Do You Like the Look of HFR? - Page 10 - AVS Forum
View Poll Results: Do You Like the Look of HFR?
Yes 166 46.76%
No 95 26.76%
I've never seen HFR 94 26.48%
Voters: 355. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #271 of 316 Old 01-16-2014, 09:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
David Susilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Markham, Canada
Posts: 9,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Liked: 327
They are mutually exclusive. One is frame rate, the other is resolution. rolleyes.gif

follow my A/V tweets @davidsusilo

ISF, THX, CEDIA, Control4 & HAA certified
Reviewer for TED, QAV, AUVI & DownUnder Audio Magazine

my (yet to be completed) BD list
my home theatre

David Susilo is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #272 of 316 Old 01-16-2014, 09:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
djbluemax1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: MI
Posts: 2,243
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokekevin View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 View Post

I wouldn't say that it's a matter of folks not being hardwired to see 24fps without noticing the judder because the judder IS there. Some folks have just gotten so used to seeing it that they just ignore/overlook it (kind of like the way frame interpolation fans see the haloing/artifacts but try to overlook it).

As for the lighting looking fake, it looked as bad (or good, whichever way you want to take it) as it did in the LOTR movies. I just think that when some folks are distracted by the different look of HFR, they then focus on and find faults with everything else while trying to understand WHAT it is they don't like about the difference they're seeing.

As mentioned though, the makeup artists, set designers etc. are simply going to have to step up their game to account for the increased clarity, as they did with HD.


Max

Could be but I still can't help but think the CGI was a bit "lacking" in the first hobbit in HFR. Possibly maybe because the orcs were actually actors in LOTR and the orcs in the Hobbit are cgi?
That's a really amusing and interesting comment and inadvertently demonstrates one of the things I've been talking about. The odd motion causes folks to focus on everything without really understanding what it is they don't like.

In a topic about HFR, you just mentioned that the CGI in The Hobbit "was a bit lacking"... in comparison to live actors in the previous movies... and then wondered, if it might be due to the difference between live actors vs CGI. If you watched the movie in only 24fps, there would have been no question, i.e. "oh, the CGI orcs definitely didn't look as realistic as the previous movies with live actors playing orcs", but because you're unused to the motion and clarity, you actually had to wonder if the less than stellar results were due to CGI vs live actors.

Being used to the motion of HFR from frame interpolation, there was no adjustment period for me and I can say that the CGI whether in HFR or 24p looked like decently done CGI (but identifiably CGI nonetheless) in any other 24p movie like Avatar, Jurassic Park 2 & 3, or even the CGI Gollum vs the the live actor orcs in the LOTR series.


Max
djbluemax1 is offline  
post #273 of 316 Old 01-16-2014, 09:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
djbluemax1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: MI
Posts: 2,243
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

They are mutually exclusive. One is frame rate, the other is resolution. rolleyes.gif
They're not mutually exclusive. The enhanced clarity possible in HFR increases the possible motion resolution.

The post I replied to was talking about increased costs due to having to pay greater attention to detail to make props, makeup and sets look more realistic due to the increased clarity making poorly done effects more obvious. That's no different to those same details requiing greater finesse when the static resolution increased from SD to HD.


Max
djbluemax1 is offline  
post #274 of 316 Old 01-17-2014, 01:54 PM
Newbie
 
espidus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10

How about filming in VFR, Variable Frame Rate, that speeds up with the on-screen "action" or fast camera pans and such. Win-win.

espidus is offline  
post #275 of 316 Old 01-17-2014, 02:11 PM
Senior Member
 
billdag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 412
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 22
"They're not mutually exclusive. The enhanced clarity possible in HFR increases the possible motion resolution."

