Where was he wrong?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
48 movies fps vs 60 game fps?
- Thread starter Symphonic
- Start date
Where was he wrong?
Shadow Hog
Member
I kinda wonder what the pulldown for a 48FPS film would be, anyway. 1-1-1-2?
Zyrusticae
Banned
I've noticed multiple posts like this, and my answer is simple: They're not the same. At all.
Higher frame rates in video is frequently associated with a corresponding increase in shutter speed, which changes the feel of the film entirely thanks to the huge decrease in motion blur. As others noted, 48 FPS makes it feel more like you're "on the set" and less like you're watching a movie.
Higher resolutions and clearer audio do not fundamentally change the experience of watching a movie.
I can relate to those thinking it gives movies a cheap look and exposes flaws. But we have to keep in mind that this is a new way of filming and post-processing. It will take time for it to reach the quality levels that were established decades ago with 24fps. I think if studios give this a proper chance, we will end up with great looking movies at 48fps.
The hobbit's use is getting wildly panned from the early reviews
"If you see this film in the new HFR/48 fps format, you’ll likely break into lively discussion, as well. I’m sure the film’s visual appeal is on a par with Jackson’s other work, but with HFR 3D you’ll be too taken with the strangeness of the new format to compare. Is 48 fps good? It isn’t a case of good or bad. It’s an aesthetic choice, like Michael Mann’s use of video in ‘Public Enemies.’ I never “got used to it.” In fact, I found it a distraction. When Ian Holm was giving his early exposition, I couldn’t hear a word of it, because everything looked so unusual and that’s what held my attention. Here are some things you can expect:
- When people run, they look like they are on the ‘Benny Hill Show.’
- Fire looks weird. This doesn’t matter too much when it is just a burning hearth, but when it is dragonbreath or hurled, flaming weapons, it is a problem. As a result, a moment that should read as triumph ultimately comes across as goofy. It looks so strange and unusual (as do many of the special effects) that it looks somewhat. . .cheap.
- Anything shot in daylight looks like a BBC production from the 1970s. The movement is too smooth. And yet, when the camera moves, too, it looks somewhat jerky.
- You really recognize the cuts between exteriors, effects shots and sets. There’s a scene on a cliff where Storm Giants fight that probably looks terrific in the traditional format. Watching it here all I could think about was “oh, that’s them on a set. Oh, that’s an effects shot. That looks like an actual mountain. Ooh that cut brought us back to the set again.” I’ve watched the similar Misty Mountain sequence in ‘The Fellowship of the Ring’ many times and I never once considered our heroes being on a set – I fully suspended my disbelief and thought they were in peril.
People interested in tech should see ‘An Unexpected Journey’ in 48fps (which is being marketing as HFR 3D). People just looking to see a great movie should just see it in 24. Of course, anyone looking for a great movie will be disappointed. ‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey,’ despite its many gimmicks, is just an okay movie."
-Screencrush
"If you see this film in the new HFR/48 fps format, you’ll likely break into lively discussion, as well. I’m sure the film’s visual appeal is on a par with Jackson’s other work, but with HFR 3D you’ll be too taken with the strangeness of the new format to compare. Is 48 fps good? It isn’t a case of good or bad. It’s an aesthetic choice, like Michael Mann’s use of video in ‘Public Enemies.’ I never “got used to it.” In fact, I found it a distraction. When Ian Holm was giving his early exposition, I couldn’t hear a word of it, because everything looked so unusual and that’s what held my attention. Here are some things you can expect:
- When people run, they look like they are on the ‘Benny Hill Show.’
- Fire looks weird. This doesn’t matter too much when it is just a burning hearth, but when it is dragonbreath or hurled, flaming weapons, it is a problem. As a result, a moment that should read as triumph ultimately comes across as goofy. It looks so strange and unusual (as do many of the special effects) that it looks somewhat. . .cheap.
- Anything shot in daylight looks like a BBC production from the 1970s. The movement is too smooth. And yet, when the camera moves, too, it looks somewhat jerky.
