Do You Like the Look of HFR? - Page 4 - AVS Forum
View Poll Results: Do You Like the Look of HFR?
Yes 166 46.63%
No 96 26.97%
I've never seen HFR 94 26.40%
Voters: 356. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 316 Old 12-16-2013, 03:42 PM
Advanced Member
 
lobosrul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 828
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirMaster View Post

Doesn't that sound like a filming problem then? Clearly 48FPS is allowing more detail and you are seeing the actual fakeness of what's being filmed and the props and CGI. This to me just means they need to do a better job with makeup, props, CGI, lighting, etc.

24FPS in the past simply made it easier to hide the fakeness of what's being seen since a fantasy movie IS mostly fake.

That was part of the problem, but even in scenes without any special effects it just felt "off" to me. Actually the more action there was going on the more OK the 48 fps felt. I really went in with an open mind, I'm not a "purist" by any means; I prefer digital cinematography to film for example (however, the early days of digital movies had their problems too, so maybe 48Hz will get better ?). The opening scene where Gandalf meets Thorin, in Bree I think, had the feeling of an old (and I mean 70's or 80's) masterpiece theater presentation, with the 50 to 60hz conversion. I see 60hz footage on TV all the time, news, special events, sports and its all fine, I don't get this weird sense of something being wrong.
lobosrul is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 316 Old 12-16-2013, 04:47 PM
Member
 
redbulluci's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 59
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I thoroughly enjoyed watching Hobbit 1 in HFR. I hate to admit this (especially in this forum), but when I purchased the Hobbit in 3D blu ray, I had to turn ON motion smoother on my GT50 just so I can relive my theater experience! Even though it's not the same as 48fps, I felt it did the job. haha

Hopefully, the Hobbit 2 stays on the XD screen of my local theater and not 47 Ronin. I plan on watching it next week. I have a feeling it's going to move to a smaller screen.
redbulluci is offline  
post #93 of 316 Old 12-16-2013, 06:09 PM
Senior Member
 
Icon13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 351
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by lobosrul View Post

That was part of the problem, but even in scenes without any special effects it just felt "off" to me. Actually the more action there was going on the more OK the 48 fps felt. I really went in with an open mind, I'm not a "purist" by any means; I prefer digital cinematography to film for example (however, the early days of digital movies had their problems too, so maybe 48Hz will get better ?). The opening scene where Gandalf meets Thorin, in Bree I think, had the feeling of an old (and I mean 70's or 80's) masterpiece theater presentation, with the 50 to 60hz conversion. I see 60hz footage on TV all the time, news, special events, sports and its all fine, I don't get this weird sense of something being wrong.
You are not seeing true 60hz on your TV. Yes 60Hz, but at 1080i so you are getting half frames every 1/60th second which equals 30 full frames per second (many TVs combine the odd and even half frames to piece together 30 full frames repeating each one to achieve 60hz). When watching 720P you are receiving 30 actual full frames per second repeating each one to achieve 60hz. The reason 1080 is broadcasted interlaced is bandwidth limitations (1080P is too large), while the decrease in resolution to 720p allows for progressive frames.

THE ALL MIGHTY MACACASIAH HAS SPOKEN!
Icon13 is offline  
post #94 of 316 Old 12-16-2013, 10:52 PM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 786
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 59
I've become a fan of high frame rates though frame interpolation using SVP on my PC. I use it for everything. The artifacts it necessarily introduces are obvious to me, but I feel the image is overall clearer, more realistic, and more immersive despite being a little less pristine. The great thing about native high frame rate content is that it doesn't have the artifacts that frame interpolation has to introduce.

I have experienced the sensation of high frame rates appearing "sped up," both when first experimenting with SVP and for the first few minutes of the first Hobbit film in HFR. I think this is just the novelty of seeing something new. For the Hobbit, for example, while I was already used to high frame rates using SVP, I had seen the film in 24fps once before, and was seeing HFR in a movie, in a theater environment, for the first time. Now that I've gotten so used to HFR, I sometimes have the opposite sensation when viewing 24fps. It appears to be too slow!
Airion is offline  
post #95 of 316 Old 12-17-2013, 07:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kimeran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 114
Devedander the issue you mentioned with the videogame is called screen tearing. It is caused by exactly what you say, the screen simply can't keep up with the frames per second it is being fed. The new G-Sync card that Nvidia came out with is supposed to fix this. So it makes me wonder if such technology would also be beneficial with projectors in a similar type of application where the bluray player was communicating with the display to tell it how many frames it is going to be fed.....

