120hz smoothing / soap opera effect - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 28 Old 03-07-2012, 03:07 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
L1n3arA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
First of all, please forgive me if I have posted this in the wrong spot. If I need to move it please let me know.

You know how on many newer displays, there's that 120hz smoothing option to help cancel out the motion blur and ends up producing that weird soap opera effect?

Well, I was pretty troubled the last 2 times I went down to my local theater / cinema. The reason being, was that distinct smoothing effect was present in the projected films. I couldn't believe it, I thought this was something relegated to those LED displays.

It was pretty jarring and seems to have only affected a large theater chain in my area; every movie is now projected similarly. Other theaters do not have this problem. Can ANYBODY please describe what is actually going on? How can a projector be giving off this same effect?

I want to know any specifics, so that I can ask a theater beforehand about their projection methods, that is before wasting $10 on a crappy experience. Thanks to anybody who can enlighten me!
L1n3arA is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 28 Old 03-07-2012, 05:50 PM
Senior Member
 
imblind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 223
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
It's that frame interpolation rubbish. I'm surprised to hear that they are using FI in a commercial cinema - are you certain? I really hate that feature...
imblind is offline  
post #3 of 28 Old 03-07-2012, 08:31 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
L1n3arA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well, I don't know exactly what it is, but I'm absolutely sure of the look; it sears my eyeballs as I sit through it.
L1n3arA is offline  
post #4 of 28 Old 03-08-2012, 03:10 AM
EJ
AVS Special Member
 
EJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Minot, ND
Posts: 2,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have that feature in my b-stock Epson 6500ub. I had never seen it in action, and knew before I saw it that I'd never use FI, especially for film.

I had True Lies playing, and I showed my dad and explained that it took 2 film frames, and added some in between. In a word, we both found it "creepy". It was like she was being interviewed on the local news.

However, I loved the 96Hz 24 frame 4:4 pulldown. All around, a very sweet projector.

Former USSB uplink operator.
EJ is offline  
post #5 of 28 Old 03-08-2012, 05:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Fatshaft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 1,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 98
Vanilla or chocolate...

To each their own right?

I, completely LOVE this feature and can't live without it.
My TV's have it, my projector has it and will never watch anything without this feature!

Watch it for a month and you'll never go back! I really believe people are not used to it and really don't give it a chance.
What I hate about it is that they really need to improve the artifacts with fast motion scenes.

again...to each their own...

Regards,
Fatshaft is offline  
post #6 of 28 Old 03-08-2012, 06:09 AM
EJ
AVS Special Member
 
EJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Minot, ND
Posts: 2,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatshaft View Post

Vanilla or chocolate...

To each their own right?

I, completely LOVE this feature and can't live without it.
My TV's have it, my projector has it and will never watch anything without this feature!

Watch it for a month and you'll never go back! I really believe people are not used to it and really don't give it a chance.
What I hate about it is that they really need to improve the artifacts with fast motion scenes.

again...to each their own...

Regards,

You're right, it's a matter of preference. I could see it being appealing to live events like golf. IMO, it would never be appealing when used for film. Those 24 images per second is part of the atmosphere.

It reminds me of the handful of The Twilight Zone episodes that were shot on videotape. To me, there was nothing appealing about the experience.

Former USSB uplink operator.
EJ is offline  
post #7 of 28 Old 03-08-2012, 07:20 AM
Senior Member
 
NYMN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 385
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I absolutely love this feature as well!! I set it to low on my W1200 and with my Blu Ray player set to 60p it works extremely well!! Very subtle without any of the judder!
NYMN is offline  
post #8 of 28 Old 03-08-2012, 07:23 AM
Advanced Member
 
Fat Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 591
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYMN View Post

I absolutely love this feature as well!! I set it to low on my W1200 and with my Blu Ray player set to 60p it works extremely well!! Very subtle without any of the judder!

