Nothing you can't get used to though. We're in a stalemate for years just because people don't want to handle the transition phase.
-
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
AltogetherAndrews
Member
One amusing thing here is that certain DSLRs have been particularly coveted because of their 24p capability. It wasn't half as much talk about the first models that allowed 1080/50p/60p despite the higher flexibility in post.
Betta Lines
Member
Oh I forgot to make my main point - that TDK IMAX was amazing because it looked real - there was so much visual information in that opening shot it genuinely felt like I was flying. So I can understand why some people feel uncomfortable if a film looks like this, whether it is done with fidelity or framerate. The separation is no longer there, so I guess it can be quite terrifying. But I think in the case of people who want full immersion, particularly gamers who are used to the concept, will have a great time seeing HFR films.
You don't really get it for free or automatically though.
There was a video from the hobbit that was released few months ago without motion blur at 48FPS and internet streaming versions were at 30FPS and it looked jerky as hell.
The biggest issue with 24FPS is that the camera pan has to be slow otherwise it'll look extremely bad (LOTR mountains !) because there simply isn't much information for the transition to be smooth even with motion blur.
People who say more than 24fps is wrong for films remind me of people who said non-analogue audio was wrong for music when CDs came out.
The Hobbit factually doesn't look like a soap opera - show me a soap opera with that level of production, attention to detail, lighting direction, staging etc. The higher framerate doesn't make it look "cheap" by any measure. It might be jarringly close in terms of temporal resolution to what they've been used to on television for a while, but that's where the similarities end, a temporary reaction at worst for a level-headed individual with at least one functioning eyeball.
It's going to be an adjustment period for people with pre-conceived conceptions about what a medium of art should be. The close-mindedness is astounding.
The Hobbit factually doesn't look like a soap opera - show me a soap opera with that level of production, attention to detail, lighting direction, staging etc. The higher framerate doesn't make it look "cheap" by any measure. It might be jarringly close in terms of temporal resolution to what they've been used to on television for a while, but that's where the similarities end, a temporary reaction at worst for a level-headed individual with at least one functioning eyeball.
It's going to be an adjustment period for people with pre-conceived conceptions about what a medium of art should be. The close-mindedness is astounding.
Yeah the trailer for Inception in 60fps breaks the soap opera theory, because it features many scenes that would look impossible on a soap opera, due to the various cinematic angles and special effects.
Betta Lines
Member
Is that Inception trailer true 60fps? And if so, how? They shot it at 60?
Inception had a 60fps trailer? I hadn't thought it was shot at that framerate.
edit - Wait, fucking Tron Legacy in 60fps?
Are you just posting converted trailers? I'm not in a position to watch them right now and confirmed, but if those are 24fps to 60fps converts, then it will look fucking nasty, like the 100hz interpolation in TVs. You're not helping the level headed "give 48fps a chance" crowd at all.
Sorry dude. Those 100Hz hardware interpolations are terrible. Since it breaks alot and has tons of artifacts.
This one is really good though.
It's true 60fps. But it was actually shot in 24fps. Nolan didn't have the technology yet.
Says the person who hasn't seen the movie.
GO back a page and look at the countless reviews of the hobbit in 48fps and how cheap it looks
If it genuinely looks cheap, and not just the reviewers having an inability to disassociate framerate from preconception, it isn't 48fps doing that. Temporal resolution doesn't have an inherent quality of expense.
Ugh. It'll look bad no matter what. Whoever made it will be inventing video information to fill in the gaps, exactly like 100hz interpolation. It might be a better form of interpolation, but it'll be just that.
Wonko_C
Member
All those suppossed "60fps" trailers posted here look like converted from 24/30 fps. They can't get rid of the parts where the camera pans smoothly at 60fps while in the same shot people or objects are moving at 30 fps, that's what makes motion interpolation look jarring, it's not evenly smooth.
The Tron Legacy trailer has too many still shots that 60fps doesn't make a difference, and the few action shots are too few and too quick that there isn't enough time to appreciate them.
Speaking of Tron: What if they shoot at 24fps for the real life parts and at 48/60fps for the digital world parts?
The Tron Legacy trailer has too many still shots that 60fps doesn't make a difference, and the few action shots are too few and too quick that there isn't enough time to appreciate them.
Speaking of Tron: What if they shoot at 24fps for the real life parts and at 48/60fps for the digital world parts?
No it's different because the choice of media is an important part of the creative process of film making, not just a delivery system.
As far as audio recording goes you could lose count of the number of plugins that are intended to put analogue 'warmth' back into digital recordings. The point is people like that warmth and despite years of digital media it's still the most sought after sound - but without some of the drawbacks of an analogue physical medum.
24fps vs 48fps is an artistic choice - like colour vs black and white. You could argue all day long that colour is more realistic and better, but it's a moot point. In the same way, 48fps may well look perfect for certain films - someone mentioned Tron - but on others it may not be the way to go.
48fps is great because it's another tool that film makers can use if it suits what they're filming, but they still should have the choice for what works best with the material.
I don't think they did. Every CG element in the movie must be rendered, why would they waste time and money to render 60 frames when they just need 24? It's more than double the time, and some renders take days just for processing (in the LotR commentary they said the Ents took an awful amount of time on their render farms - maybe it's because they used outdated tech, idk).
How does that work? If it is 60fps but was shot in 24fps does that mean it was interpolated?
I found a clip. Working on it now.
Yes. But this was done through encoding. Very, very, high quality & slow and not possible in realtime.
Betta Lines
Member
That's what I meant. So it's not true 60fps. There is no additional visual information, therefore it's pointless.