However, there is a major difference I think in rendered(games) fps vs. movie fps as you expect games to look a bit more fake/glossy/too much make up/etc.

Trying to enjoy the simple things in life.

 

Steam: madbrayniak

Kimeran is offline  
post #96 of 316 Old 12-17-2013, 09:27 AM
Advanced Member
 
elvisahmed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 504
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
While I don't like the Opera/Stage like visual one gets at HFR, I do appreciate the natural feel in 3D i.e. my eyes are not strained/tired after the movie which has been a recurring issue for moi in case of normal 3D presentations.
Not a big fan of 3D movies in general as the only 3D presentation that wowed was Avatar in IMAX 3D (I saw Hugo and several other well regarded 3D presentations and came out with tired eyes)
I personally think that Dolby Atmos is much better form of evolution than the HFR (thought the sequels to Avatar may change that)
elvisahmed is offline  
post #97 of 316 Old 12-17-2013, 10:23 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,092
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 785 Post(s)
Liked: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by cubbiechris View Post

I think it looks sped up because of the smoothness of it. We aren't used to it.
We're used to it with sports and the news, where the sampling rate is even higher (60 instead of 48). Why doesn't that look even more sped up?

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #98 of 316 Old 12-17-2013, 12:23 PM
Member
 
kauaidoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
To be quite honest I do not know what u all are going on about but I did just see DOS. The only time I really noticed something odd was during the river scene where the dwarves are in the fish barrells. The motion was not quite right. What causes that?. Otherwise I really liked the look etc. We have a very small theatre here on Kauai and are still getting used to having 3D.
kauaidoug is offline  
post #99 of 316 Old 12-17-2013, 01:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Devedander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimeran View Post

Devedander the issue you mentioned with the videogame is called screen tearing. It is caused by exactly what you say, the screen simply can't keep up with the frames per second it is being fed. The new G-Sync card that Nvidia came out with is supposed to fix this. So it makes me wonder if such technology would also be beneficial with projectors in a similar type of application where the bluray player was communicating with the display to tell it how many frames it is going to be fed.....

However, there is a major difference I think in rendered(games) fps vs. movie fps as you expect games to look a bit more fake/glossy/too much make up/etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmaccool View Post

Just like taking a picture of a football player with the ISO set really high lends itself to better clarity, the 48 frames per second will do the same. The only thing I noticed in the first film was that during non-action scenes everyone seemed to be moving oddly fast, like the black and white films of the past. I think the projectors were not calibrated correctly to play this film rate at the correct speed, so it looked odd during less fast paced scenes. If they fix this issue I would be totally in. As people said, this is an obvious evolutionary step, blu-ray and now the 2, 4 and 8K sources add more detail and this will add more clarity to the recorded material.\

JMHO,

John M.

Actually in this case I believe it was not screen tearing, but truly frames dropped due to a forced cap. I believe screen tearing is usually due to a lower than target frame rate with no vsyncp turned on. This means as the card renders portions of a scene they are dumped to buffer and drawn despite there not being an entire frame ready for display. This looks like tearing as part of the screen is showing the next frame while part is still showing the last frame.

BTW the game I was referring to was COD Ghosts http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/11/call-of-duty-ghosts-frame-rate-on-playstation-4-is-too-high/

Monster Gold Plated Optical Cables: http://monstercable.com/productPage.asp?pin=1263

Awesome user review: "Unreal quality. Sounded like I upgraded my speakers." :D
Devedander is offline  
post #100 of 316 Old 12-17-2013, 01:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ivanpino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,051
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

We're used to it with sports and the news, where the sampling rate is even higher (60 instead of 48). Why doesn't that look even more sped up?

Could be the type of cameras used? You're right, which makes it weird. We should be used to it as we watch TV everyday.
ivanpino is offline  
post #101 of 316 Old 12-17-2013, 02:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,514
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 385 Post(s)
Liked: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Re- motion looking sped up with HFR. Any hypothesis based on the idea of their being "too many frames" or "faster frames" or whatever don't make sense. Real life has for practical purposes "infinite" frames.
Our vision system certainly has it's own sampling rate to take in real life. But if what we are looking at is produced at a higher sample rate, more frames, produced faster, all it does is approach real life more and shouldn't
produce a sped up effect.

something that's bugged me as well.

what I see(of course this is with FI as I haven't seen HFR yet) makes no sense.

but that doesn't stop the affect from being very obvious, and very offensive to watch. I'd hope a true HFR would be better than a processed one, but maybe that's not the case?

in either event, maybe the solution is simple, maybe they should be filming at 48.5 fps to playback 48 fps? isn't 24fps played back at 23.something?