Why is your blu-ray set to 60p?
Fat Dave is offline  
post #9 of 28 Old 03-08-2012, 07:54 AM
Senior Member
 
NYMN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 385
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
At 24p it just seems far too 'smooth' - soap opera'ish. Each projector's implementation of FI is different of course, but I get the feeling that at 60p, the W1200 is only creating 1 interim frame, whereas with 24p it's creating more - leading to that more unnatural look.
NYMN is offline  
post #10 of 28 Old 03-08-2012, 08:51 AM
Advanced Member
 
Fat Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 591
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
You're forcing 3:2 pulldown, so you're effectively creating judder just to partially smooth it through FI.

Horses for courses, I guess.
Fat Dave is offline  
post #11 of 28 Old 03-08-2012, 11:08 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
rdjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 9,736
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I'm a big fan of FI too - however, some films just don't take to it. Others look superb with it.

But I don't know of any commercial theater setups that are using FI...
rdjam is offline  
post #12 of 28 Old 03-08-2012, 03:04 PM
Senior Member
 
NYMN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 385
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Yeah, probably seems odd, but it is what it is. Smooth with no soap opera effect at 1080p60.
NYMN is offline  
post #13 of 28 Old 03-08-2012, 03:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
xb1032's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
It was eye catching to me when I first saw it and didn't like it on movies. Now I prefer it. I've never liked the stuttering effect that movies has always had. My JVC RS45's FI (even though it's not as good as others) actually has less artifacts than my 55" Samsung B650 LCD and the "SOAP" effect is probably just as noticeable.
xb1032 is offline  
post #14 of 28 Old 08-01-2012, 07:44 AM
Member
 
b5fan001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 57
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by L1n3arA View Post

First of all, please forgive me if I have posted this in the wrong spot. If I need to move it please let me know.
You know how on many newer displays, there's that 120hz smoothing option to help cancel out the motion blur and ends up producing that weird soap opera effect?
Well, I was pretty troubled the last 2 times I went down to my local theater / cinema. The reason being, was that distinct smoothing effect was present in the projected films. I couldn't believe it, I thought this was something relegated to those LED displays.
It was pretty jarring and seems to have only affected a large theater chain in my area; every movie is now projected similarly. Other theaters do not have this problem. Can ANYBODY please describe what is actually going on? How can a projector be giving off this same effect?
I want to know any specifics, so that I can ask a theater beforehand about their projection methods, that is before wasting $10 on a crappy experience. Thanks to anybody who can enlighten me!

In short, as movies are shot and displayed in higher frames-per-second than ever before, the soap opera effect (SOE) will be the rule rather than the exception.

Read these for more information:


http://www.studiodaily.com/2012/04/the-hobbit-the-soap-opera-effect-and-the-48fps-and-faster-future-of-movies/
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/337506/20120504/hdtv-hd-frame-rate-soap-opera-effect.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_interpolation
http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2012/04/the-hobbit-debuted-some-footage-in-48-fps-and-everyone-hated-it



Thanks for listening with an open mind,
-Will
b5fan001 is offline  
post #15 of 28 Old 08-01-2012, 02:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 3,737
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by xb1032 View Post

It was eye catching to me when I first saw it and didn't like it on movies. Now I prefer it. I've never liked the stuttering effect that movies has always had. My JVC RS45's FI (even though it's not as good as others) actually has less artifacts than my 55" Samsung B650 LCD and the "SOAP" effect is probably just as noticeable.

There shoudn't be any stuttering if your display accepts 24p (which both of those displays listed do). Stuttering only occurs when you're running the display at 60hz (or another non-integer of 24) and pulldown is being used to compensate for the lack of a refresh rate compatible for running 24hz. For 60hz it uses 3:2 pulldown. If your display still has stuttering in 24p mode with a 24 (or 23.967 fps) source then you are doing something wrong. Both of those displays will do 24fps without stuttering fine without the use of creative frame interpolation.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #16 of 28 Old 08-01-2012, 08:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DanLW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,331
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 26
I personally like the higher frames per second since it makes the picture so much more clearer. However, I don't like some of the artifacts I've seen. However, I've only played with FI on one TV, so I'm sure there are likely better implementations.

I do like that movies are now being captured at higher frame rates. You can't have FI artifacts if you don't need FI to get the higher frame rate.

