Support NeoGAF

[Funchameleon]

Also Zyrusticae has the subject of motion blur pretty nailed. Read their posts if you want to understand why film is different to gaming in the need for framerate.

The more advanced realtime motion blur gets (its ability to emulate real world open shutter effects) the less need we will have for framerates above ~24 (gameplay aside)

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

It's almost a century of 24fps having exclusive reign in motion pictures. I personally would love to see progression to 60fps in movies and games. People will get use it over time. I support the Apple route... cut off 24fps entirely. People will b*tch for about five years then all is well. Yes I know this is unlikely to happen. Too many stubborn people set in their ways.

Also, if high frame rate doesn't add anything to the movie, neither does color nor surround sound.

This is the dumbest thing I've read this week

 

[Funchameleon]

That's because, to my understanding, it's using the same technology those "smooth motion" filters on HDTVs use. It's not actual 48FPS footage, it's 24FPS footage made to look like 48FPS footage.

This needs to be addressed because its not true. They are shooting at 48fps - the camera is actually exposing 48 frames of film every second.

Most of the reason "smooth motion" (frame interpolation) looks garbage will be present in footage actually shot at high framerates; the artifacts from it being faked are but a small part of that.

He was talking about the trailer that was posted, not the actual movie.

Sorry, yeah, I didn't know the trailer was interpolated (though at higher quality than realtime processes in TVs). It's still not the reason it looks offputting.

 

[bloodforge]

This needs to be addressed because its not true. They are shooting at 48fps - the camera is actually exposing 48 frames of film every second.

Most of the reason "smooth motion" (frame interpolation) looks garbage will be present in footage actually shot at high framerates; the artifacts from it being faked are but a small part of that.

He was talking about the trailer that was posted, not the actual movie.

 

[AstroNut325]

This is the dumbest thing I've read this week

Please elaborate.

 

[NervousXtian]

I don't care what FPS that Hobbit trailer is in, but it looks like shit whenever it's just people (or in this case Hobbits).

I watch movies to escape reality, I don't need them to look like I'm at a play.

Now, I know this doesn't have to be an issue of HFR, but it will be.. but the production values better be there or you get what this guy said:

But many critics were less kind, with one Entertainment Weekly blog post saying the clips Jackson showed at CinemaCon "looked much more like visiting the set of a film rather than seeing the textured cinematography of a finished movie."

 

[AstroNut325]

I don't care what FPS that Hobbit trailer is in, but it looks like shit whenever it's just people (or in this case Hobbits).

I watch movies to escape reality, I don't need them to look like I'm at a play.

Now, I know this doesn't have to be an issue of HFR, but it will be.. but the production values better be there or you get what this guy said:

Those people have only seen movies in 24fps their entire lives. They very likely are not going to like it.

 

[Funchameleon]

Doing some reading of mainstream articles on the subject, theres a lot of confusion between "SmoothMotion" type effects and "The Soap Opera Effect". The soap opera effect is a BYPRODUCT of Smoothmotion, separate from the artifacting that goes on when the TV isn't able to properly interpolate an 'inbetween' frame, or even the fact it's interpolating low shutter speeds.

The soap opera effect describes when CHEAP TV went from being shot on actual film to interlaced digital formats; where they basically recorded in and played on television 50fps (pal) or 60fps (ntsc) footage. Ignore the fact that the frames were interlaced (it was effectively imperceptible on CRTs); it was offputting purely because of the high framerates and consequentially, the loss of filmic motion blur.

 

[NervousXtian]

Those people have only seen movies in 24fps their entire lives. They very likely are not going to like it.

I don't think you are understanding what he was saying. The idea that higher just equals better is wrong.

HFR for sports or says the news works just fine, because sports looking more real works and the camera, for the most part is static and follows the actions, or where you are pretty much looking.. and with the news it's static shots of someone talking.

Movies on the other hand, the HFR can display flaws you might not notice at a lower frame rate.

 

[Funchameleon]

It's not because of exposing flaws (well, maybe it is in the sense that low-framerate hides things we don't like about human motion). It's because it's high framerate and we're not used to that. There hasn't even been any studies that suggest people not exposed to 24-30fps their entire lives would prefer it.

Take this excellent example:

Although this takes a while to load up, I think this is the best example of 48fps
http://wemusic.veenue.com/libraries/lib_170/media/h_guitarelectric_0.mp4
It's smooth, but to some, it's fake. Really depends on the person

This was ACTUALLY SHOT at a high framerate. There's no reason to think The Hobbit at 48fps would be any different. It looks fucking horrible, if you ask me (and everyone I've been asking for the past 30 minutes).

 

[Vulcano's assistant]

You aren't used to it in films either. None of us are and you don't know how the public at large will respond. It could be like color and win out over time or it could never catch on.

