Support NeoGAF

[Doc Holliday]

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.

Please everyone who thinks this is a good idea watch the Twilight Zones shot in video. It is night and day. It really does hurt the sense of drama and fantasy of the whole thing.

I'm totally on the 3d bandwagon for certain movies, but 48-60 fps...no way!

 

[apana]

This thread did not disappoint. I am excited about 48 fps but I hate how people can't have a negative reaction or be apprehensive about it without someone being like "lol go back to the stone age". Frankly it's pretty annoying how we haven't yet gotten to see any 48 FPS sample footage.

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

honestly i think this has already tainted my future viewing of the movie. I still haven't watched avatar because of "furries".

 

[Loofy]

2011: You dont know what 48fps looks like in a hollywood movie. You cant compare it with tv shows or live events.
2012: Well its because you arent used to seeing seeing 48fps. Youll learn to like it. Trust me.

 

[Raistlin]

Well, it's context.

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

I thought it was clear I didn't actually think he meant resolution based on the context?

 

[Vire]

This thread did not disappoint. I am excited about 48 fps but I hate how people can't have a negative reaction or be apprehensive about it without someone being like "lol go back to the stone age". Frankly it's pretty annoying how we haven't yet gotten to see any 48 FPS sample footage.

Yep, agreed.

From the SlashFilm article:

But my amazement quickly came to an end as the sizzle reel transitioned from the landscape footage to the character centric. Everything looked so… different. It was jarring.

The change from 24 frames per second to 48 frames per second is HUGE. It completely changes what every image looks like, the movements, the tone, everything is different.

It looked like a made for television BBC movie.

It looked like when you turn your LCD television to the 120 hertz up-conversion setting.

It looked uncompromisingly real — so much so that it looked fake.

More noticeable in the footage was the make-up, the sets, the costumes. Hobbiton and Middle Earth didn’t feel like a different universe, it felt like a special effect, a film set with actors in costumes. It looked like behind the scenes footage.

 

[squidyj]

Because film is shot at 24FPS.

....and? I don't see the point in integer doubling the rate when 24fps was merely an effective standard to save on film costs. There's no reason to not be able to do 60fps.

Or are you saying it's a compatibility issue for playback?

 

[Draconian]

This thread did not disappoint. I am excited about 48 fps but I hate how people can't have a negative reaction or be apprehensive about it without someone being like "lol go back to the stone age". Frankly it's pretty annoying how we haven't yet gotten to see any 48 FPS sample footage.

Funny how your second sentence explains your first.

 

[Souldriver]

My mind says a higher framerate has to be better. Just like higher resolution, better color production, better audio, ... are all no brainer advances.

Still, I can't help but hate how video looks with high frame rates and that weird "adjusting" some tv sets do. I wonder if it is simply a matter of getting used to it, or if it is really something that will look bad always.


This plus my dislike for 3D makes a movie like The Hobbit a tough sell for me.

 

[Grakl]

honestly i think this has already tainted my future viewing of the movie. I still haven't watched avatar because of "furries".

There's nothing furry about Avatar. It's totally Mass Effect sideboob instead.

 

[Evlar]

Please everyone who thinks this is a good idea watch the Twilight Zones shot in video. It is night and day. It really does hurt the sense of drama and fantasy of the whole thing.

I'm totally on the 3d bandwagon for certain movies, but 48-60 fps...no way!

I'm sorry, I don't think one bad example settles the debate. Surely film shot in any resolution is suspect to other factors- chiefly the talent and intentions of the cinematographer- when we talk about the "feel" of the film.

 

[Solo]

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.

Sorry to quote you again, and sorry to go off on a Fincher tangent again, but this debate reminds me of the film vs digital debate that we had 10 years ago when that tech was gaining in popularity. You had (and still have to this day) the crowd saying that digital looked cheap, could never replicate or look as good as film, etc. Well, just look at David Fincher's last three films. All shot digitally, all could pass for film, because he an extremely talent director working with other extremely talented people who all give a shit.

So, as with this 24 FPS vs 48 FPS, it comes down to the talent of the people using the tech, and not the tech itself.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

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.

Again, yes, this is a factor to consider for sure. But again again, it's not like this was stolen footage. They were showing it off. They had to be, you know, at least marginally proud to introduce it.

 

[ElFly]

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.

Eh, expanding cinema's vocabulary cannot be bad.