Ultimately, it gives the movie director one more tool to help realize his creative vision. A director could film an entire movie at 48fps, and if he decides he likes the 24fps look better, it would be relatively simple to discard every other frame.

Ultimately, I think movies going to 48/60fps will spark a controversy similar to the wisescreen/pan scan controversy. Just like there were people who were used to seeing movies in pan and scan on VHS, and as a result hated the black bars on DVD, there will be people who are used to seeing movies in a slow frame rate who will resist the change to higher frame rates.

One thing is for sure. The set designers, costume designers, makeup artists, and CGI departments are going to have to work a bit harder to get things to not look fake.

Edit: Anybody have a link to a downloadable 48fps Hobbit trailer? I searched and found a lot of stories about the trailer, but not the trailer itself.
DanLW is offline  
post #17 of 28 Old 08-02-2012, 10:22 AM
Member
 
b5fan001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 57
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanLW View Post

Ultimately, it gives the movie director one more tool to help realize his creative vision. A director could film an entire movie at 48fps, and if he decides he likes the 24fps look better, it would be relatively simple to discard every other frame.
Ultimately, I think movies going to 48/60fps will spark a controversy similar to the wisescreen/pan scan controversy. Just like there were people who were used to seeing movies in pan and scan on VHS, and as a result hated the black bars on DVD, there will be people who are used to seeing movies in a slow frame rate who will resist the change to higher frame rates..


Your post reminds me of the time my cousin refused to watch a Star Wars DVD at my home because he hated the black bars. I told him that the entire was being displayed with the black and that he was being "cheated by pan and scan." He still insisted that I should have gotten the pan and scan version because it looked better to him. After DVDs were out for a while, he eventually came around.

I think that the whole argument about the SOE will be trumped by Hollywood's relentless drive toward technology that will get more people into the cinemas.

_Will
b5fan001 is offline  
post #18 of 28 Old 08-03-2012, 05:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DanLW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,331
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by b5fan001 View Post

I think that the whole argument about the SOE will be trumped by Hollywood's relentless drive toward technology that will get more people into the cinemas.

Aha, excellent point! After all, that's why widescreen came out in the first place. Old movies were filmed in 4:3, but once a TV found it's way in every home, the studios needed something to get people back in the theaters. And so we have widescreen.

Even still, I welcome 48/60fps movies. 24fps is like QWERTY keyboards. It's still around because everybody is used to it, and most equipment is designed for it. But there's no longer any real technological reason to stay with that frame rate. 24fps was not a creative choice. It was adopted because it was the slowest frame rate movies could be filmed at while not having the judder look too bad, and therefore it was the CHEAPEST frame rate to film at. But now movies are going digital and hard disk space is cheap. So whereas filming at 48fps would literally double the cost of the film required to film a movie, digitally capturing at 48fps in the long run isn't quite as expensive, especially since bad takes can be deleted.

Yes, it looks different, but I like it. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers opens with beautiful areal panoramic vistas of rugged mountains. Turn frame interpolation on, and to me, it's like "High High Definition". But I leave it on the lowest setting due to undesireable artifacts in certain scenes, and that's why I welcome the capturing of movies at a native 48/60fps.

However, I'm betting that future display technologies will probably have a "Frame Deletion" FD mode, which will be like a reverse pulldown. For those who really hate the look of higher frame rates, they can have their display electronically delete every other frame so that future movies can still be viewed at 24fps. Kinda like the "Zoom" modes on current display devices. It will be a wonderful tool for people who disagree with the director's intent.
DanLW is offline  
post #19 of 28 Old 08-04-2012, 12:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny SoCal
Posts: 1,678
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Wow am not thrilled to hear these new cutting edge productions coming are getting so much bad reaction. The descriptions by the actual people in the industry do sound just like what is hated about using FI on movies with some exceptions of reported better iterations of it in some products. " Looks like you're watching them make the movie rather than a movie" Or "looks like you are watching the extras at the end". RUH ROH in a big way.

Makes me wonder though is it all about the frame rate only or also the combination of it being shot with video cameras as well? I've always wanted to see the Showscan process. All the reports I heard from a few people at work who saw a demo of it one day, and read about over the years was enthusiastically positive. No one was making these kind of negative comments. That was 60 frames wasn't it? But of course it was shot on film. But people were applauding the "real" look it gave. And of course way more expense in film stock.

