Register
Events
Popular
More
Post #81
I watched both of these a few times, it's ridiculous how much better the 24fps is. There's a REASON it's a standard. The 48 looks unnaturally smooth and has weird and jittery blur. I hope this 48fps thing gets nipped in the bud and never goes anywhere, it's really unpleasant to watch.
-
-
So THAT'S why they look so weird. I could never figure that out.
-
It's a standard purely for historical reasons, not because it's "better" (It's only "better" because it's smoothed to hell and people are used to it)
Look at NTSC (The standard the US and other countries used for analog TV) it ran at 30fps (29.97fps with colour).
-
30 fps is where I'd set the limit to be honest. There is not really any point in going higher, when 24-25 fps is where the human brain starts to interpret it as actual motion. And I'm really scared that when we reach 48 fps some people will decide it's not enough and will want to go 100 fps or something and watching shit like that gives me a headache.
-
The relevant broadcast standards for digital TV go up to 60fps (for 720p content), I doubt that'd see much use though (As nice as it would be).
-
Wouldn't CGI look silly in 48fps anyways? I mean they'd have to get some seriously realistic animation done to not make it look like ass when mixed with live footage.
-
So what if 24 is an old habbit? it works. 30 and above look like a home camera, awful.
-
Everything is motion captured these days anyway.
Also, I'm surprised so much people in this thread don't know what 48FPS looks like.
Don't all of you play PC videogames? Isn't framerate the number one reason you fiddle with the graphical settings?
I for one adore smooth movements, and when possible I play games at 120FPS on a 120hz monitor. In my experience high framerate 3D looks great, and I suspect The Hobbit will look great as well.
-
First time I saw high FPS content it was like my brain was all confused and I couldn't follow along with what was happening, it seemed like everything was moving too fast and the voices wheren't synched, and I had to focus to actually understand what was happening. It was quite interesting to see what a lifetime of watching 24fps movies did to my brain.
Sometime later I started using SVP (smooth video project) and nowadays I can't stand to watch anything in 24fps.
-
The reason why high fps looks "too real" is because low fps media gets motion blurred to hell and back.
48 fps for example gets much less blur and we're able to see the detail we're usually not used to see in movies. In real life objects need to move very fast to cause blurring, otherwise they just move fast. In movies any moving object gets blurred more or less. If in real life we saw like we do in 24 fps movies, it would be nearly impossible to catch a ball or hunt as these things would be so blurry. Our eyes see very fast and they can subconsciously see the detail 48 frames offer, thus making it feel unreal or too real.
The reason we don't like high fps movies is because we're not used to them, we're expecting all that excess blur but if we get less of it we're feeling weird. It's kinda like driving a car with a different engine, you're driving a car but it feels weird as you're not used to it.
In theory movies should look much better at high framerate, especially in fast paced scenes like combat or car chases where you can see more detail. In reality we're not used to that and it gives us all kinds of headaches and stuff. When you watch tv, your brain goes into "movie" mode where it expects your standard 24-30 frames. What it gets is more and then it has problems processing that info as it has little experience in dealing with that.
I've used a 60Hz monitor for most of my life and then switched to 75Hz. At first it felt really weird for no apparent reason. After a while I got used to it and now I have the same problem when using 60Hz screens. A jump from 24 to 48 fps is quite a big jump and takes time to get used to. Unless you're an old geezer who dismisses everything simply for being newer.
I think we should slowly drop 24 frames and move onto higher fps. With time people will get used to it and in the end more frames is superior. But as others stated it requires more cinematography skills to look right as now directors got twice the framerate to work with and less motion blur to hide imperfections. But we can't stay on an old format for ages simply because everyone's used to it.
Us not being used to high fps could be a reason we don't adapt it for quite a while, which would be very sad as out own ignorance prevents progress.
-
I suspect the reason 48fps hasn't been recieved well is because of just that, the effect is incredibly jarring at first and takes a while to get used to. It took me watching an entire movie and several episodes of a show using SVP before I got used to the high fps. If people just got to try it for a couple of hours before seeing the movie so it's not so jarring it would be fine, and people could instead just pay attention to the extra detail.
-
ONce you get past the mild initial reaction 48FPS is far better, it's much clearer and the choppiness I see in films sometimes (particularly in horizontal pans) is gone, it's great. People are just mentally conditioned to prefer 24FPS since it's been with us for longer.
-
the two people I've pointed it out to before have completely point-blank denied that there's a difference, it's infuriating
I wonder if having played PC games throughout my life has anything to do with being able to tell the difference
-
If it looked horrible then Cameron and Jackson wouldn't be going on about it.
-
itt people are too used to something to change to something better
-
What about stuff like environments or things that just can't be mocapped?
-
What about environments? Static objects will look the same as they do at 24 fps. Seriously if your animator is bad he is bad. Less frames won't save your ass.
-
I think about 30FPS would be nice, I heard somewhere that 30FPS is the natural thing for the human eyes
-
There is absolutely no choppiness in 24fps and if any film has choppiness it's on no part due to the framerate.