I don't like the whole 24fps vs 48fps comparison though. I think 24fps vs real life, and 48fps vs real life. again, talking only of FI personally, the extra frames make it much less life-life for me. but I don't know why.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is online now  
post #102 of 316 Old 12-17-2013, 03:50 PM
Advanced Member
 
agnathra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 567
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 17
personally i'm just seeing too many similarities between the effect of HFR and turning FI on on a TV. i've seen them myself, and i see it in the messages from a lot of people on here.

i know this is a science forum, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then why is the speed up effect so similar between the "good" native HFR, and the "bad" processed FI?

for that matter, why don't i get the same effect when i play 60 fps video games? (there actually might be a simple explanation here, since we haven't discussed it. but it seems to debunk the "48 fps is too fast to watch without practice" argument)

i'm not saying HFR is the same as FI. i'm not saying HFR is bad (although i couldn't stand it in the hobbit). but going back to my question last page, i'm just asking: what seems more likely, that our brains just can't handle an image that is actually CLOSER to our "natural" viewing? or that a brand new technology might be poorly/inconsistently implemented across hundreds of theaters, resulting in some people liking it, but quite a lot trying to explain why you just have to try harder to appreciate it?

one thing we do know...jackson filmed it so that it could be shown in 24 or 48 fps. watching it in 24, i didn't notice anything jerky, and i'm pretty sure he didn't introduce motion blur in post production (correct me if i'm wrong). i'm no photographer, but if he shot it with a shutter speed appropriate for 48 fps, but then played it back at 24 fps, wouldn't we get the saving private ryan effect?

bottom line...i think we're spinning some elaborate theories, but it feels to me like we just don't have all the info we need to speculate.

- Chris
agnathra is offline  
post #103 of 316 Old 12-17-2013, 04:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Devedander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Re- motion looking sped up with HFR. Any hypothesis based on the idea of their being "too many frames" or "faster frames" or whatever don't make sense. Real life has for practical purposes "infinite" frames.
Our vision system certainly has it's own sampling rate to take in real life. But if what we are looking at is produced at a higher sample rate, more frames, produced faster, all it does is approach real life more and shouldn't
produce a sped up effect.

But it has infinite discrete frames thus no matter the "framerate" of your eyes, there is always an even motion rate over time. Same with much higher frame rate, while you may have a different number of frames between each realized moment, they are small enough differences the motion seems even.

But when it's close to but not a matching framerate perhaps the difference between a frame matching a moment and a frame not matching is a whole frame being skipped... but then 80% of the time the frames match up well enough to moments there is no noticeable skip.

So motion appears smooth then jumps for some reason.

Again I will relate to scaling an image - sometimes scaling just a few pixels is hugely detrimental to PQ while scaling a LOT of pixels is relatively less damaging.

It may be that there is an area around the sweet spot that is relatively worse than away from it.

Monster Gold Plated Optical Cables: http://monstercable.com/productPage.asp?pin=1263

Awesome user review: "Unreal quality. Sounded like I upgraded my speakers." :D
Devedander is offline  
post #104 of 316 Old 12-17-2013, 06:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
David Susilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Markham, Canada
Posts: 9,479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 211 Post(s)
Liked: 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by cubbiechris View Post


There's nothing realistic about blur. If you pan a shot and get blur that's not normal. Turn your head do you see blur?.

yes, of course! 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 offline  
post #105 of 316 Old 12-17-2013, 06:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
David Susilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Markham, Canada
Posts: 9,479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 211 Post(s)
Liked: 360
Not that I don't like HFR, but I don't like DIGITAL HFR.

Disney's "Soarin'" rides both in Florida and California use 48fps film and I have no problem and actually like the effect. However, 48fps Hobbit and Smaug (both using digital projection) look no better than FI to my eyes.

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 offline  
post #106 of 316 Old 12-17-2013, 06:35 PM
Member
 
talkaboutav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14

Oddly, I thought at times that 48fps was choppy. I guess if you commit to a flickerless experience in 3D you have to go all the way - perhaps 120fps?