- You really recognize the cuts between exteriors, effects shots and sets. There’s a scene on a cliff where Storm Giants fight that probably looks terrific in the traditional format. Watching it here all I could think about was “oh, that’s them on a set. Oh, that’s an effects shot. That looks like an actual mountain. Ooh that cut brought us back to the set again.” I’ve watched the similar Misty Mountain sequence in ‘The Fellowship of the Ring’ many times and I never once considered our heroes being on a set – I fully suspended my disbelief and thought they were in peril.
People interested in tech should see ‘An Unexpected Journey’ in 48fps (which is being marketing as HFR 3D). People just looking to see a great movie should just see it in 24. Of course, anyone looking for a great movie will be disappointed. ‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey,’ despite its many gimmicks, is just an okay movie."
-Screencrush
Shadow Hog
Member
What I saw was mixed, at worst. Some absolutely loved it, some absolutely hated it. Kind of what you'd expect, really.
Clearly, it is going to vary person to person. But I have yet to see a single person praise it,
"
What the 48 frame-per-second projection actually means is flat lighting, a plastic-y look, and, worst of all, a strange sped-up effect that makes perfectly normal actionssay, Martin Freeman's Bilbo Baggins placing a napkin on his laplook like meth-head hallucinations. Jackson seems enamored of 48 fps, but I can't imagine why. To me, it turned the film into a 166-minute long projectionist's error. I wanted to ask the projectionist to double-check the equipment, but really, I should just ask Jackson why he wanted his $270 million blockbuster to look like a TV movie."
"Disconcerting is the introduction of the film's 48-frames-per-second digital cinematography, which solves the inherent stuttering effect of celluloid that occurs whenever a camera pans or horizontal movement crosses the frame -- but at too great a cost. Consequently, everything takes on an overblown, artificial quality in which the phoniness of the sets and costumes becomes obvious, while well-lit areas bleed into their surroundings, like watching a high-end homemovie. A standard 24fps projection seems to correct this effect in the alternate version of the film being offered to some theaters, but sacrifices the smoother motion seen in action scenes and flyover landscape shots " Peter Debruge, Variety"
I have seen people "not hate it", but ive seen no one PRAISE It
Zyrusticae
Banned
This right here pretty much sums up the entire discussion.
Yeah, but if its a choice people don't like, doesn't that make it bad?
Its likely the tech is a good choice for some movies, not for others
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
Here's why I believe there is an important difference between the move to HD and increased framerate.
Higher resolution is addressing a deficit in visual reproduction technology. It makes things look more like what they are supposed to look like. It's immediately obvious to anyone that an HD image is an objectively superior reproduction of the source image than, say, a worn VHS tape.
Motion resolution is different. 24fps film is already convincing to the human eye. People have no trouble feeling as though what they are watching in a 24fps film is "real". So, 48fps is different more for the sake of difference; it doesn't address a widely perceived and acknowledged deficit.
It's objectively more visual information, but it's not substantially improving the sense of reality of what we're seeing on screen. In fact, it makes it look uncanny because it's different from what we're accustomed to seeing. So, in the short run, it could be seen as a decrement in visual presentation rather than an objective improvement.
If it becomes the standard and we get used to it, then that novelty will no longer be an issue, but it probably still won't evoke a greater sense of realism in the viewer.
Always-honest
Banned
It doesn't even look like a movie anymore
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
You've got it backwards.. People like 24fps because it feels like film, not like reality. It feels like fantasy..
48fps feels more "real" which is why people are having a hard time adjusting..
I am kinda weird about this as I watch all Blu rays in 24p, but I do watch some programming using my D8000's auto-motion plus..
Zyrusticae
Banned
These two nail it. You WANT your movies to look less like RL, as it helps serve the suspension of disbelief.
Higher frame rates are great for things that are supposed to be real, like news and sports broadcasts. For movies that are supposed to be played in theaters? Not so much.
Certainly, if that's the consensus.