Edited:
And yet he still made the disaster that was Avatar
Edited:
There is no 'natural' framerate for the human eyes. We don't see in frames.
-
Cameron? You mean the same guy who swore that 3d is the coming thing? Yeah, he knows what movie tech is hot. Jackson can get away with it for the same reason Cameron scored with Avatar, as the first big title(The Hobbit) to use it he'll get many people to come see it "to see what it looks like".
After that, the majority of movie fans won't want 48fps, like with 3d now.
-
there's been so many predictions about stuff like this in the past that have been completely wrong or off the mark, i guess we'll just have to see.
"640kb ought to be enough for anybody" is a similar anecdote
-
Perhaps. I think what I'm worried about is the possibility that the thousands and thousands of movies shot at 24fps will be difficult to watch if 48fps becomes the new standard.
-
We have one of those HDTVs that interpolates frames to make what you're watching seem to be 48FPS. I absolutely fucking love it.
Christened that new television by watching Eureka on Netflix. We got the television because our old one had went down the way of the shitter, and we were saving up to buy a new television anyways (the old one gave us endless problems, so we didn't miss it when it finally died for good). We were Eureka on the old one, too.
The difference was simply astounding on the new television. It looked amazing. I don't know how I could have ever thought 24FPS looked good - 48FPS just looks so life-like. Simply amazing.
I want to see this film in 48FPS so badly.
-
Oh wow, you can actually see the foot moving at 48, unlike 24 where its just a blur.Here is good comparison
24 FPS:
48 FPS:
Much more lively.
But I can see why people dislike it, a whole movie like that? Would feel weird at first but once you get used to it it's probably epic.
-
because I love watching movies that look like pbs
-
That video in 24 FPS looked pretty normal the first time watching, but compared to the 48 FPS it looked like absolute shit.
Can't wait for 48 FPS to be a standard.
-
Already watched some movie at 48 FPS. I was so confused, since every time the camera moved sideways or change position, it felt like the screen was sort of moving as well, it was so weird.
Although the movie looked really fantastic.
-
It'll likely never be a standard as long as film dominates with regards to video quality. When shooting at 48fps each reel of film lasts half as long as when shooting at 24fps, this is a significant increase in cost. I can appreciate the lack of blurriness that shooting at 48fps gives, but I'd much rather see directors shooting in 70mm IMAX. There is 48fps IMAX HD, but it costs around 5x more than shooting at 24fps on 35mm film so nobody does it.
-
Also, 48fps is logically going to take more bitrate on digital storage spaces
-
"people give DBS shit all the time but he's really a good guy and i'm glad he's my friend" -no one
March 2009
17,013 Posts
24fps only looks good in a theatre because it's dark and you eyes perceive less of a difference between frames
-
Oh, man... The Hobbit on IMAX at 48FPS. Hella expensive to pull off but I'd be damned if that wasn't pure eyecandy if there ever was one.
-
I've never had a problem viewing 24fps video on any screen. Hell, a properly mastered blu-ray is a thing of absolute beauty (Avatar, Saving Private Ryan, Rango, etc)
-
I want to watch it in 48fps.
-
having watched an entire film in 48fps i can tell you that it looks absolutely abysmal; everything is far too clear (moreso than in real life) and thus feels completely unnatural. The reason that 24fps films look great is because of the fact that the eye focuses on something like 2-5 degrees /180 of detail, and everything else gets blurred. A normal film @ 24fps emulates this with the inclusion of motion blur. With the 48fps films, everything is in focus and is substantially more jarring. It feels completely unnatural because the human eye is not used to having things be that focused that is supposed to be a representation of reality. That's the reason why things like videogames etc look so much better at higher framerates, because subconciously we know it's not reality - even photorealistic games. And the distance to the image has a lot to do with it.
basically, in real life not everything is in crystal clear focus.
this same argument goes for 3d, btw. no ability to change the focus yourself, which results in everything looking too clear. it also destroys mise en scene, but whatever
-
Well everyone likes high framerates in their games, so I can't see why they wouldn't want the same for movies
-
They're filming with Red Digital cameras so I'm not really excited for the IMAX release. Won't look as good as a film shot on 70mm film.
-
My TV plays at a higher fps (I think around 30 or so) which can be bad when the TV show isn't recorded in a higher FPS, but once you get used to it you really start to enjoy how life like it is, even though it makes even the best CGI look like fucking garbage.
-
I remember watching part of Monsters vs Aliens on a high framerate TV at Best Buy. The higher framerate really made the movie look bad.
-
If its interpolated, its going to look pretty unnatural, since the TV is "guessing" at what is between the frames, which can cause weird stuttering and artifacts.
If its originally shot a 48 or 60 fps, its will produce a much better effect. It will become as smooth as a home video camera or a sports game on television.
-
My biggest problem with the Lord of the Rings films was that the fight scenes were blurry as hell, especially in the first one. If this fixes that than I am all for it.
Dumb x 10
Agree x 9
Disagree x 2
Winner x 4
Funny x 1
Zing x 1
Informative x 1