Yes. Faster frame rates reduce and allow for less motion blurring while still conveying smooth motion. Even 60 fps sports programs on 720P networks like ABC and FOX have plenty of blur during action sequences. Just freeze frame your PVR and you can easily see that the resolution is greatly reduced from a static scene. However, the amount of blur is much much less than you see in a typical 24 fps film. As I've mentioned before, motion blur is critical to give the impression of smooth motion at such a low frame rate. It can, however, get ridiculous and unwatchable, if the director allows too fast camera panning. Artistic effect aside, that is likely why cameras, in most films, tend to pan at such an ultra slow speed most of the time.
billdag is offline  
post #276 of 316 Old 01-18-2014, 07:28 AM
Member
 
iBrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 192
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
I love HFR and SOE. For 3D it's essential to have better motion clarity and clean 3D depths/layers/pop-outs effects.
Watching 24fps is like watching a flip book cartoon. Likewise cinema's all have at least Dolby/DTS 5.1 sounds and not just stereo in this age!
iBrad is offline  
post #277 of 316 Old 01-18-2014, 07:36 AM
Member
 
iBrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 192
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by espidus View Post

How about filming in VFR, Variable Frame Rate, that speeds up with the on-screen "action" or fast camera pans and such. Win-win.
They excisted 100 years ago with the Hand Cranked Motion Picture Camera's.
iBrad is offline  
post #278 of 316 Old 01-18-2014, 11:22 AM
Senior Member
 
cbcdesign's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Clevedon. UK
Posts: 421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 48
I don't get any sense of faster movement or odd movement with HFR and frankly never expected too. Having a faster frame rate does not alter the distance a character covers either on foot, on horseback or in motion in a given amount of time, its exactly the same regardless of the number of frames per second shown on screen so why some to get a sense that movement is altered by HFR is a complete mystery to me. I think they are just so used to motion blur with 24 frame that the extra clarity HFR provides gives people an impression of increased speed but math wise it just aint so.

All I see is smoother motion in fast panning or action shots and for 3D that is a great improvement as far as I am concerned.
cbcdesign is offline  
post #279 of 316 Old 01-18-2014, 12:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
How about filming in VFR, Variable Frame Rate, that speeds up with the on-screen "action" or fast camera pans and such. Win-win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBrad View Post

They excisted 100 years ago with the Hand Cranked Motion Picture Camera's.
But A) It wouldn't have been reliable or accurate, and B) the projector displaying it wouldn't have altered speed with any changes in the source frame rate.
They could do it digitally - probably just shoot at the highest frame rate and then use image processing/frame skips for the lower frame rates. It could cost more if they need to pay patent fees to Douglas Trumbull frown.gif.
Though after a while they'll probably just still with one high frame rate instead. It would be interesting to see some films shot like that though, but I think eventually, the judder of 24 fps will seem so bad they'll rarely show in that rate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcdesign 
Having a faster frame rate does not alter the distance a character covers either on foot, on horseback or in motion in a given amount of time, its exactly the same regardless of the number of frames per second shown on screen so why some to get a sense that movement is altered by HFR is a complete mystery to me
I think it may not be exactly the same, since, the higher frame rate may capture the distance moved more accurately. But I agree with what you're saying - assuming the camera captured it correctly and the display displayed it correctly and there was no other processing like motion interpolation.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #280 of 316 Old 01-20-2014, 03:48 AM
Member
 
Watcher12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 196
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
I love the look of HFR and motion judder cancellation/ frame interpolation. I was disappointed to see that in Smaug the image was softened and was not as sharp as Unexpected Journey due to the public's original reaction to HFR. Smaug looked good but Unexpected Journey looked much better, IMHO. I hope Peter Jackson and other film makers continue to embrace HFR and make it the standard in all filmmaking regardless of genre. The choppiness and blurriness of juddery 24p is just unwatchable to me.
Watcher12 is offline  
post #281 of 316 Old 01-20-2014, 10:03 AM
Senior Member
 
TheFranchise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 229
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watcher12 View Post

The choppiness and blurriness of juddery 24p is just unwatchable to me.
I'm a big fan of SVP motion processing, and though some people really push the use of the higher settings that require a very strong computer (and also unfortunately introduce "speed lines blur"), even lowly settings of 48fps and SVP only kicking in on large movements like panning are such a huge improvement over regular 24fps.
TheFranchise is offline  
post #282 of 316 Old 01-20-2014, 04:08 PM
Member
 
Watcher12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 196
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFranchise View Post

I'm a big fan of SVP motion processing, and though some people really push the use of the higher settings that require a very strong computer (and also unfortunately introduce "speed lines blur"), even lowly settings of 48fps and SVP only kicking in on large movements like panning are such a huge improvement over regular 24fps.