Not having seen it myself, I can't judge, but I get the impression that I'm not going to like it.
First, not every movie needs to be "larger than life". There are movies that strive for a realistic, down to earth look, and 48 fps totally fit that mood. First example that comes into my mind is Collateral, a movie that's already shot with a very cold and artificial lighting (mainly neons) because it wants to look real and disturbing. A man being shot looks shocking, not awesome like in Bad Boys. In a movie like that, more realism is better, it helps the director to reach his goal. Of course, not every movie needs it, just like not every movie needs color (and I'd say that having color pretty much changes how the entire movie feels, to follow your reasoning).
Second, the whole "realistic" feeling comes entirely from habit. 24 fps isn't a magic number, and besides, European people have seen 25 fps movies on TV since the dawn of the PAL standard and no one complained. I've seen the Inception trailer and I think that the dynamic scenes look awesome in 60 fps, much better than the movie, while the scenes with people talking are strange, like I'm watching real people instead of a movie. Whether this increases the immersion or breaks it entirely it's up to personal preference. But trashing the entire idea because "movie were always at 24 and they need to remain like that" is dumb, because they weren't always like that and because it's a new tool in the hands of directors. Like every tool, it can be abused (like color correction) or it can be used to create awesome works of art.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
I didn't mean "real" in the sense of "it looks just like the world looks when I see it through my eyes." No framerate looks like that because it's a different system of representing images than the way our visual system works.
It's emotionally real. 24fps adequately conveys enough realism to make films powerful. Doubling that rate isn't going to make sad scenes more sad, or exciting scenes more exciting. It's going to make fast action less blurry, which won't necessarily translate into that action being perceived as more believable. I just think the relation between framerate and perceived "realness" is nowhere near 1:1, nor do I think it's even a consistently positive or negative correlation.
exmachina64
Banned
How profligate. I see no reason for more than 3.
Makes horror that much scarier. I literally have no idea what's going on!
Do you have a link to it or was it posted earlier in the thread?
AstroNut325
Member
That's my point. Going from 30fps to 60fps in a game doesn't change how well you can react by much, the fact that gaming is interactive is in my opinion irrelevant. Gaming in 60fps is much better because it's a much smoother experience. You notice stuff like how your car/character is moving much better and that is of course true for films as well.
Stuff like panning in 60fps can look so amazing I'm kinda sad there are so little 48/60fps footage recorded.
I would imagine so. Realistically though I don't think you'd want to run 48fps on a 60Hz television. I think 1-1-1-2 would be very juddery.
Reaction times at 60fps is worlds of difference. Try Dark Souls at 60fps, and see how much easier it is to parry enemies.
Shadow Hog
Member
Thinking about it, what might be the biggest boon for 48FPS catching on - assuming it actually does, which is not a given - would be that more video hosting sites would start supporting HFR videos.
It's always annoyed me that YouTube insists all video must be 30FPS or lower.
It's always annoyed me that YouTube insists all video must be 30FPS or lower.
Ape Gone Insane
Member
If anyone is interested, found these whilst I was having a look around:
action shot#2 at 24 fps: http://red.cachefly.net/learn/action2-24fps.mp4
action shot#2 at 60 fps: http://red.cachefly.net/learn/action2-60fps.mp4
24 fps and 48 fps video footage comparison (from thread on dvxuser.com)
More: http://www.48fpsmovies.com/high-frame-rate-example-videos/
action shot#2 at 24 fps: http://red.cachefly.net/learn/action2-24fps.mp4
action shot#2 at 60 fps: http://red.cachefly.net/learn/action2-60fps.mp4
24 fps and 48 fps video footage comparison (from thread on dvxuser.com)
More: http://www.48fpsmovies.com/high-frame-rate-example-videos/
It's 30fps. But using line doubling de-interlacing, the movements are in 60fps.
plagiarize
Banned
for anyone that doesn't know, 48 fps is just a stepping stone, picked because most existing digital projectors can display it with just a firmware update.