Particularly since 24fps is like stuttering.

 

[Treefingers]

It's just a matter of people getting used to it. With time and exposure it'll happen eventually. Not sure if I want The Hobbit to be the first film I see in 48fps though. If Expendables 2 was shot in 48fps I'd go watch that first.

Does anyone know if Public Enemies was shot in higher framerates? Cause it felt like it in a lot of scenes and that destroyed the movie for me. I was too busy focusing on the framerate to watch the film.

 

[C.Dark.DN]

I thought it was clear I didn't actually think he meant resolution based on the context?

I thought it was clear you just 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.

Which is why I said what I said. Who is going to be using 24p,48p,and 60p as resolutions in any thread about film and why should we shy away?

1080/24p and 1080/60p are very commonly used.

Most camcorders use that as well.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Please everyone who thinks this is a good idea watch the Twilight Zones shot in video. It is night and day. It really does hurt the sense of drama and fantasy of the whole thing.

I'm totally on the 3d bandwagon for certain movies, but 48-60 fps...no way!

I don't know why people keep ignoring this example. It's a perfect one because it's the same type of content, same show, done in two different ways that illustrates the issue. Another one was Newhart and I think even Happy Days was like this for a bit too. There are numerous shows out there shot at different refresh rates and it's jarring.

 

[Muffdraul]

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.

This. There used to be this director who made music videos, I think his name was Russel... Mulckayhe (sp? mull-kay-hee) He shot on video, but everyone thought he shot on film because he somehow managed to get a rich look and gave it depth that was normally not there. He used standard video equipment, he just figured shit out vis a vis lighting etc. His techniques caught on and videos looked less "video-y". The same thing will happen with this.

 

[cutmeamango]

Please everyone who thinks this is a good idea watch the Twilight Zones shot in video. It is night and day. It really does hurt the sense of drama and fantasy of the whole thing.

I'm totally on the 3d bandwagon for certain movies, but 48-60 fps...no way!

From a quick search it seems no episode of Twilight Zone were filmed in 60fps.

Yep, agreed.

From the SlashFilm article:

And from the aintitcool article

Again, there is an element that 48fps and TruMotion share (which is where the comparison comes from), but 48 fps does not simply “look like Korean soap operas” or TruMotion-enhanced TV images. That’s a reductive, sensationalist, utterly bullshit equivocation.

 

[Vire]

Sorry to quote you again, and sorry to go off on a Fincher tangent again, but this debate reminds me of the film vs digital debate that we had 10 years ago when that tech was gaining in popularity. You had (and still have to this day) the crowd saying that digital looked cheap, could never replicate or look as good as film, etc. Well, just look at David Fincher's last three films. All shot digitally, all could pass for film, because he an extremely talent director working with other extremely talented people who all give a shit.

So, as with this 24 FPS vs 48 FPS, it comes down to the talent of the people using the tech, and not the tech itself.

I honestly hope you are right, and I am willing and open to change. But the same concerns I had are front in center in the majority of impressions.

As I said, I can't wait to see it for myself. I promise, I'll be here day one.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Eh, expanding cinema's vocabulary cannot be bad.

Particularly since 24fps is like stuttering.

Ultimately, no it's not bad. Practically, it may not be fun waiting for filmmakers to figure it out.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

Hey bros!

 

[Marty Chinn]

From a quick search it seems no episode of Twilight Zone were filmed in 60fps.

They were shot and shown at 60hz. Are we trying to say they didn't look different in their refresh rate?

 

[Solo]

I have a LOT less faith in Jackson than I do in Cameron though (in EVERY regard, but especially when it comes to implementation of technology), so I feel the 48 FPS Hobbit is but a mere practice run for the 60 FPS Avatar 2.

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

This. There used to be this director who made music videos, I think his name was Russel... Mulckayhe (sp? mull-kay-hee) He shot on video, but everyone thought he shot on film because he somehow managed to get a rich look and gave it depth that was normally not there. He used standard video equipment, he just figured shit out vis a vis lighting etc. His techniques caught on and videos looked less "video-y". The same thing will happen with this.

yeah but dont do it on the friggen hobbit, cut your teeth on other stuff if you gotta.... I swear if its like "The Bold and the Baggins" Ima walk out.

 

[Nappuccino]

yeah but dont do it on the friggen hobbit, cut your teeth on other stuff if you gotta.... I swear if its like "The Bold and the Baggins" Ima walk out.