For me any artifacts with frame interpolation are far less annoying than 24p judder. I've had an F8500 for about six months now and watch everything with Motion Judder Canceller on Smooth (highest setting). When I watch 24p content it looks like I am watching a flipbook.

The beauty of HFR is that it has all the benefit of higher frame rate/ frame interpolation with none of the artifacting. smile.gif
billdag and freemeat like this.
Watcher12 is offline  
post #283 of 316 Old 01-20-2014, 04:15 PM
Senior Member
 
billdag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 412
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watcher12 View Post

For me any artifacts with frame interpolation are far less annoying than 24p judder. I've had an F8500 for about six months now and watch everything with Motion Judder Canceller on Smooth (highest setting). When I watch 24p content it looks like I am watching a flipbook.

The beauty of HFR is that it has all the benefit of higher frame rate/ frame interpolation with none of the artifacting. smile.gif
I agree with you 100%. Once you've gotten used to watching with interpolation on it is quite shocking to see a film at 24 fps like when you accidentally leave you set in GAME mode which, in my case, doesn't allow added interpolated frames. Too bad we still have to suffer with less than perfect motion until the day comes when they've finished 'filming' in 24 fps. Can't wait!!
freemeat and Watcher12 like this.
billdag is offline  
post #284 of 316 Old 01-20-2014, 04:19 PM
Member
 
Watcher12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 196
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by billdag View Post

I agree with you 100%. Once you've gotten used to watching with interpolation on it is quite shocking to see a film at 24 fps like when you accidentally leave you set in GAME mode which, in my case, doesn't allow added interpolated frames. Too bad we still have to suffer with less than perfect motion until the day comes when they've finished 'filming' in 24 fps. Can't wait!!

I hope HFR becomes the standard as well. Unfortunately, I just read an article that Star Wars Episode VII will be shot on actual film. Ugh. They didn't mention at what frame rate but I assume it means 24p since they are using real film.
Watcher12 is offline  
post #285 of 316 Old 01-20-2014, 06:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Rolls-Royce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victorville, CA
Posts: 1,991
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 61
I find the discussion about motion blur in HFR presentations interesting. Does anyone remember the original single-film animated LOTR from the 1970's? Although it was animated, it was done by rotoscoping, which means it was filmed using live actors, then each frame was painted over to create the fantasy characters and backdrops. This gave the characters accurate human movement BUT the process of cleanly outlining and painting the characters and background removed all motion blur captured in each frame. This gave a distinctly odd effect of the characters' arms and legs lengthening and shortening during movement as though they were rubber bands. Imagine an onscreen character swinging a sword toward the camera. The arm and sword would begin at full length, but as the sequence progressed and the sword began to point at the camera, they would appear to retract inward toward the body. As the sword passed the camera's POV, it and the character's arm would return to full length. This was very weird to watch.

Thankfully, no one has described the same thing with HFR! smile.gif

...Royce...

"I never drink...wine."
Bela Lugosi, DRACULA, 1931
Rolls-Royce is offline  
post #286 of 316 Old 01-20-2014, 07:17 PM
Senior Member
 
billdag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 412
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rolls-Royce View Post

I find the discussion about motion blur in HFR presentations interesting. Does anyone remember the original single-film animated LOTR from the 1970's? Although it was animated, it was done by rotoscoping, which means it was filmed using live actors, then each frame was painted over to create the fantasy characters and backdrops. This gave the characters accurate human movement BUT the process of cleanly outlining and painting the characters and background removed all motion blur captured in each frame. This gave a distinctly odd effect of the characters' arms and legs lengthening and shortening during movement as though they were rubber bands. Imagine an onscreen character swinging a sword toward the camera. The arm and sword would begin at full length, but as the sequence progressed and the sword began to point at the camera, they would appear to retract inward toward the body. As the sword passed the camera's POV, it and the character's arm would return to full length. This was very weird to watch.