Avatar 2 and 3 are going to be shot in 60 fps next year if Cameron has his way, and the real perceptual magic happens around 100 fps. based on the testing results I was reading, at around 100 and beyond people who don't like the 'soap opera' feel of 60 stop complaining and just start going 'wow'.
I don't need an artificially low framerate in order to suspend my disbelief when I'm watching a film, and I bet no one really does. When action speeds up, I'd rather be able to see what's going on, personally.
Avatar 2 and 3 are going to be shot in 60 fps next year if Cameron has his way, and the real perceptual magic happens around 100 fps. based on the testing results I was reading, at around 100 and beyond people who don't like the 'soap opera' feel of 60 stop complaining and just start going 'wow'.
I don't need an artificially low framerate in order to suspend my disbelief when I'm watching a film, and I bet no one really does. When action speeds up, I'd rather be able to see what's going on, personally.
Zyrusticae
Banned
As long as they stick with a 1/24 shutter angle, I'm okay with this.
I get the feeling, however, that they won't.
And I will be angry.
Very, very angry.
This is a sick bad habit of people associating 24fps + motion blur (choppy!) with "movie feeling". You can't blame their poor standards though, movies didn't evolve since like 1940. It's about time movies are starting to run over 30fps. That Hobbit thing there is a damn minimum imo.
Oh yes I know that and I am extremely happy. Cameron is also doing a great job so far to slowly convince the dinosaurs in that industry. Thank fucking God for him.
plagiarize
Banned
why do you want to be able to see less as the camera or anything in front of it moves quickly? 24 fps can be easily downsampled from film shot at 100 fps for example. you blend three frames, then skip two, etc. or whatever. my brain isn't quite thinking straight
most 24 fps films don't have that shutter speed. most use a 180 shutter angle, which is equivalent to a 1/48 shutter speed. you can keep the 180 shutter angle at any frame rate if you love juddery motion.
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
you mean fps? framerate & refresh rate are different but relate to each other.
if you run a 60fps signal through a 120hz monitor it'll display 1 frame per 2 refreshs, a movie running at 24fps needs a TV/monitor to refresh at 24hz otherwise it would look kinda funny, great for games not so much for movies because they don't have high framerates, The Hobbot will be fine though but I don't think 48hz mode TV's exist do they?
Funchameleon
Banned
No, this sums up the discussion. It's horrible.
If the special effects and sets look phony in 24fps, what makes you think it will look better in a higher framerate?
So it's there to mask the shitty image quality then?
Yeah. Interlacing looks horrible.
This would cause juddering, easiest way to do conversion is to shoot with framerate which is dividable with the target framerate.why do you want to be able to see less as the camera or anything in front of it moves quickly? 24 fps can be easily downsampled from film shot at 100 fps for example. you blend three frames, then skip two, etc. or whatever. my brain isn't quite thinking straight
On subject of motion blur, shutters and HFR..
In future one possibility is to shoot in very high framerate and with a programmable shutter behavior in post or during recording..
IE.
300fps shoot with gaussian or box shaped shutter with length of 1/48.
This would bring a motion blur similar to the one we have seen with traditional 24fps 1/48 movies with a smooth motion.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
That 60fps action shot looks really weird near the end. Like it's a cut out in front of a green screen or something. I think directors will have to go through a lot of trial and error to get 60fps film to look right but I can see the potential.
If movie reviewers had their way, we'd never move anywhere in technology. Congratulations, you watch 200 movies a year and don't do anything else. No one cares, get used to new technology or get out of the way. The coooonstant griping about what movie critics have ot deal with to experience their hobby is ridiculous.
Yes, motion looks different at higher fps. It looks better. Their reaction: it looks different, it must be worse, ZOMG I'M SICK AND DYING. You'd thought they would've wasted all their FUD on 3D in the last several years, but clearly not.
Yes, motion looks different at higher fps. It looks better. Their reaction: it looks different, it must be worse, ZOMG I'M SICK AND DYING. You'd thought they would've wasted all their FUD on 3D in the last several years, but clearly not.