There are additional frames. It's 60fps. Which is the entire point of interpolation.
It's not native with every shot natively shot in 60fps.
But what you see on the screen is a 60Hz video.
Think about what the program did. Doubling from 24fps would give you 48fps. 12 more frames were created using a mathematical algorithm to give a 60fps framerate.
But that is nothing like natively shot 48fps/24fps content.
For all intents and purposes, your 60fps Tron trailer is still 24fps footage - extra frames have simply been inserted in between. The result is a disorientating video that looks like it has been sped up or slowed down from the original due to having more frames than it actually has the visual information to accommodate.
I would say it's fairly accurate. I can do a native 60fps video vs. Interpolated to test the program.
Betta Lines
Member
Have you actually seen a native 48fps clip? (on a display that can show it properly)
ihearthawthats
Banned
would it not be equivalent to upscaling the resolution of a picture via filters? as good as it can look, i doubt it'd be good as having the original source being 60fps.
Only some allegedly native clips posted earlier in the thread, on my monitor.
The algorithm is alot more complicated than that.
But it will be an interesting comparison.
Shadow Hog
Member
More or less, yeah.
Okay GAF...
What looks better?
Native 50fps
http://www.100fps.com/brit.avi
Interpolated 60fps
http://www.gigashare.in/c2344
What looks better?
Native 50fps
http://www.100fps.com/brit.avi
Interpolated 60fps
http://www.gigashare.in/c2344
If you guessed right... They both look the same
Betta Lines
Member
I don't even understand what you're trying to prove now. For start, they don't look the same on my 60Hz monitor - the 50fps clip stutters on the pans. Obviously the 60fps version hooks up to the refresh rate and therefore looks smoother.
I don't think anyone was disputing this, and I don't see what this has to do with The Hobbit at 48fps.
I think the discussion was that interpolating to 60fps from a 24fps source, as was the case with those trailers, makes it appear smoother but doesn't add any visual information and therefore is not at all comparable to The Hobbit, which literally has double the information.
I don't think anyone was disputing this, and I don't see what this has to do with The Hobbit at 48fps.
I think the discussion was that interpolating to 60fps from a 24fps source, as was the case with those trailers, makes it appear smoother but doesn't add any visual information and therefore is not at all comparable to The Hobbit, which literally has double the information.
The real difference between native 48fps and interpolation is when you slow things down to a crawl and see the flaws in the new frames. In motion, good interpolation is nigh indistinguishable from the real thing.
Playing at full speed, you don't really know the difference. Many people mistaked the 48fps Hobbit trailer for real 48fps. Early reports compared the real Hobbit 48fps footage to motion interpolation.
That should really tell you something.
So no, posting these videos aren't pointless since they give an approximation of what 48fps should like since, 60Hz syncs with your monitor better than 48/50fps.
boiled goose
good with gravy
completely different and a terrible comparison.
60 fps is an enhancement, that might make things look more realistic and detailed and lead to loss in "cinematic quality" (whatever that means)
analogue to digital is a sacrifice in quality, no doubt about it. but the sacrifice is probably trivial to most people.
"Cinematic" was not set in stone to 24fps. Remember Cinema started at 15fps until 24fps was pushed as the standard. So the reaction to 24fps back then was pretty much like the reaction to 48fps now. Some people don't like change.
There were people back then who believed TECHNICOLOR was phony.
Zyrusticae
Banned
Why does no one ever pay attention to the shutter speed argument?
Give me a break, folks. Please stop talking about this if you're not even going to cover all your bases.
Eh, there is definitely a difference and it's pretty easy to see. Finer, subtle motions or sweeping, high speed motions with fine details tend to suffer pretty noticeably when motion interpolation is used.
You were off with this comment, however...
50 fps and 60 fps look different.
Actually dark, that depends on the strength of the interpolation, let's say I increased the parameters for smoother motions on more subtle things... I can lose alot more cohesiveness in the frame and introduce more artifacts. Good interpolation is about tradeoffs.
And the 50fps and 60fps is just slightly sped up. lol
(I actually increased the parameters to keep all the subtle movements fluid like the original)
Since someone asked for a better example...
Here's a Tron Legacy 60FPS clip
http://www.gigashare.in/1e0c3
Here's a Tron Legacy 60FPS clip
http://www.gigashare.in/1e0c3
I realize that, but as you note, there are trade-offs and those trade-offs are generally quite visible. It still looks good, though.
Actual 50 and 60 fps do look different even when viewed on a proper 50 Hz monitor (in the case of 50 hz). If you simply increase the playback speed of 50 hz content to 60 fps it will also look different (in a different way).
Still, 50 fps on a proper 50 hz display looks very nice still (just different from 60). I also think 24 fps looks great when viewed on a display capable of handling it properly (ie - no image judder). On such a display or in the theater, the actual look of 24 fps really isn't bad.
Good points.
Betta Lines
Member
I still think they're pointless, and I don't understand why you think a 24fps source interpolated to 60fps gives me any idea of what The Hobbit will look like. If you're just showing it to demonstrate smoothness in panning, then fair enough, but I don't need such a demonstration. I know what smooth panning looks like. What I want to see is true 48fps at cinema quality, so that I'm actually seeing twice the detail sent to my retinas at twice the speed. And the closest I'm gonna get to that is if I had The Hobbit trailer at 48fps at very high bitrate, running through a 240Hz TV.
Unfortunately I don't have these things.
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
That could actually be nice.
I have watched part of Legacy with Auto Motion Plus on, and it is one movie that actually looks pretty good with that feature on.