 

Torn between loving it and feeling like some of the indoor scenes seemed like watching old Dr Who episodes. Thank goodness for the great soundtrack to pull it through.

talkaboutav is offline  
post #107 of 316 Old 12-17-2013, 07:30 PM
Newbie
 
TimtheArtist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I haven't seen these movies in HFR but I see no issues with the 60fps video I shoot with my cameras or I see in other sources. I think one of the keys here is the shutter speeds used. When a traditional film is shot at 24fps they need to use a slow enough shutter speed to introduce the correct amount of motion blur to avoid a sense of judder. I think when you add additional frames between the real frames you are ending up with a smoother look then is desirable. I think of it as a hyper-smooth look because you are using frames that already contain motion blur to them and then just adding more filler frames that actually add too much smoothness to it. On the other hand when you set out to shoot at a HFR intentionally then you probably should be shooting at shutter speeds that keep each separate frame pretty clear and free of motion blur because the HFR will already take care of that.

It was said a few posts ago that these 48fps films were shot with the intention to work well at 24fps too, is this correct? Well I am wondering if they were using slower shutter speeds that are appropriate for the slow frame rates but not the high frame rates. Maybe this is why people are saying it is still producing the soap opera effect. I am only throwing out some guesses here and I could be totaly wrong because it is a pretty complex topic but an interesting one.

All I know is that I enjoy the slower frame rates of movies and I dislike the typical soap opera effect but I am open to new technologies. Logically, it seems that HFR should be a good thing but there seems to be some issues still to be worked out.

-Tim
TimtheArtist is offline  
post #108 of 316 Old 12-17-2013, 09:14 PM
Advanced Member
 
lobosrul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 828
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icon13 View Post

You are not seeing true 60hz on your TV. Yes 60Hz, but at 1080i so you are getting half frames every 1/60th second which equals 30 full frames per second (many TVs combine the odd and even half frames to piece together 30 full frames repeating each one to achieve 60hz). When watching 720P you are receiving 30 actual full frames per second repeating each one to achieve 60hz. The reason 1080 is broadcasted interlaced is bandwidth limitations (1080P is too large), while the decrease in resolution to 720p allows for progressive frames.

Not to get too OT, but I just frame stepped a Monday Night Football game and I see 60 unique frames in one second of play.
lobosrul is online now  
post #109 of 316 Old 12-18-2013, 01:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icon13 View Post

You are not seeing true 60hz on your TV. Yes 60Hz, but at 1080i so you are getting half frames every 1/60th second which equals 30 full frames per second (many TVs combine the odd and even half frames to piece together 30 full frames repeating each one to achieve 60hz). When watching 720P you are receiving 30 actual full frames per second repeating each one to achieve 60hz. The reason 1080 is broadcasted interlaced is bandwidth limitations (1080P is too large), while the decrease in resolution to 720p allows for progressive frames.

Thats bad deinterlacing. If you have somthing recorded as 60P, it should be converted from 60i to 60P. If it was shot 24P it should be converted from 60i to 24P.

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #110 of 316 Old 12-18-2013, 02:31 AM
Member
 
C!t!zen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 10
HFR is too clear. Too video like for my tastes. IMO it seems that HFR needs to be lit differently. This reminds me of the early days of High Definition where you started seeing imperfections in the actress's skin. I've seen The Hobbit TDOS in both 3D and in 2D. I prefer the 2D experience and this is coming from a fan of 3D. The reason behind PJ's decision to shoot 48fps is justified, but maybe he could have taken a chapter off of Chris Nolan's IMAX book, and only filmed certain action scene's.
C!t!zen is offline  
post #111 of 316 Old 12-18-2013, 03:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by C!t!zen View Post

but maybe he could have taken a chapter off of Chris Nolan's IMAX book, and only filmed certain action scene's.

Doesn´t need to do that, he can solve that issue in post.

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #112 of 316 Old 12-18-2013, 06:51 AM
 
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Doesn´t need to do that, he can solve that issue in post.

As to solving things in post, Can a 24fps "look" be simulated in 48fps for the same reason Motion Blur is similated in digital work to look as though it is a real object being filmed?
Cyrano is offline  
post #113 of 316 Old 12-18-2013, 08:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
robnix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 92 Post(s)
Liked: 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by C!t!zen View Post

HFR is too clear. Too video like for my tastes. IMO it seems that HFR needs to be lit differently. This reminds me of the early days of High Definition where you started seeing imperfections in the actress's skin. I've seen The Hobbit TDOS in both 3D and in 2D. I prefer the 2D experience and this is coming from a fan of 3D. The reason behind PJ's decision to shoot 48fps is justified, but maybe he could have taken a chapter off of Chris Nolan's IMAX book, and only filmed certain action scene's.

