pouët.net

48fps in movies

category: offtopic [glöplog]
Went to see the Hobbit last year ( 3D, 48 frames, the whole nine yards).
It looked like shit ! I mean at moments it looked like bad fan- fiction ("soap-opera-effect")!
Either they invent some fancy filtering/post processing that makes recorded film- sets don't look like bloody obvious film- sets OR start throwing some extra bucks on the set-design ( hint: HBO's Game Of Thrones - Gemma Jackson rules ) of the production.
At any rate, I wont watch this years edition just because of that fact(s).
added on the 2013-12-17 10:39:56 by d0DgE d0DgE
I've not seen a 48fps movie yet, but I rarely go to the cinema because the flickering screen looks like crap to me, so I'm hoping it'll be a lot more pleasant to watch.

It'll probably change how films are made to some extent too. At the moment, if you shoot a fast moving scene at 24fps, you have to keep some central object in focus and reasonably fixed on screen. Look at the background instead of that central object and it's a blurry, jerky mess.

...which probably helps explain why games need a higher framerate too, since you're free to look around at whatever you want instead of what the director wants you to look at.
added on the 2013-12-17 10:40:28 by psonice psonice
i rarely go to the cinema cos watching movies with shitload of people around you is teh suck. but the times i did go, the best movies were the ones where i smoked weed before going in. :P
added on the 2013-12-17 10:45:38 by havamal havamal
Maybe the interaction in games is why it looks normal to me in high frame rates. I control it so I know what to expect. While in hobbit, people where moving fast in unexpected times, so I had a hard time paying attention.

Thing is, it was ok in action scenes. Still hard to follow, but not looking sped up. The moments where it seemed sped up was at non action scenes where people where talking and moving their heads. Strange.
added on the 2013-12-17 10:55:17 by Optimonk Optimonk
The films should be interactive. That way, FPS would matter!

Recommended film:

BB Image
added on the 2013-12-17 17:21:46 by ham ham
240Hz movies please.
added on the 2013-12-17 18:19:30 by hornet hornet
Movies with 48fps is a very, very dumb idea.
If I want to watch a soap opera I'd turn on my damn telly at 8.
What Gloom and Ham said.
added on the 2013-12-17 20:27:06 by Nori Nori
Speaking of which.. Engadget reports
added on the 2013-12-17 23:08:21 by gloom gloom
Maali: does the same go for demos and parties too? :D

I saw the first Hobbit movie in 24 and 48 fps 3D in the cinemas, and normal 24 fps 2D at home. the 24/3D ver was, as expected, rubbish. For me it's either 48/3D or 24/2D as the 3D doesn't really work very well in 24/3D.

Both of the Hobbit movies had some problems with some effects and sets looking a bit fake in the 3D/48 version. It was more noticeable in the first movie since it had a sharper picture with less motion blur (probably different optics). Forest scenes that used sets felt like watching a play at the theatre, and some miniatures looked small.

I can understand why some people hate the high frame rate, especially for fantasy movies like The Hobbit. It would be nice to see something like a Michael Mann movie in the format as it probably wouldn't be as jarring.
added on the 2013-12-18 10:51:20 by Mel Mel
BB Image
added on the 2013-12-18 11:15:22 by w00t! w00t!
Huh. Had to delete pouet cookies to be able to log in..

VGHS season 2 has both 48fps and 24fps scenes in it; the "in-game" sections are 48fps

http://www.rocketjump.com/category/vghs

The 48fps parts "feel" like they are in higher resolution even though the pixel count doesn't change.
added on the 2013-12-18 11:21:26 by sol_hsa sol_hsa
BB Image
Another 48/24 test gif, 11 megs, so be patient =)

(original gif I edited for 48/24 comparison was from http://www.polygon.com/2013/12/17/5219944/the-vanishing-of-ethan-carter-footage- moving-images-photogrammetry, which has three 22 meg gifs, so be warned)
added on the 2013-12-18 11:58:25 by sol_hsa sol_hsa
Seems to somehow get the feeling 48fps is a bit sped up even if it's the same thing. Illusion? So maybe it happens in games too. Not sure.
But what is the real update of a gif animation? I guess you strip half of the frames in the 24 version?
added on the 2013-12-18 12:33:49 by Optimonk Optimonk
The 24 version just doubles every frame (or, in other words, skips every other frame)
added on the 2013-12-18 12:44:51 by sol_hsa sol_hsa
Wow, with these comparisons the difference looks really, really minimal. Yet the difference from a Soap Opera to a 24 fps movie is quite jarring. Weird!
added on the 2013-12-18 13:56:55 by elend elend
As I see there might be three different reasons why 48 hz always look like crap:

1) 24 hz put more constraints on movie makers. More work means better end quality.

