Support NeoGAF

[Raistlin]

My biggest concern is Blu Ray spec, since it's either 24p or 60i :/ I'd hate to learn that the home version of the movie is just 24p.
Hopefully they'll just update it like they did for 3D...?

They probably could but it would only work with newer players or limited older ones. Doubling the framerate can increase the decoding requirements quite a bit and would cause other complications as well. (greater storage requirement, won't work with slower drives, though that's mostly irrelevant since newer players mostly have 2x drives at least)
Edit: There's also the complication that most current TVs aren't able to handle 48FPS natively so the player would have to do the suitable frame pull-down work. So yeah not holding my breath for a 48FPS home release for now at all.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=37374995&postcount=1222

TVs can handle 1080 48p video just fine over HDMI. If it isn't supported it'll be because content providers will restrict it using HDCP.

Nope. Check out the the Video Format Support (6.2) and Video Format Timing Specifications (6.3) sections of the 1.3 specification.


Admittedly I haven't seen a leak of the full HDMI 1.4 spec yet (it's really only meant for manufacturers), but there's no mention of it in the public press info and I don't recall hearing any rumblings about support for it over at avs, etc. Haven't looked in a while though.


Let's say it actually was supported though, obviously it would be part of the optional specification. Worse, I've never seen a video processor that handles it. So basically no TV would know what to do with it even if it successfully passed HDCP and received the signal.

I was talking about for 60fps content. I doubt 48fps content will be released in anything other than 24fps unless our TVs and BR players are changed to officially support it.

I do expect it will part of the next BD iteration.

 

[Whogie]

I saw it. It wasn't 100% relevant to my concern. Most TVs aren't going to support 48p, so I'd imagine it'd be encapsulated in 60p. I was just worried that the Blu Ray spec, specifically, isn't flexible enough in regards to framerate (it bugs me that it doesn't even support 30p.) Like I said earlier, yeah that would lead to a lot of judder, but I bet most people would be accepting of it.

 

[Theonik]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost...postcount=1222

Yeah I know, hopefully since we have plenty of 240hz TVs now it should not be difficult to implement in newer sets, but the thing with standards is that it takes time for them to be agreed on, established and implemented on actual devices.

 

[Raistlin]

I saw it. It wasn't 100% relevant to my concern.

Okay I guess I'm confused then. Your concern was regarding getting 48p onto BD ... and my post outlined how it could potentially be patched into BD 3D, that some 3D TV's may be able to work with it, the issues it presents for BD 3D players and 3D TV's, and what the BDA is working on that would allow it for the next BD spec if it isn't tenable in the current one.

How is that not relevant to your concern?

Yeah I know, hopefully since we have plenty of 240hz TVs now it should not be difficult to implement in newer sets, but the things with standards is that it takes time for them to be agreed on, established and implemented on actual devices.

Yep. Hell h.265 isn't even done, so they don't even have firm numbers on bitrates, etc.

 

[Whogie]

Sorry, I missed this bit:

they'll wait to include 48p along with 4K in the next BD spec

I guess I was caught up on current spec as opposed to what can be added through revisions.

 

[Zebra]

After floating around various film blogs, the comments sections and some of the writers themselves are starting to irk me. It seems like there is such a bitter resistance to 48fps because it doesn't resemble the look of films they saw growing up and have a nostalgic attachment to.

People need to be more open minded, but alas: Internet.

I'm glad it's being used on such a high profile movie as the Hobbit as well as 60 fps for Avatar 2. It's the only way to force people to sit down and tell them: "Just give it a chance."

I honestly wish they wouldn't release 24fps cuts of the film at all.

Soo many people seem convinced that it will look exactly like the TruMotion shit.

 

[Raistlin]

Sorry, I missed this bit:

I guess I was caught up on current spec as opposed to what can be added through revisions.

Even so, the main crux of the post was outlining how it may be possible in the current spec :\

After floating around various film blogs, the comments sections and some of the writers themselves are starting to irk me. It seems like there is such a bitter resistance to 48fps because it doesn't resemble the look of films they saw growing up and have a nostalgic attachment to.

People need to be more open minded, but alas: Internet.

I'm glad it's being used on such a high profile movie as the Hobbit as well as 60 fps for Avatar 2. It's the only way to force people to sit down and say: "Just give it a chance."

I honestly wish they wouldn't release 24fps cuts of the film at all.

Soo many people seem convinced that it will look exactly like the TruMotion shit.

That's simply not feasible given the budgets of these movies. There isn't enough 48p penetration in theaters to generate the necessary sales.

 

[Zebra]

That's simply not feasible given the budgets of these movies. There isn't enough 48p penetration in theaters to generate the necessary sales.