Thankfully, no one has described the same thing with HFR! smile.gif
Interesting!!!
I've mentioned this a couple of times before but it really does demonstrate the absolute need for blurring to make 24 fps look acceptable. Try watching "Crank" with Jason Statham. It looks positively stroboscopic!! I found the effect weird but somehow it fit the manic action in the movie. I freeze framed in several high action spots and was NOT surprised to see that there was NOT a hint of BLUR!!!!!
Other people in this thread have reported that additional blur was added to Hobbit 2 to appease some viewers and make it look perhaps a little more 24 fps like, although without the judder. AAAaaggghhhh!!!
I found the Hobbit 1 HFR to be a vast improvement to previous films I've seen in theaters, and I REALLY noticed and enjoyed the reduced blur during panning scenes. I am totally perplexed how anyone could find this detracting from the theater experience.biggrin.gif
billdag is offline  
post #287 of 316 Old 01-20-2014, 07:31 PM
 
Cyrano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Northwest Boonies
Posts: 5,738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 90
I haven't seen HFR yet. I live in boonieville. I look forward to checking it out.
Ons subject that seems important to me is the ability to have cinematic pans be clean and smooth. I know our eyes pick a spot and kind of move from spot to spot as we pan with our heads but I have always found filmic pans to be annoyingly unwatchable.

And the subject of motion blur is an interesting one. When Lucas added Motion blur as a necessity of gaining a look of reality I thought it helped. And I think a filmmaker will possibly want to add motion blur to give the viewer the parts of reality that are needed to not be "taken out of the film".
And the thing I noticed is that, to me, motion blur is different from simple blur. And it is the streakiness of the objects that tell me there is motion. I do not think merely defocussing (blurring) would have the same effect.
But I am speaking theoretically and actually working with imagery in editing is the only way to understand it, for me anyway.

Wish I could see HFR...
Cyrano is offline  
post #288 of 316 Old 01-20-2014, 07:33 PM
Senior Member
 
billdag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 412
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watcher12 View Post

I hope HFR becomes the standard as well. Unfortunately, I just read an article that Star Wars Episode VII will be shot on actual film. Ugh. They didn't mention at what frame rate but I assume it means 24p since they are using real film.
Yeah I read that a while ago. J J Abrams prefers to use film and has never done one digitally. I am really trying to find the justification for a movie with tons of CGI which will have to be blended with analog film stock. I can only imagine how much it will add to the cost of the film in post-production. I guess that being a guaranteed block bluster was factored in before committing to film stock.
The stupid thing is though that when we all see it in a year or so, we'll be watching it digitally. Almost all the theaters in my area have converted 100% to digital projection.
billdag is offline  
post #289 of 316 Old 01-21-2014, 01:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
djbluemax1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: MI
Posts: 2,243
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by billdag View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Watcher12 View Post

I hope HFR becomes the standard as well. Unfortunately, I just read an article that Star Wars Episode VII will be shot on actual film. Ugh. They didn't mention at what frame rate but I assume it means 24p since they are using real film.
Yeah I read that a while ago. J J Abrams prefers to use film and has never done one digitally. I am really trying to find the justification for a movie with tons of CGI which will have to be blended with analog film stock. I can only imagine how much it will add to the cost of the film in post-production. I guess that being a guaranteed block bluster was factored in before committing to film stock.
The stupid thing is though that when we all see it in a year or so, we'll be watching it digitally. Almost all the theaters in my area have converted 100% to digital projection.
I'm cringing a little at the thought of lightsabers and J.J.'s idiotic obsession with lens flares.

Star Wars Episode VII: Revenge of the Lens Flares.


Max
djbluemax1 is offline  
post #290 of 316 Old 01-22-2014, 07:32 AM
Senior Member
 
cbcdesign's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Clevedon. UK
Posts: 421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 48
lol! Yes, he does seem to have a bit of OCD where lens flare is concerned.
cbcdesign is offline  
post #291 of 316 Old 01-22-2014, 05:10 PM
Member
 
onse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Movies will be shot and shown at 96fps or 120fps shortly and I think that's where we will settle. If I remember right humans can't see the difference in frame rate over 100fps so no point going 200fps etc.
onse is offline  
post #292 of 316 Old 01-22-2014, 10:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by onse View Post

Movies will be shot and shown at 96fps or 120fps shortly and I think that's where we will settle. If I remember right humans can't see the difference in frame rate over 100fps so no point going 200fps etc.
Yes they can, otherwise they wouldn't have added 120 fps to the UHDTV specs, NHK wouldn't be going to use 120 fps. Douglas Trumbull wouldn't be using it.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #293 of 316 Old 01-23-2014, 01:54 AM
Member
 
onse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

Yes they can, otherwise they wouldn't have added 120 fps to the UHDTV specs, NHK wouldn't be going to use 120 fps. Douglas Trumbull wouldn't be using it.