Zyrusticae
Banned
I'm sure you could "downsample" from a higher frame-rate just fine if you do the blending correctly (provided you do so from an FPS that is a multiple of 24, as mentioned), but I don't trust them to do the blending correctly.why do you want to be able to see less as the camera or anything in front of it moves quickly? 24 fps can be easily downsampled from film shot at 100 fps for example. you blend three frames, then skip two, etc. or whatever. my brain isn't quite thinking straight
most 24 fps films don't have that shutter speed. most use a 180 shutter angle, which is equivalent to a 1/48 shutter speed. you can keep the 180 shutter angle at any frame rate if you love juddery motion.
More to the point, they seem to be recording the 48 FPS video at the same shutter angle, which is resulting in film that looks like the equivalent of 1/96 shutter speed, and apparently it looks awful, which I'm not surprised by at all. I think they'd be better served by sticking with a 360° shutter angle (1/48 shutter speed) with the 48 FPS.
By the way, I just learned about the shutter angle calculator. Can you tell?
No, this is subjective. The motion blur is an important part of the experience.
In which video?
Hobbit was shot with 270° shutter.
It really is nice tool.By the way, I just learned about the shutter angle calculator. Can you tell?
Zyrusticae
Banned
Aha!
Same deal, 1/64 shutter speed looks weird in motion. No surprises there!
Mess with the frame rate all you want, messing with the perceived shutter speed just seems like it backfires more often than not.
CadetMahoney
Member
heh
Sweet, thanks. You cured a lifelong wanted-to-know of mine.
Canis lupus
Member
People dislike soap opera effects in movies.
I havn't been following this much. Why did they ever chose 48 FPS in the first place? Will anyone please explain me?
Also, It seems movie already have 9.2 at 6K votes at IMDB. Will stay somewhere over 8.4-8.5 at 100K votes I think. Don't think its going to be just an Okay movie.
Also, It seems movie already have 9.2 at 6K votes at IMDB. Will stay somewhere over 8.4-8.5 at 100K votes I think. Don't think its going to be just an Okay movie.
Less obvious temporal aliasing and judder, especially in 3D.
I like judder when a lion is chasing a gazelle. More cinematic.
Dictator93
Member
Yea.. if I was watching something scientific, I would actually hope the ramrate would be higher so that the fidelity and indivdual characteristics could be smoother and show more easily.
There are artistic choices for a lower framerate... but for objective image quality concerns, higher frame rate will lead to a more spectacular result on average. Especially in 3D.
Betta Lines
Member
When I saw The Dark Knight at IMAX, it was the fidelity of the opening scene, combined with the sheer size of the screen that made me think 'holy shit'. I think everyone in the theatre made a sharp intake of breath at the start.
I am very sensitive to framerates, and usually 24fps in film is annoying for me, particularly in panning shots. But in the case of TDK, the framerate just didn't matter at that point, because my eyes were already overwhelmed by the visual information of IMAX.
In the case of The Hobbit, it seems like they are delivering similarly overwhelming visual information in a different way - with more frames instead of more fidelity (not to say that it is particularly lacking in fidelity either).
I'm looking forward to it. I doubt it will deliver the wow factor of TDK IMAX, it'll be more subtle, but hopefully just as significant and in particular, easier on the eyes compared to 24fps 3D films.
I am very sensitive to framerates, and usually 24fps in film is annoying for me, particularly in panning shots. But in the case of TDK, the framerate just didn't matter at that point, because my eyes were already overwhelmed by the visual information of IMAX.
In the case of The Hobbit, it seems like they are delivering similarly overwhelming visual information in a different way - with more frames instead of more fidelity (not to say that it is particularly lacking in fidelity either).
I'm looking forward to it. I doubt it will deliver the wow factor of TDK IMAX, it'll be more subtle, but hopefully just as significant and in particular, easier on the eyes compared to 24fps 3D films.