Fair enough, but if I hear someone say "You totally need to see the Hobbit! But see the 24fps version... I've heard this 48fps stuff makes it look like a crappy soap opera," I will lose my shit.

I just fear the inevitable massive anti-48fps campaign. :/

 

[Nappuccino]

I'm worried about the lack of blur in the 24p versions of the movie. It seems like removing half of the frames would increase the stuttering effect that they're trying to avoid in the first place.

 

[mclaren777]

390 GB from one simple zip file. I'm impressed.

Well done GAF (and the other sites this landed on).

 

[Whogie]

Do you mean with active shutter glasses 3D? That would be really hacky. (My passive 3D TV would make that unwatchable.)

 

[StuBurns]

I'm worried about the lack of blur in the 24p versions of the movie. It seems like removing half of the frames would increase the stuttering effect that they're trying to avoid in the first place.

Shutter speed for a normal film is 1/48, there shouldn't be any difference.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

For those who did not download the video:

24fps

48fps

I was expecting to like 48 fps a lot more based on these gifs. The actual video looks unnatural at times. but when you go back to 24 fps after the 48 fps, the 24 fps actually looks a little choppy in places. the 48 fps video definitely looked better at times, but some of the motions still seemed unnatural. I am disappointed I didn't LOVE 48 fps as the gif led me to believe i would.

 

[Loofy]

Nope. Check out the the Video Format Support (6.2) and Video Format Timing Specifications (6.3) sections of the 1.3 specification.

Your link says.
"HDMI allows any video format timing to be transmitted and displayed. To maximize
interoperability between products, common DTV formats have been defined."

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

What hits me about the acuity of 48fps versus the blurring of 24fps is that it may break the illusion of a fantasy setting, at least initially. This may be good for modern day movies and better yet Sci-Fi but introducing it with an epic fantasy like The Hobbit may be off putting.

This sounds like my thought process for why I want the fancy tech in something like The Hobbit. Some people say things like high frame rate and 3D make things look too much like what they see in regular life all the time--but I don't see crazy fantasy settings and creatures in this clarity in my everyday life, so it is a big novelty.

 

[Loofy]

Fair enough, but if I hear someone say "You totally need to see the Hobbit! But see the 24fps version... I've heard this 48fps stuff makes it look like a crappy soap opera," I will lose my shit.

I just fear the inevitable massive anti-48fps campaign. :/

If the movies good. I plan on watching it in 3D 48fps and 2D 24fps. Be great to judge which is better.

 

[Raistlin]

Your link says.
"HDMI allows any video format timing to be transmitted and displayed. To maximize
interoperability between products, common DTV formats have been defined."

We'd have to get an engineer in here familiar with the HW ... but while it may be true that HDMI can support anything, I suspect that's not true in the practical sense. Otherwise there wouldn't be specific Hx and Tx chipsets designed to support some of the secondary (non mandatory) video formats?


But let's say it is true. It says nothing about whether the video processor in a given device is designed to output that format ... nor whether the video processor in the display would know what to do with it. I haven't seen any video processors that support 48p content. At least not since the last time I was researching one for purchase. Basically everything from end to end needs to play nice in order for it to work.

 

[K701]

I'm worried of that "it looks like a set" comment. I watched PotC: On strangers tides in 3D and had to turn it off after a few minutes specifically because it looked like I was looking at a cheap set.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

I was expecting to like 48 fps a lot more based on these gifs. The actual video looks unnatural at times. but when you go back to 24 fps after the 48 fps, the 24 fps actually looks a little choppy in places. the 48 fps video definitely looked better at times, but some of the motions still seemed unnatural. I am disappointed I didn't LOVE 48 fps as the gif led me to believe i would.

Keep in mind the GIF is just that a GIF. It shows the same action over and over again so you get used to it a lot faster than a 2 minute video. If you keep watching the 2 minute video multiple times it will have the same result.

 

[TedNindo]

As a film student I am very skeptical of this. I am also worried that sets will look exactly like the fake cheap imitations they are.
I hope it doesn't create a simular experience like the one I had on a samsung 240hz led lcd. I saw Avatar in the theater and enjoyed it for what it was. But when I saw it again at my friends place on his new tv it looked completely fake. It was unwatchable for me. It all looked like obvious CGI and soundstages.

I'll give it a shot. But I have my doubts.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

As a film student I am very skeptical of this. I am also worried that sets will look exactly like the fake cheap imitations they are.
I hope it doesn't create a simular experience like the one I had on a samsung 240hz led lcd. I saw Avatar in the theater and enjoyed it for what it was. But when I saw it again at my friends place on his new tv it looked completely fake. It was unwatchable for me.

I'll give it a shot. But I have my doubts.

As a film student you should be aware of the history of reticence to every single change that has occurred throughout film's history to bring it to what you now call 'cinematic.'