Yeah, I'm referring to this point in time when its pretty new and It reminds some of TV broadcast, which has some negative connotations. I'm not saying that it will be like color, it may as well be like cinerama.

 

[Shai-Tan]

about the only legitimate complaint I can think of that isn't hysteria or clinging to previous experience is sets, cgi, action/stunts are harder to do well and look like they fit without leaning on the excessive blur from motion, panning, other camera movement in 24fps

people act like 24fps is integral to the film medium but I can guarantee you film makers will make it look very good. a movie like City of God would look great filmed at a higher frame rate without any changes. also doesn't preclude using artistic motion effects which of course are useful

 

[Zyrusticae]

People who want absolute frame clarity from cinema are soulless freaks.

Haha! My thoughts exactly (though perhaps not in so many words).

 

[Turok_TTZ]

24,30,50,60 fps etc... We already have enough fps as it is. 48fps makes no sense to me. Why not 30 or 50 fps? Or better yet enough with the half assing and go straight up 60 or even 120fps.
I fail to see the point in 48 fps. too many fps standards as is. no need to further add anymore than there should be.

/oldmanyellsatcloud rant

 

[apana]

Yeah, I'm referring to this point in time when its pretty new and It reminds some of TV broadcast, which has some negative connotations. I'm not saying that it will be like color, it may as well be like cinerama.

My best guess is that it will end up being another option but won't ever really overtake what we have now. These next few years are going to be very hit and miss as film makers experiment with what works. The Hobbit actually seems like a strange film to introduce it. It would have been really neat to see a 48 fps version of Dark Knight. Can our televisions display 48 and 60 fps? I wonder why it isn't used in more shows, I haven't noticed it at least.

 

[Reiko]

My best guess is that it will end up being another option but won't ever really overtake what we have now. These next few years are going to be very hit and miss as film makers experiment with what works. The Hobbit actually seems like a strange film to introduce it. It would have been really neat to see a 48 fps version of Dark Knight. Can our televisions display 48 and 60 fps? I wonder why it isn't used in more shows, I haven't noticed it at least.

Tv shows in 60i using line doubling shows a 30fps program with 60fps motion.

 

[entremet]

People who want absolute frame clarity from cinema are soulless freaks.

Harsh, but my sentiments are similar. Movies aren't games.

 

[DjRoomba]

Different mediums. Cant compare.
higher framerate in movies makes things more unrealistic (or too realistic) and cheaper. It makes it look like a stage play on television rather than a movie.
Games obviously do not suffer from this problem. In games sometimes the smoother, higher framerate makes the game play better, so it isnt even really bout the quality of the visuals.
However if you compare 60fps games to 30fps games that use motion blur, the latter tends to look better. Maybe that is because it is closer in style to movies.

 

[Reiko]

Different mediums. Cant compare.
higher framerate in movies makes things more unrealistic and cheaper. It makes it look like a stage play on television rather than a movie.
In games sometimes smoother, higher framerat makes the game play better, so it isnt even really bout the quality of the visuals.
If you're actually comparing Call of Duty to something that runs at 30fps with motion blur, the latter will look better. 60 fps certainly doesnt = looking better

You just gave me an idea... Be back in a few.

 

[Reikon]

I wish I could find a downloadable .mp4 version of this. My computer always stutters when trying to stream it.

Just open the Eurogamer link with flash disabled/not installed. It'll give you an mp4 link instead.

 

[Durante]

In this thread I learned that I'm a "soulless freak" who would be "killed on the spot". Guess I better take care when I go to enjoy a 48/60 FPS showing.

 

[shinobi602]

So it's just what people are used to? I mean at SOME point movies have to up their fps. Games are constantly doing it.

Lol what? No.

I can't stand the faster FPS in movies. Make them look like cheap soap operas. No thanks.

 

[pottuvoi]

Lol what? No.

I can't stand the faster FPS in movies. Make them look like cheap soap operas. No thanks.

How many proper movies have you seen with higher fps?
I would love a link to some so I can see them as well.

 

[Izayoi]

From this website:
http://www.48fpsmovies.com/high-frame-rate-example-videos/

panning shot at 24 fps: http://red.cachefly.net/learn/panning-24fps-180.mp4

panning shot at 60 fps: http://red.cachefly.net/learn/panning-60fps-180.mp4

action shot#1 at 24 fps: http://red.cachefly.net/learn/action-24fps.mp4

action shot#1 at 60 fps: http://red.cachefly.net/learn/action-60fps.mp4

Although this takes a while to load up, I think this is the best example of 48fps
http://wemusic.veenue.com/libraries/lib_170/media/h_guitarelectric_0.mp4
It's smooth, but to some, it's fake. Really depends on the person

Mmmm.... those 60fps videos. I can't wait until HFR is the norm.