Anyone here ever see anything in the Showscan format?
RonF is offline  
post #20 of 28 Old 08-04-2012, 07:20 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,312
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonF View Post

Wow am not thrilled to hear these new cutting edge productions coming are getting so much bad reaction. The descriptions by the actual people in the industry do sound just like what is hated about using FI on movies with some exceptions of reported better iterations of it in some products. " Looks like you're watching them make the movie rather than a movie" Or "looks like you are watching the extras at the end". RUH ROH in a big way.

My DSLR can shoot 24p, 30p, and 60p, and I have the same reaction/opinion of stuff I've shot with that, stuff shot at 24p looks like a "movie", and stuff shot at 30/60p look like a "tv show" or news broadcast. I guess my preference is to use 24p for "creative" works, because to me the lower frame rate let's you know (probably subconsciously) isn't real, and aids in the suspension of disbelief while the higher frame rates give more of a "live" or looking through a window look, which IMO is not good for creative content because looking through a window in that case would be onto the set and not the fictional world that was meant to be created.
Quote:
Makes me wonder though is it all about the frame rate only or also the combination of it being shot with video cameras as well?

I don't really think so, at this point there have been a good number of movies shot digitally (most notably perhaps the Star Wars prequels), and I don't recall seeing a lot of negative reaction to those.
Quote:
I've always wanted to see the Showscan process. All the reports I heard from a few people at work who saw a demo of it one day, and read about over the years was enthusiastically positive. No one was making these kind of negative comments. That was 60 frames wasn't it? But of course it was shot on film. But people were applauding the "real" look it gave. And of course way more expense in film stock.
Anyone here ever see anything in the Showscan format?

I think it depends on what "type" of content, looking at the list of Showscan films, they seem to more like IMAX films than motion picture, meaning more documentary/real-life/"ride" type movies, which I think are suited to higher framerates and the "being there" or "live" or "real" look than "creative" or fictional storytelling works where I don't think "being there" is really the goal.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is online now  
post #21 of 28 Old 08-04-2012, 08:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny SoCal
Posts: 1,678
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
OK that makes sense. Didn't realize that maybe they never made any "traditional" type movies with it as IMAX finally was successful in doing. Of course the IMAX awe inducing technology was of a different nature. Not sure if with their film projectors those run at higher speed as well as the huge frame? (just looked it up....no....24fps)

If it is one of those type films where there is a lot of spectacular outdoor scenery and I am specifically just interested in that limited portion of the bluray program to use for demos on how "real" things can look in my setup with currently an RS50, I will sometimes experiment with going ahead and running at 24P but turning the projector's "Clear Motion Drive" (FI) up to its highest in mode 4. One example of that which I have been doing for a couple of years now is on the Planet Earth bluray with the opening aerial sequences in "Mountains". Going for the hyper real look as that footage is very sharp and the scenes are spectacular. It works great and looks more real than with FI off. There are only a couple tiny spots cruising over the massive ice fall....just prior to where the camera winds up looking to the left into the largest glacial valley on Earth, that some brief, tiny flickers or jumping occur.
RonF is offline  
post #22 of 28 Old 08-06-2012, 03:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sanderdvd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Netherlands, Europe
Posts: 2,182
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 23
As for today the film industry unfortnately still shoots a movie @23,976 frames per second. We are so much used to this that we think it looks good and higher FPS creates the so called soap opera effect. It is a fact that fast moving sequences will look MUCH better when movies will be shot in 48/60fps. I m sure 'The Hobbit' will prove this is december this year.

FI techniques are a temporary 'solution' for this although you will ALWAYS have artifacts when doing this. The best FI implementation is SVP Frame Interpolation. I use this myself and compared it to the FI technique on different display devices. It requires a (very) heavy CPU+GPU however.
sanderdvd is offline  
post #23 of 28 Old 08-06-2012, 06:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mtbdudex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 4,135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 162
How does the human eyes/brain system process visual information in real life?
At what point can it not distinguish from "faster" frame rates?