 

[Rodney McKay]

As a film student you should be aware of the history of reticence to every single change that has occurred throughout film's history to bring it to what you now call 'cinematic.'

How long does it normally take for the general public to come around to these innovations?

Outside of a rare couple of scenes, I'm still not seeing much of an improvement from 2D films to 3D. My eyes just don't like to focus on things during certain scenes, I actually find I loose visual information in exchange for the added dimensional awareness.

EDIT: I'm not saying either way if 48fps will or won't eventually be standard for movies, but I do think it takes time figure out if these innovations are indeed truly innovative, or if they're just a gimmick.

 

[Y2Kev]

Would a faster framerate really make the set look cheaper?

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

How long does it normally take for the general public to come around to these innovations?

Outside of a rare couple of scenes, I'm still not seeing much of an improvement from 2D films to 3D. My eyes just don't like to focus on things during certain scenes, I actually find I loose visual information in exchange for the added dimensional awareness.

Filmmakers are learning by experimenting with that. Hugo is still the absolutely benchmark.

 

[Natetan]

The 48fps footage I saw looked terrible. It looked completely non-cinematic. The sets looked like sets. I've been on sets of movies on the scale of The Hobbit, and sets don't even look like sets when you're on them live... but these looked like sets.
The other comparison I kept coming to, as I was watching the footage, was that it all looked like behind the scenes video. The magical illusion of cinema is stripped away completely.

we just got a new HD tv, and EVERY show on it looks like this. At first I thought it was just because one of the shows had low production values, but even shows i'm familiar with look absolutely terrible. I don't know what it is, but it takes shows that looked high quality and makes them look like a cheap soap opera filmed for Mexican tv or something.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

we just got a new HD tv, and EVERY show on it looks like this. At first I thought it was just because one of the shows had low production values, but even shows i'm familiar with look absolutely terrible. I don't know what it is, but it takes shows that looked high quality and makes them look like a cheap soap opera filmed for Mexican tv or something.

Your tv has the Motion Interpolation function on. AKA Motionflow or some other shitty name.

Go into your TV options and turn it the fuck off. Also, it is not the same as 48fps.

 

[a Master Ninja]

Listen to Scullibundo.

 

[Raistlin]

Your tv has the Motion Interpolation function on. AKA Motionflow or some other shitty name.

Go into your TV options and turn it the fuck off. Also, it is not the same as 48fps.

If your TV is actually using a well-implemented algorithm and offers customization, configuring it correctly can be great.

 

[Rodney McKay]

Filmmakers are learning by experimenting with that. Hugo is still the absolutely benchmark.

I guess. 3D is in an odd position because it really is the kind of thing that is hamstrung by current technology. Until holograms are invented I don't really see 3D ever getting the same adoption rate as Color or Sound in movies. Even with glasses-less displays you still need a perfect pair of eyes in order to enjoy it in it's current form (parallax). Until people can see 3D content without glasses and without getting a headache, it's still going to have a big portion of people against it.

48fps is definitely more in line with the major innovations film has had, since we are perfectly able to do it with current technology. There are definite areas that I will enjoy seeing in 48fps, specifically with camera pans. I've always hated being in movies when the camera starts to look around and everything on screen becomes a flickery mess. I've actually started to enjoy DVD's and Blurays more than the theater because the effect is so noticeable on a massive screen.

I really hope I am able to get used to seeing everything else in a film with that framerate. If any film will have the quality of effects and sets to do it justice it is clearly The Hobbit.

I wish there were more good examples of long high-framerate videos, because I want to see if I can get used to it before I see The Hobbit. I love that series so much that I'm honesty hesitant to use it as my first ever experience with this stuff.

 

[Zebra]

Would a faster framerate really make the set look cheaper?

I'm having a hard time understanding this, really.

I don't understand how simply seeing more of a set makes it look cheaper. How does seeing twice as many still images of a set in a second make it look cheaper than it would with only half as many frames? The frames themselves don't have a clearer image.

 

[Raistlin]

I'm having a hard time understanding this, really.

I don't understand how simply seeing more of a set makes it look cheaper. How does seeing twice as many still images of a set in a second make it look cheaper than it would with only half as many frames? The frames themselves don't have a clearer image.

They do have higher temporal resolution ... but it's not like the camera is always moving. Then again, maybe it typically is kept moving for parts of the set where shortcuts were taken?

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Keep in mind the GIF is just that a GIF. It shows the same action over and over again so you get used to it a lot faster than a 2 minute video. If you keep watching the 2 minute video multiple times it will have the same result.

I watched the video a couple of times but there are a couple things my brain doesn't like: the swirling of his shoe, the dropping of the balls, and the last pan to the right. That said, after watching the 48 fps video a few times, going back to 24 fps is also a bit jarring, so you may be on to something.