I am by no means an expert on cinematography, but doesn't the higher frame rate require either different lighting or aperture settings? A lot of the problems I had with The Hobbit I'm pretty convinced were a result of not having things lit properly.

I'm all for new technology, but not at the when it's as expensive as it is to go see a movie these days. These guys should practice a bit on non critical work before using this on a blockbuster that families are spending their hard earned money on.

Looky here!
robnix is online now  
post #114 of 316 Old 12-18-2013, 08:43 AM
Member
 
Buckaroo Banzai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 167
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
SHUTTER ANGLE: THE REAL CULPRIT - SMOOTH BUT SMEARY

IMHO I think the whole reason The Hobbit looks sped up is because it was shot with a 270 degree shutter angle. Movies like Collateral and Public Enemies were 270-360 degree angle but 24p.

It is the combination of 48 fps plus a slow shutter angle that creates that weird speeded up artifact.

If Jackson would have shot The Hobbit at a 180 degree shutter angle or maybe even 90 degrees, since strobing is less of a problem at 48fps by virtue of twice the frames per second, we probably wouldn't be discussing how sped up or "weird," "off," "unfilmlike," choose whatever off putting adjective you choose to insert here, it looked.

The question of why HFR looks so wrong, but specifically looks sped up I believe is because the 270 degree angle creates an overly smooth look per frame. Now a reasonable person might say, "but that'll be offset by the sheer number of frames being projected per second." Paradoxically it seems to double the motion blurriness. To my eye The Hobbit HFR looks smeary as opposed to smooth. Yes there's no judder but it looks smeary instead of smooth. Maybe not as much in fast action scenes but definitely in more normal dialogue scenes.

And it is this smeariness (increased motion blur per individual frame), when shooting 270 degrees as apposed to 180 that causes a cumulative overly smeary look in the 48fps version.

When watched at speed I believe our brain interprets the extra blur combined with the faster frame rate, as something moving faster. Thats why the opening scene of AUJ with bilbo walking down the the hallway then simply opening a chest look like its playing at 1.5 normal speed.

I'm hard pressed to find on here or any forum or article online that addresses this particular theory. I'm not surprised though as shutter angle aka shutter speed does not quite seem to be a ubiquitous term. Look it up if Im not making any sense.

-Raul-
agnathra likes this.
Buckaroo Banzai is offline  
post #115 of 316 Old 12-18-2013, 08:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
robnix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 92 Post(s)
Liked: 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckaroo Banzai View Post

SHUTTER ANGLE: THE REAL CULPRIT - SMOOTH BUT SMEARY

IMHO I think the whole reason The Hobbit looks sped up is because it was shot with a 270 degree shutter angle. Movies like Collateral and Public Enemies were 270-360 degree angle but 24p.

It is the combination of 48 fps plus a slow shutter angle that creates that weird speeded up artifact.

If Jackson would have shot The Hobbit at a 180 degree shutter angle or maybe even 90 degrees, since strobing is less of a problem at 48fps by virtue of twice the frames per second, we probably wouldn't be discussing how sped up or "weird," "off," "unfilmlike," choose whatever off putting adjective you choose to insert here, it looked.

The question of why HFR looks so wrong, but specifically looks sped up I believe is because the 270 degree angle creates an overly smooth look per frame. Now a reasonable person might say, "but that'll be offset by the sheer number of frames being projected per second." Paradoxically it seems to double the motion blurriness. To my eye The Hobbit HFR looks smeary as opposed to smooth. Yes there's no judder but it looks smeary instead of smooth. Maybe not as much in fast action scenes but definitely in more normal dialogue scenes.

And it is this smeariness (increased motion blur per individual frame), when shooting 270 degrees as apposed to 180 that causes a cumulative overly smeary look in the 48fps version.

When watched at speed I believe our brain interprets the extra blur combined with the faster frame rate, as something moving faster. Thats why the opening scene of AUJ with bilbo walking down the the hallway then simply opening a chest look like its playing at 1.5 normal speed.

I'm hard pressed to find on here or any forum or article online that addresses this particular theory. I'm not surprised though as shutter angle aka shutter speed does not quite seem to be a ubiquitous term. Look it up if Im not making any sense.