If 24fps was a limitation of film based reproduction, what psycho-visual studies have been done to determine with fact based data the desired fps for digital?
mtbdudex is online now  
post #24 of 28 Old 08-06-2012, 06:43 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,312
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbdudex View Post

How does the human eyes/brain system process visual information in real life?
At what point can it not distinguish from "faster" frame rates?
If 24fps was a limitation of film based reproduction, what psycho-visual studies have been done to determine with fact based data the desired fps for digital?

The BBC did a demo/experiment with 300fps capture video displayed on a 100fps capable display, showing the differences between 25, 50, and 100fps. I can't find a directly link, but here's a whitepaper that talks about it: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP209.pdf

The jist was there was a perceptible difference at or even beyond 100fps.

Of course for "movies", I don't think "reality" is the right goal. Movies are supposed to take you to times/places/events you haven't and/or could never possibly go, and I find high frame rates (60fps) get in the way of that. Making me feel like I'm sitting in my HT looking out a window onto a set, rather than just letting go and forgetting about where I am or that I'm watching an image and just accepting/enjoying it for what it is, entertainment.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is online now  
post #25 of 28 Old 08-06-2012, 07:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Elix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Dungeon, Pillar of Eyes
Posts: 1,183
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by b5fan001 View Post

In short, as movies are shot and displayed in higher frames-per-second than ever before, the soap opera effect (SOE) will be the rule rather than the exception.
Read these for more information:

http://www.studiodaily.com/2012/04/the-hobbit-the-soap-opera-effect-and-the-48fps-and-faster-future-of-movies/
Regarding the last paragraph in that article, quoted:
Quote:
There's something comforting and larger-than-life about the flickering effect of movies at 24fps. They don't look exactly like the real world looks, but that's not the point. Movies are supposed to be stylized. Like the actors and actresses who appear in them, they're meant to be cooler than the real world allows. Let's not be in too big a hurry to strip that specialness away.
This strongly reminds me of "The Artist" movie where protagonist believed that silent movies were the way to go and sounds were unnecessary because they take the charm away. This is exactly the same situation. I think that movies going with higher frame rates is an inevitable step towards new movie era. It makes movies look different? Sure. Someone said "looking through the window"... Remember Star Trek? It is entirely possible that our grand-grand-children will all be taking part in holo-novels instead of watching movies.
Elix is online now  
post #26 of 28 Old 08-06-2012, 11:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DanLW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,331
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbdudex View Post

How does the human eyes/brain system process visual information in real life?
At what point can it not distinguish from "faster" frame rates?

According to the BBC white paper linked a few posts ago, Sony determined ath 250fps is "close to the perception limit for both blur and jerkiness". (Page 5, para 5.4) Therefore, 240fps was suggested as a standard since it is a multiple of both 24 and 60fps. (It is also a multiple of 48fps)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elix 
This strongly reminds me of "The Artist" movie where protagonist believed that silent movies were the way to go and sounds were unnecessary because they take the charm away. This is exactly the same situation. I think that movies going with higher frame rates is an inevitable step towards new movie era.

Another good point. It's too bad the internet and AVS didn't exist back then. I can only imagine the fervid discussion which would have encompassed the switch to color, sound, cinemascope, and maybe even stereo and surround sound. I'll bet with a little digging I could dredge up a debate about the capturing of movies with film vs the new digital cameras... ... yup, here it is. Started in 2007, 255 posts worth.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/825993/digital-vs-film
DanLW is offline  
post #27 of 28 Old 08-07-2012, 06:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mtbdudex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 4,135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 162
Thx stranger for the bbc link, I'm on vacation still surfin AVS via iphone.
Will read this weekend.

Ok, so 250fps is "reality" as most peoples eyes/brain process , statistically avg of course, nice to know.
mtbdudex is online now  
post #28 of 28 Old 12-04-2012, 07:10 AM
Member
 
b5fan001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 57
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/newestpost/1443279
From CinemaBlend: Should You See The Hobbit In 48 fps?
See the thread above further discussing higher frame rate projection at the movies if you are interested.
b5fan001 is offline  
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off