Like I said I don't think we will see more than 120fps on the movies and that will be the final fps we will settle to. I do remember that it was around 100fps that humans can see, maybe a little bit more. Someone can google if they want.
onse is offline  
post #294 of 316 Old 01-23-2014, 01:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
djbluemax1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: MI
Posts: 2,243
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by onse View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

Yes they can, otherwise they wouldn't have added 120 fps to the UHDTV specs, NHK wouldn't be going to use 120 fps. Douglas Trumbull wouldn't be using it.

Like I said I don't think we will see more than 120fps on the movies and that will be the final fps we will settle to. I do remember that it was around 100fps that humans can see, maybe a little bit more. Someone can google if they want.
You don't want to confuse what would work for most movies vs "what we can SEE". Check out the thread on avs about 1000fps/1000Hz.


Max
djbluemax1 is offline  
post #295 of 316 Old 01-24-2014, 09:42 PM
Senior Member
 
Gator5000e's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Orlando/Maitland, Florida
Posts: 274
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
It was a mixed bag for me. I thought some of the SFX looked absolutely fantastic and much more realistic. But I also thought it made the scene look too vivid, for lack of a better term. The one scene that stands out for me was from the first film during the battle of the Stone Giants. The lightning that was flashing looked like spot lights going on and off illuminating actors on a sound stage. Completely pulled me out of the movie mode at that moment. It's sort of the same effect I get when I turn the motion blur feature on my new plasma. Looks more like a soap opera than a movie. If PJ can find a way to soften some of those effect maybe it will work. I must admit I didn't hate HFR as much in part 2 as I did for part I.
Gator5000e is offline  
post #296 of 316 Old 01-26-2014, 01:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Rolls-Royce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victorville, CA
Posts: 1,991
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Honestly, I think the thing that most bothered me about Hobbit 1 was the color palette. It appeared to me then (and still does) that PJ had joined the ranks of the orange/cyan school. Thankfully I didn't notice it as much when watching DOS. I do like the "you are there" feeling of intimacy that HFR gives to tight shots such as those in the initial meeting at Bag End in UEJ.

...Royce...

"I never drink...wine."
Bela Lugosi, DRACULA, 1931
Rolls-Royce is offline  
post #297 of 316 Old 02-11-2014, 02:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,213
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 271 Post(s)
Liked: 273
This discussion of 48 fps filmmaking giving the illusion of everything being sped up gives me pause.

Look closely at regular TV. It's ~30 fps in the U.S. and motion from sports and the news seems normal and not sped up at all. I wonder if some of these motion artifacts are due to how current digital cinema projectors are handling the 48 fps signal from the digital files. Could some be unintentionally applying a kind of frame interpolation to the native signal rather than preserving the native 48 fps data? I ask this because 24 fps movies actually do look sped up using motion interpolation on TV sets with this feature because they are adding frames that were not there in the first place. This is different from just doubling or tripling frames in order to reduce flicker. Digital projectors, after all, are just giant TV's.

If a digital projection system is handling the 48 fps cadence correctly, motion should look smoother than a native 24 fps film and yet not sped up. Remember too, that 48 fps was added to many of these projectors' firmware as an afterthought. They weren't designed with HFR in mind. Could this be the culprit?

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is offline  
post #298 of 316 Old 02-11-2014, 06:47 PM
Newbie
 
southleft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
When you check the running time of an action scene played in HFR and then time the same scene again on standard 24fps you will discover that the running times are identical. The Hobbit in HFR is clear, crisp and smooth with none of decades-old degrading artifact known as judder. The fact that movie watchers have always been accustomed to this judder makes it familiar, but does not make it superior. Many people loved gaslight and candlelight but they are not superior to electric light. My granddad loved the solid feel of rotating the channel change knob on a TV, but it is not superior to a remote control clicker. Propeller-driven airplanes had symmetry and style, but they are not superior to jet aircraft. A 1980's Motorola "brick" phone was great device in its day, but it is not superior to a 2014 cellphone. A traditional pocket-passer oriented offense and traditional 3-4 defense may put up lots of points against traditional opponents, but it is not superior to a mobile-QB oriented run/pass attack with a swarming defense. So, it's settled. An industry that continues to cheap out and make movies at a jittery-juddery 24 fps will be left in the dust by the rest of the world moving up to 48 fps .... or higher!!
southleft is offline  
post #299 of 316 Old 02-11-2014, 07:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
djbluemax1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: MI
Posts: 2,243
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