2) Movie makers hav been working with 48 hz alot longer than the audience have been watching 48hz movies. They may be blinded by the new touch and are ready to ramp up the general movements/contrast in the animation, however the audicence is not (yet).

3) Movie industry need to get something new out, making 48hz very visibly a new cool feature (ie increasing animation speed) not caring about the end result. Much like they did with 3d (no one can seriously say that avatar is a decent *movie*).

The biggest problem imo with the 48 hz movies are not the current sucky movies themselves. But they will probably render all old movies unwatchable once we are used to 48hz. This means hollywood will make new remakes of old good movies and people will actually watch them.
added on the 2013-12-18 14:11:02 by Hatikvah Hatikvah
elend: that's because both GIFs get resampled to 60fps in your GPU (provided your browser can even play them without slowdowns) which introduces additional stutter. Really, frame rate comparisons only make sense when your display device is set to the exact frame rate you're testing (or integer multiples thereof).

You could try setting up a custom 48Hz mode and hope that your monitor will play along, and then look at the gifs again. On the other hand there's lots of screens that run at a fixed internal frame rate (60Hz mostly) and resample all incoming signals to that anyway. Fun Revision orga fact: All the oldschool 50fps videos stutter like crap on ALL screens we have in the orga/beamteam area because all of them run at a fixed 60hz internally regardless of screen mode - only the projector gets it right.
added on the 2013-12-18 14:57:01 by kb_ kb_
I liked both Hobbit movies in 48/3D.

Especially when viewing landscape shots or fast paced camera movements through highly detailed scenes I really love it.

I had the same "feeling" when switching from DVD to Blu-Ray in certain moments, when the details show you the ugly truth that the heavy dwarf axe isn't looking like steel.

But I guess I got quite used to all these "problems" and "feelings" in game graphics, so I really don't care at all. I like the look.

Overall it's just: Complaining on a high comfort level! :D :D :D
added on the 2013-12-18 15:22:26 by Raven^NCE Raven^NCE
Yep, actually it worked for me in landscape scenes, camera movements.
Besides sped up problem, I have hard time to focus on the movie. Feels like I need more effort to follow, like my brain cognition is slow and can't catch up. Even if they are the same frames.
What I didn't see is what other people said, being able to recognize the props, cheap feeling. Because I couldn't follow, lot's of information to process somehow. Ahhh,. I have a slow cognition here. Maybe I am natural 24framer :)
added on the 2013-12-18 20:09:52 by Optimonk Optimonk
I just tried some other HFS videos, still sped up.
And also will try the hobbit 24fps and 48fps version.

Also, maybe the effect existed in video games it's just that I never perceived it. I am trying capturing a game at 30 and 60fps. The smoother version also gives you a bit the impression of sped up but a little. I remember playing doom at 35fps, and then moving to modern ports at higher fps and thought it moves fast, but it's the same with enemies interpolated movement. So, maybe yes.. it only became apparent with the movies.
added on the 2013-12-18 22:04:34 by Optimonk Optimonk
Any technology that makes a Peter Jackson movie go by faster (even if it's only perception) is okay in my book!

(48fps sucks though)
added on the 2013-12-18 23:12:59 by sagacity sagacity
Umm, hello? There are quite a few direct to video releases in 50Hz (Pal). I think even Red Dwarf (Since it's shot in video). Ofcourse, you DVD-lamers can't keep up with that. :D

As Maali already said. It felt more like life footage or a play in a theater to me than a cineastic film. Many Analog-video-era TV-Series were shot in 50hz Progressive so I don't see where the novelty value is....
added on the 2013-12-18 23:26:57 by Exin Exin
@optimus speed up games? lol. try a racing game. the one i stricly remember is the gt hifi mode. played alot those old days and when i hit the hifi - maybe it's my reception - it looked rather slower then faster.
added on the 2013-12-18 23:30:43 by yumeji yumeji

login