 

[msv]

I was expecting to like 48 fps a lot more based on these gifs. The actual video looks unnatural at times. but when you go back to 24 fps after the 48 fps, the 24 fps actually looks a little choppy in places. the 48 fps video definitely looked better at times, but some of the motions still seemed unnatural. I am disappointed I didn't LOVE 48 fps as the gif led me to believe i would.

Do you not realize that 48 FPS is by definition more natural? If anything, you're saying that the 48fps video looks too natural for you. Which I can get, since everyone's used to something that looks unnatural.

 

[XMonkey]

Do you not realize that 48 FPS is by definition more natural?

Explain please

 

[Prophet Steve]

Explain please

Real life has a very high framerate.

 

[Nick Laslett]

With great timeliness PBS have just uploaded to their Youtube channel "The Great Framerate Debate" featuring Douglas Trumbull.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1aMD6dI-rc&feature=relmfu

I believe this originally took place back in November 2010.

http://notesonvideo.blogspot.com/2010/10/pbs-quality-television-workshops.html

Monday, October 25, 2010
PBS Quality Television Workshops
On Wed, November 3 and Thur, Nov 4th at WGBH Boston, the Public Television Quality Group will be holding a two-day seminar designed to provide training for PBS producers. This "The Great Frame Rate Debate" with Douglas Trumbull.​

As a long time admire of Mr Trumbull, I had always wished that he’d had more success with his Showscan format and bringing higher framerates to motion pictures. The James Cameron/Peter Jackson initiative builds on the same conclusions that informed Douglas Trumbull in the development of Showcan (a 65mm, 60fps celluloid format). It never really took off in feature film cinema, but was the basis for a lot of the special effects work that Trumbull did for Close Encounters, Blade Runner, etc.

Other contributors to this thread have already Douglas Trumbull.

 

[StuBurns]

It's really frustrating that there is some 60fps footage of Avatar that they haven't released. We could have all had first hand experience of professional 60fps film two years ago if they'd been so inclined.

 

[XMonkey]

Real life has a very high framerate.

Does it?

 

[PjotrStroganov]

Real life has a very high framerate.

Real life is not 2d. A TV/cinema screen is. I think it takes a bit more to compare the two.

 

[XMonkey]

Aw, you beat me to my end point. I wanted to see his reasoning for a) what's a good metric to use for determining the 'frame rate' of real life and b) why a higher framerate is necessarily better for an artform like cinema

Ultimately I think 48 and 24 will coexist (and maybe 60?)

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Does it?

Yes, approximately 1 / (0.0000000000000000000000000000000000016/299,792,458) fps, in fact.

 

[StuBurns]

Life doesn't have a framerate, we don't gather and construct complete images in isolation, it's like a video stream updated at irregular times. But people have been able to see images at a lot faster than 60fps.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Yes, approximately 1 / (0.0000000000000000000000000000000000016/299,792,458) fps, in fact.

 

[yogloo]

Everyone is missing a major point here.
The MOST IMPORTANT question is which one looks better, 24fps or 48fps porn.


I wait for gaf to provide me with the evidence.
Don't dissapoint me gaf.

 

[cloud_sleep]

Would a faster framerate really make the set look cheaper?

My guess would be that higher frame rates are closer to how we perceive the real world so our brains are more critical of anything that doesn't look dead on, whereas 24fps, often described as having a 'dream like' quality, may be unreal enough for our perception to be more accepting of things like fake furniture or a false beard.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Life doesn't have a framerate,

Pfff, I already gave you life's framerate!

 

[Zeppelin]

Yes, approximately 1 / (0.0000000000000000000000000000000000016/299,792,458) fps, in fact.

Is it interlaced or progressive?

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Is it interlaced or progressive?

Well, taking into account the relativity of simultineity, I would say that it's the worlds worst interlacing. Like, the scan lines update in different orders depending on your viewing angle, and when you view it head on it looks just as awful as anywhere else.

 

[Clear]

The only thing higher frame-rates bring to the table is smoother motion, because a static image is static regardless of the refresh rate.

That being said, its really not that big a deal because if you think that smoothness of motion is the only thing of value in a cinematic work, you're a fool and a philistine.

Like 3D, its a gimmick.

The only question is whether you, as an individual, find that the gimmick adds to the real value of the viewing experience, or it subtracts from it by its obtrusiveness.

Its perceptual, not qualitative.

 

[666]

I'm having a hard time understanding this, really.

I don't understand how simply seeing more of a set makes it look cheaper. How does seeing twice as many still images of a set in a second make it look cheaper than it would with only half as many frames? The frames themselves don't have a clearer image.

I take it you haven't seen any sets in real life? Without 'movie magic' they look pretty shoddy.

PJ puts the work into his sets though so he's as good a guy as any to try it.