-Raul-

Here's one:

http://filmmakermagazine.com/60811-the-hobbit-arrives-with-a-high-frame-rate-and-new-sony-camera-prices/#.UrHRsfRDsRo

and then this comment:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/128113-why-movies-are-moving-from-24-to-48-fps
Quote:
You're not missing what's in between those 24 frames so much as you are saying.

Shutter angle is an important concept not being facored in by anyone's arguments. 24fps allows for slower shutter which makes movements look "silkier". Each frame is opened and exposed for 1/48 of a second at 24fps film. This captures the motion from one frame to the next. You are speaking about 24fps as though each frame is shot at fast shutters and freezing time in each frame much like a normal camera still.

Doubling the frame rate simply turns down the motion blur. Less motion blur because of faster shutter speed. 48fps is shot at 1/96 second shutter speed. So instead of one frame showing a nice smooth blur of a movement, you are seeing two frames with less blur of that same movement.

The end result (in most practical scenarios) is the same picture you would get with 24fps but with less motion blur because of faster shutter speed. Fast shutter speeds are common in cheap digital and home video cameras which is why our brains are making that connection with cheap video. Because cheap video shoots at these fast shutters, even cheap 24p cameras and amature dslr video guys who don't set their shutter speed properly.

I found a lot more by googling "The Hobbit HFR Shutter Angle"

Looky here!
robnix is online now  
post #116 of 316 Old 12-18-2013, 09:14 AM
Member
 
Buckaroo Banzai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 167
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:

No I read all that material, robnix, what I was referring to was the specific theory or notion that HFR particularly for The Hobbit created the illusion of sped up playback by using a 270 degree shutter angle instead of the normal 180. The links you refer don't really address this specifically.

I'm just trying to figure out the specific reason for this sped up look.
Buckaroo Banzai is offline  
post #117 of 316 Old 12-18-2013, 09:51 AM
Advanced Member
 
agnathra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 567
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckaroo Banzai View Post

No I read all that material, robnix, what I was referring to was the specific theory or notion that HFR particularly for The Hobbit created the illusion of sped up playback by using a 270 degree shutter angle instead of the normal 180. The links you refer don't really address this specifically.

I'm just trying to figure out the specific reason for this sped up look.

yeah, i think all the "soap opera effect" comments are valid observations, but are a matter of taste as to whether it bothers you or not.

the real killer for the hobbit was the sped up effect, and the only other place i've seen something like it is with FI turned on...a smeary mess. the hobbit isn't as bad as the processed TV image, but it's the same kind of effect that hasn't been explained yet.

and i thought of another HFR example that does NOT have the sped up effect: the new star tours 3d ride at disney world. i went through that 3 or 4 times last month. i thought it was easily the best 3d i've seen. not necessarily film-like, but clear and free of artifacts like the speed-up. google tells me it was 60fps, but i can't find an official source for that info.

like you said, it feels to me like it's got to be a combination of things that create a very real effect. high frame rate alone doesn't do it, HFR 3d doesn't do it. video processing (FI) does something like it. seems reasonable that jackson made some compromises to allow footage to work at either 24 or 48 fps, and this is the outcome.

or maybe the 1000 theaters doing this for the first time last year didn't do it uniformly, and in some cases created these effects (haven't seen anything debunking this idea yet).

also, is there anyone that actually disagrees that there is a speed up effect? (it could be a real artifact or just a perception, but has anyone not seen this?)

- Chris
agnathra is offline  
post #118 of 316 Old 12-18-2013, 10:00 AM
Member
 
earwicker7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 98
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Overall, I think it works. You just can't get the action scenes to look as good in 24fps... I've watched both speeds for the first movie, and the 24fps fight scenes look really blurry after seeing them in HFR.

You do have to force yourself to keep saying, "Looking similar to video is not the same as being cheap!" Once you get around that, it becomes very easy to fall on the side of pro-HFR.
earwicker7 is offline  
post #119 of 316 Old 12-18-2013, 10:16 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,092
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 785 Post(s)
Liked: 755
Why isn't the poll reflecting the negitivity about HFR in this thread? Seems more people like it (by a wide margin) than not.

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #120 of 316 Old 12-18-2013, 10:19 AM
Member
 
Buckaroo Banzai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 167
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Yea, Agnathra, me too I was trying to confirm fps for Star Tours 3d but had trouble finding hard evidence.

But I have seen showscan (60fps), in the form of motion simulator rides they used to have at Universal City Walk in Universal City, Ca. circa 1993-96. And I can confirm they did not exhibit that sped up look.
Buckaroo Banzai 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