 

[Sethos]

Lol what? No.

I can't stand the faster FPS in movies. Make them look like cheap soap operas. No thanks.

You must have seen a ton of 48FPS movies.

 

[Yasae]

In this thread I learned that I'm a "soulless freak" who would be "killed on the spot". Guess I better take care when I go to enjoy a 48/60 FPS showing.

I said in audio you would be killed on the spot because that's the truth. Greater fidelity has not resulted in everything better. You basically reached the roof in the 70s and it didn't get much better since then... Rather it's gotten worse in the past ten years.

I think we're mixing up frames per second with fidelity - that's not really the case here and nobody seems to be getting it. I've been down this road already and I'm sorry, judge it on its own merits or don't judge it at all.

Next.

 

[polyh3dron]

Yes, your choices are
2D 24fps
3D 24fps
2D 24fps IMAX
3D 24fps IMAX
3D 48fps

as I recall...

And here is a fan made Proof of Concept 48fps Trailer http://www.48fpsmovies.com/The_Hobbit_An_Unexpected_Journey_Trailer.mp4

Good, you edited.

That is just frame interpolation, the shitty effect on TVs that guesses the in between frames and as a result makes some things jerky, others smooth and introduces shitty artifacts to boot. This is also used on Geico ads inexplicably.

 

[polyh3dron]

Although this takes a while to load up, I think this is the best example of 48fps
http://wemusic.veenue.com/libraries/lib_170/media/h_guitarelectric_0.mp4
It's smooth, but to some, it's fake. Really depends on the person

Badly shot, bad lighting and all that. If you think the hobbit is going to use lenses as shitty as this, with lighting as shitty as this then I have a bridge to sell you. That video would look shitty at 24FPS too.

 

[Reiko]

Let's go a little deeper GAF...

Inception 60FPS TRAILER


http://www.gigashare.in/b8980


Looks amazing when properly done. IMO

Good, you edited.

That is just frame interpolation, the shitty effect on TVs that guesses the in between frames and as a result makes some things jerky, others smooth and introduces shitty artifacts to boot. This is also used on Geico ads inexplicably.

The Geico commercials and the ones used on TVs are shitty algorithms. The one in the video above is very good actually.

 

[polyh3dron]

The Geico commercials and the ones used on TVs are shitty algorithms. The one in the video above is very good actually.

There are still some telltale signs, anything that moves fast enough loses its 60FPS while everything else in the shot that is moving slower still maintains it. It's very disorientating.

 

[-tetsuo-]

That 48fps Hobbit trailer looks terrible.

 

[polyh3dron]

That 48fps Hobbit trailer looks terrible.

because it's not real.

 

[danmaku]

The irrational hatred towards everything new is hilarious, and this thread is no exception.

 

[Reiko]

There are still some telltale signs, anything that moves fast enough loses its 60FPS while everything else in the shot that is moving slower still maintains it. It's very disorientating.

No framedropping on my end.

Hardware interpolation is known for dropping frames. This is just encoded video.

EDIT: Ah... That is the algorithm dealing with parts of the actual trailer that is slowed down for dramatic effect. Some parts of the 24fps trailer is moving slower than how it was actually filmed. This algorithm picks up on everything that you didn't notice in a lower framerate.

 

[Zyrusticae]

The irrational hatred towards everything new is hilarious, and this thread is no exception.

Hmmmm, now that's just annoying.

My dislike of 48 FPS has to do with the attempt to reduce the level of motion blur, which is something I do not like. 48 FPS with 1/24 shutter angle is fine by me, but most of them are doing it with 1/48 which cuts the motion blur in half and just looks too realistic. I like my cinema to be larger-than-life, thank you very much.

 

[Krabboss]

I'm okay with 30fps games to be perfectly honest. There was once a time where I couldn't really tell the difference without a side-by-side comparison. People must be making noise for the sake of having something to talk about.

The difference isn't in visuals alone, even though 60fps looks much smoother. With a higher framerate, you have reduced input lag and the game feels much more responsive.

Anyway, in response to the thread, there's a difference between a movie and a game. I was going to point out why, but it seems people have already covered it. I'm interested to see The Hobbit in 48fps though. I'm not turned off by the idea of 48fps, but I can imagine it taking some getting used to.

 

[JimboJones]

Let's go a little deeper GAF...

Inception 60FPS TRAILER


http://www.gigashare.in/b8980


Looks amazing when properly done. IMO




The Geico commercials and the ones used on TVs are shitty algorithms. The one in the video above is very good actually.

Some parts of that where ok but other parts felt like I was looking at behind the scenes footage.

 

[danwarb]

Lol what? No.