This discussion of 48 fps filmmaking giving the illusion of everything being sped up gives me pause.

Look closely at regular TV. It's ~30 fps in the U.S. and motion from sports and the news seems normal and not sped up at all. I wonder if some of these motion artifacts are due to how current digital cinema projectors are handling the 48 fps signal from the digital files. Could some be unintentionally applying a kind of frame interpolation to the native signal rather than preserving the native 48 fps data? I ask this because 24 fps movies actually do look sped up using motion interpolation on TV sets with this feature because they are adding frames that were not there in the first place. This is different from just doubling or tripling frames in order to reduce flicker. Digital projectors, after all, are just giant TV's.

If a digital projection system is handling the 48 fps cadence correctly, motion should look smoother than a native 24 fps film and yet not sped up. Remember too, that 48 fps was added to many of these projectors' firmware as an afterthought. They weren't designed with HFR in mind. Could this be the culprit?
If you stopped and thought about it, you'd see the flaw in the logic/premise above.

Whether it's native 48fps OR creative frame interpolation, NEITHER one actually speeds up the motion. Here's a simple way to think of it:

If there's an actor running across the 100 unit wide screen (feet, meters or inches, the unit doesn't matter) and it takes them 2 seconds to traverse the width of the screen, they're traveling 50 units per second, and with standard movies, takes 48 frames.

Whether it's playing in 48fps OR with FI, it may mean 96 frames or even more to display that scene, BUT it still only takes the exact same 2 seconds to traverse the screen, and they're STILL travelling across the screen at a speed of 50units per second. There are just more frames in the 2-second span.

Apparently, the increase in frames (and reduced blur?) causes some people's minds to interprete what they see as 'sped up'. When I FIRST tried Frame Interpolation years ago, for the first 3-5 minutes, my mind told me what I was seeing was 'weird', and different from what I was used to seeing and therefore, expecting. I could definitely see where the term 'Soap Opera Effect' came from as the movie went from the typical 24fps movie look I'd grown accustomed to, to looking like a shot-in-video 'The Making Of...' documentary of the movie.

For me though, it only took about 5 minutes to adjust to the different look and truly appreciate the huge difference in smoothness vs judder (and motion blur) and I haven't looked back since.

Having been used to FI for years and having watched the HFR and 24fps versions of The Hobbit, I had no adaptation problems to either and as mentioned, there was no sped up motion. One was just far clearer and smoother. Besides logically speaking if anything was sped up, the movie's running time would shorten. It doesn't. It's just how some minds interpret the difference in what they're viewing.


Max
djbluemax1 is offline  
post #300 of 316 Old 02-11-2014, 09:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,213
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 271 Post(s)
Liked: 273
But frame interpolation and natively shot frame rates are different animals. One inserts "theoretical" frames in order to go from 24 to 30 (in U.S. TV's), which is then doubled to 60 to match NTSC standards for flicker and to match the older power supplies (or 120 Hz or 240 Hz depending on the display). It looks weird because of the funky way the software interprets the fill in frames. The Hobbit was shot at 48 fps with actual frames, not "faked" insert frames.

Now take a look at something shot on video at frame rates higher than 24, such as something on TV that isn't a "scripted" show since they're usually shot at 24 fps and then converted, and again the motion looks "normal" and doesn't have a "soap opera effect." It may not have motion judder artifacts like a film at 24 fps, but it also doesn't have that fake motion look either.

I'm not saying that interpolation is making images go faster, it just looks weird.

The Hobbit shouldn't have that strange frame interpolation look at all. If it does, something's potentially being processed wrong in the digital cinema playback chain.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is offline  
Reply Community News & Polls

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