Usually there are a lot of test shots and maybe even a short film or two to get the technology undercontrol.

I really hope that Jackson knows what he is doing.... but we'll see.

 

[C.Dark.DN]

So... the 2D trailer was 24fps right?
Why?

 

[Vire]

yeah but dont do it on the friggen hobbit, cut your teeth on other stuff if you gotta.... I swear if its like "The Bold and the Baggins" Ima walk out.

I think that's the most disconcerting part to me. It may ruin an otherwise brilliant film if it doesn't pan out correctly.

So... the 2D trailer was 24fps right?
Why?

Yes, because people would throw a shit storm.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

I can't wait for 48fps films to be the new rage and for studios to ask theatres to use motion interpolation on all their traditionally shot movies!

 

[Solo]

I think that's the most disconcerting part to me. It may ruin an otherwise brilliant film if it doesn't pan out correctly.

Glass half full version: it may greatly enhance an otherwise fine film if it works out as planned.

 

[Loofy]

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

This isnt really true. At least for tv shows.
You got shows like Star Trek TNG where they could have easily used video, instead they splurged on film.
The 'cheap' shows like soap operas used video, while the expensive shows like Seinfeld used film... why is that?

 

[Evlar]

yeah but dont do it on the friggen hobbit, cut your teeth on other stuff if you gotta.... I swear if its like "The Bold and the Baggins" Ima walk out.

I think the studios feel they HAVE to do it on these big projects or they won't be able to get theater owners to pay up for the switch. The last really big upgrade was the switch from film to digital projection, and if I remember correctly one of the Star Wars films was the flagship for that transition; they took the war directly to the public, advertising the film as fully digital from shooting through post to projection* (if your local theater supports it), prompting fans to go looking for the theaters with digital projectors.

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

I can't wait for 48fps films to be the new rage and for studios to ask theatres to use motion interpolation on all their traditionally shot movies!

Terminator 1 and 2 Gold editions with new 3d 120 hz and cgi enhancements*





* smiling scene reinserted with cgi dentine product placement added.

I think the studios feel they HAVE to do it on these big projects or they won't be able to get theater owners to pay up for the switch. The last really big upgrade was the switch from film to digital projection, and if I remember correctly one of the Star Wars films was the flagship for that transition; they took the war directly to the public, advertising the film as fully digital from shooting through post to projection* (if your local theater supports it), prompting fans to go looking for the theaters with digital projectors.

wasnt that AOTC? And it was shot in lower res than plain film, which has the drawback that less high res re-masters are able to be done on it in the future?

 

[C.Dark.DN]

Yes, because people would throw a shit storm.

What about as we get closer to release?

Are they going to lure people in with 24fps 2D trailers?

 

[Quadraphonic]

My mind says a higher framerate has to be better. Just like higher resolution, better color production, better audio, ... are all no brainer advances.

Still, I can't help but hate how video looks with high frame rates and that weird "adjusting" some tv sets do. I wonder if it is simply a matter of getting used to it, or if it is really something that will look bad always.


This plus my dislike for 3D makes a movie like The Hobbit a tough sell for me.

Because ALL YOUR LIFE, you've watched movies at 24p. That's what projectors are designed for and what movies are made in.

Consumer equipment isn't.

This is less about it being at a faster rate, but more that it's different from what we've seen our entire lives, like your parents praising how music sounds warmer on the phonograph with the popping and crackling. Our minds have adjusted to reinforce the quality of something with those side effects.

 

[TAJ]

Will higher framerates make shaky-cam movies more watchable or less?

Less. Shaky-cam is a way for directors who can't stage action to mask their incompetence. 48fps will expose them.

I have the same RED camera used to shoot The Hobbit. I can do a test shot for you guys at 48fps, but is there a video provider online that can display video at that frame rate?

Use a shutter speed of 1/96 or faster to get the full benefit of 48fps.

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

You never played a game before 1995? 60fps used to be standard.

 

[Doc Holliday]

From a quick search it seems no episode of Twilight Zone were filmed in 60fps.



And from the aintitcool article

They were actually 30 fps, the effect will be even more pronounced at 48 or 60fps.

 

[apana]

Again, there is an element that 48fps and TruMotion share (which is where the comparison comes from), but 48 fps does not simply “look like Korean soap operas” or TruMotion-enhanced TV images. That’s a reductive, sensationalist, utterly bullshit equivocation.

