit are usually fucking worse, although I've read good things about Sony's Impluse mode in their newest high-end TVs. Supposed to eliminate motion blur but wihout the interpolation after effect, although it has other drawbacks such as a darker picture.

edit: three fucking year old post

 

[.GqueB.]

Everything looks better. Like you're really there type of thing. It makes enjoying movies and stuff even better.
I don't get the hate, but I don't care, its awesome and enjoyable.

Like MisterHero said too, its even better when watching Twilight Zone and other oldies on it.

Haters just gonna hate. :lol :lol

Takes the cinematic aspect out of it all I feel. They remind me of behind the scene HBO specials when they film stuff on set. Animate films and nature films though. Sexy.

 

[Trojita]

My Dad just Bought a 55 Inch HDTV 120hz.
I put hooked up my PS3 and put on some blu-rays and my dad says he doesn't like it everything is too clear that everything looks fake. it looks like a Soap Opera. I had to play around with the settings trying to make the picture softer. I had Pearl Harbor on Both Blu-ray and DVD. After my dads complaining I switched to the DVD version. It wasn't much softer so I did a search for people who thought the same thing and they suggested enabling game mode which disables the 120hz. Dad said it looked better. I am the one who said to get this TV over others because of the 120hz I always heard 60hz have issues when watching sports, playing video games or action movies. My dad probably would of been happier with one of those 60hz TVs

RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISEEEEEE FROM YOUR GWWWWWWWWAVE.

Just turn off motion interpolation. Tell us the maker and model of your TV and we can help you. There is no need to make the picture look "softer" or switch it to game mode.

 

[bjork]

I like 120hz. Especially for old shit. Saw some episodes of the Rifleman in 120hz, it was super dope.

 

[DoubleTap]

I'm sure it's been mentioned in this 3 year old thread but most TV's have the settings option of Low/Medium/High for this feature. So it's not an all or nothing "dilemma". I keep mine on Low. The LCD "blur" is gone but the motion effect is very subtle.