I can't stand the faster FPS in movies. Make them look like cheap soap operas. No thanks.

But they look like cheap soap operas because we're used to cheap soap operas running a higher frame rate.

A better frame rate allows for new techniques, swifter camera motion that isn't destroyed by blur and judder.

 

[PjotrStroganov]

So the 48fps trailer is not true 48fps. Got it. This means I still haven't seen any footage that really proves or disproves that 48fps suck or not.

People who want absolute frame clarity from cinema are soulless freaks.

So better film tech means that directors lose their artistic integrity?

 

[Wonko_C]

Let's go a little deeper GAF...

Inception 60FPS TRAILER


http://www.gigashare.in/b8980


Looks amazing when properly done. IMO




The Geico commercials and the ones used on TVs are shitty algorithms. The one in the video above is very good actually.

That still looks like it was motion-interpolated to me and not true 60fps.

 

[ScOULaris]

It will look like shit in 48fps. Plain and simple. That kind of motion fidelity is simply too close to reality for film. It will feel like you're on set instead of viewing this fantasy world from an outside perspective. It will make the CGI look worse as well.

 

[Shadow Hog]

Also Zyrusticae has the subject of motion blur pretty nailed. Read their posts if you want to understand why film is different to gaming in the need for framerate.

The more advanced realtime motion blur gets (its ability to emulate real world open shutter effects) the less need we will have for framerates above ~24 (gameplay aside)

Hold on, are you seriously suggesting that games would be better at 24FPS with motion blur (gameplay considerations aside)? Because... I don't agree with that assessment. At all. I'll hold off on the merits of HFR film for now (although most of the actually-shot-at-HFR footage I've seen, I actually kinda like, including that guitar one you cite as terrible), but I don't want games to start going low framerate because it's "more realistic" (it's not) or "more cinematic" (it is, due to the old tried-and-true 24FPS standard, but games aren't supposed to be cinema).

I could also be way off the mark and you aren't insinuating that - do correct me if that's the case.

 

[asker]

It will look like shit in 48fps. Plain and simple. That kind of motion fidelity is simply too close to reality for film. It will feel like you're on set instead of viewing this fantasy world from an outside perspective. It will make the CGI look worse as well.

What was your initial reaction to the introduction Full HD media? The same? If so, have you come to accept and embrace HD by now? If not, why is the increased fidelity of high definition good but the one of high framerate bad?

 

[polyh3dron]

If anyone has gone to Universal Studios in Hollywood, the King Kong 3D attraction, also helmed by Peter Jackson uses high framerate video, running at 60FPS. And it looks awesome.

Some people are just too accustomed to their movies being a certain framerate and to be honest, they're luddites.

 

[zruben]

60 fps gaming looks awesome
48 fps film looks like Korean soap operas

so close to first post.

 

[Symphonic]

It will look like shit in 48fps. Plain and simple. That kind of motion fidelity is simply too close to reality for film. It will feel like you're on set instead of viewing this fantasy world from an outside perspective. It will make the CGI look worse as well.

So you've seen 48 fps movies, then?

 

[woxel1]

So you've seen 48 fps movies, then?

Only at Disneyland, Universal Studios, and other fine theme park attractions around the globe.

In any rate ITT gamers confuse shutter speed with frame rate.

 

[exmachina64]

24,30,50,60 fps etc... We already have enough fps as it is. 48fps makes no sense to me. Why not 30 or 50 fps? Or better yet enough with the half assing and go straight up 60 or even 120fps.
I fail to see the point in 48 fps. too many fps standards as is. no need to further add anymore than there should be.

/oldmanyellsatcloud rant

The reason they're using 48fps is because it is a perfect double of 24fps. This helps the theatrical release for screens running at 24fps. Studios will use multiples of 24 for filming because it will make theatrical release easier. 24, 48, 72, 96, 120.

When it is time for home video releases, the studio has a 24fps master created from the 48fps source elements. Due to its limited theatrical release and whether they receive negative feedback from consumers, the studio may choose not to release the 48fps version until a point when high frame rates are popular.

In the US, TVs use refresh rates of 60hz. In PAL territories (such as the UK), TVs use refresh rates of 50hz. Primarily you should see these frame rate standards as a divide between TV and movies in their respective histories and technological evolutions.

The nearest intersection you could see between movies, theater screens, and TV sets would be 120fps.

 

[Zyrusticae]

When it is time for home video releases, the studio has a 24fps master created from the 48fps source elements.

That is a terrible idea and I really hope they don't do this.

Unless the shutter angle is actually set to 1/24 instead of 1/48, it'll just end up looking awful.

 

[AstroNut325]

Harsh, but my sentiments are similar. Movies aren't games.

So.... HD/2K/4K/8K, high fidelity audio, deep color, ect... should be shunned?