So what he's trying to say is that it only sort of looks like a Korean soap opera.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Less. Shaky-cam is a way for directors who can't stage action to mask their incompetence. 48fps will expose them.



Use a shutter speed of 1/96 or faster to get the full benefit of 48fps.



You never played a game before 1995? 60fps used to be standard.

You sure about that? First 60 fps game I ever saw was Daytona followed by Virtua fighter 2.

 

[Marty Chinn]

They were actually 30 fps, the effect will be even more pronounced at 48 or 60fps.

30fps but 60i right?

You sure about that? First 60 fps game I ever saw was Daytona followed by Virtua fighter 2.

Pretty much every side scroller was 60hz on the NES, SNES, and Genesis.

 

[brandonh83]

Less. Shaky-cam is a way for directors who can't stage action to mask their incompetence. 48fps will expose them.

I would rather have coherent shots in action, it's true, but sometimes I do think shaky cam does work as long as its not overbearing. I think sometimes it can ruin an action scene, but other times it can be effective and establish a sense of peril.

That's rare, though.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

What about as we get closer to release?

Are they going to lure people in with 24fps 2D trailers?

I'm very interested to see how it is introduced and advertised, if at all. "48 frames per second" is an extremely unsexy phrase for marketing, haha. So they probably have to come up with something, because if they don't say anything at all, there is going to be a huge WTF reaction from audiences without them understanding why the movie looks so "weird".

 

[Raistlin]

I thought it was clear you just said



Which is why I said what I said.

Basically I'm and idiot and haven't had enough sleep. What I was stating was for some reason it wasn't clicking that when not including a resolution, p refers to fps. In other words based on the context of what's being discussed I knew he was referring to a framerate ... but I thought he was making a typo.



What's more distressing I'm sure you can find plenty of posts by me using 60i, 24p, etc here. Don't know what to say. Complete brain fart. I don't know what's going on lol.

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

could they make a 24fps version? or is that a given if its on dvd ( or something I have no idea about tv tech )

I'm very interested to see how it is introduced and advertised, if at all. "48 frames per second" is an extremely unsexy phrase for marketing, haha. So they probably have to come up with something, because if they don't say anything at all, there is going to be a huge WTF reaction from audiences without them understanding why the movie looks so "weird".

Blast Processing 2.0

 

[Vire]

You sure about that? First 60 fps game I ever saw was Daytona followed by Virtua fighter 2.

Yeah, I distinctly remember seeing 60 FPS in the Arcade first.

could they make a 24fps version? or is that a given if its on dvd ( or something I have no idea about tv tech )

They could, but that's like asking the an asshole chef at a fine restaurant for no sauce on your dinner.

 

[TAJ]

You sure about that? First 60 fps game I ever saw was Daytona followed by Virtua fighter 2.

I meant 2D games, which were the vast majority to that point.

 

[Solo]

I'm very interested to see how it is introduced and advertised, if at all. "48 frames per second" is an extremely unsexy phrase for marketing, haha. So they probably have to come up with something, because if they don't say anything at all, there is going to be a huge WTF reaction from audiences without them understanding why the movie looks so "weird".

If MGM were smart they'd air a big 30 or 60 minute preview/making of show on one of the major networks in like November, and spend a good half of that time doing a "framerates for the masses" tutorial.

 

[C.Dark.DN]

Basically I'm and idiot and haven't had enough sleep. What I was stating was for some reason it wasn't clicking that when not including a resolution, p refers to fps. In other words based on the context of what's being discussed I knew he was referring to a framerate ... but I thought he was making a typo.



What's more distressing I'm sure you can find plenty of posts by me using 60i, 24p, etc here. Don't know what to say. Complete brain fart. I don't know what's going on lol.

haha, I understand. I think of you as one of the most knowledgeable with film tech.

 

[nomis]

Less. Shaky-cam is a way for directors who can't stage action to mask their incompetence. 48fps will expose them.

On the other hand, a competent director using shaky cam will use 48fps to make their shots feel kinetic and unpredictable, while allowing the audience to have a crisp view of the proceedings instead of masking it behind constant blur.

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

They could, but that's like asking the an asshole chef at a fine restaurant for no sauce on your dinner.

if the theatrical cut looks like a home movie LARPING in peters backyard, ill take it.