Do You Like the Look of HFR? - Page 7 - AVS Forum
View Poll Results: Do You Like the Look of HFR?
Yes 166 46.50%
No 97 27.17%
I've never seen HFR 94 26.33%
Voters: 357. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 316 Old 12-23-2013, 08:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kimeran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 115
The last time I posted in this thread I mentioned that maybe there was an issue for some that maybe our brain cant register the full 48 frames per second and that is why there is a bit of a speed up affect for some.

So I started doing some research and I found this article:

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Science-Explains-Why-Hobbit-Looks-Weird-48-Frames-Per-Second-34673.html

It sounds very interesting to me. Like others have said, the frame rate of real life is essentially infinite. However, that has no effect on use because our brain is essentially setting the "frame rate" as the desk that I am currently sitting at is not being shown to me by a moving film.

I also want to not that in videogames we have a different perception, many gamers, myself included, want as high a frame rate as possible for accuracey. However, considering that games are already fake looking, I wonder if we are not as sensitive to any "speed up" artifacts with it.

This is certainly a very interesting topic and I will continue to look for more studies on this.
agnathra and cardoski like this.

Trying to enjoy the simple things in life.

 

Steam: madbrayniak

Kimeran is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 316 Old 12-23-2013, 11:57 AM
Senior Member
 
AdamHD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 38
I really like my content in a higher frame rate than 24 FPS. I play my PC games at a solid 60 FPS, and (most of the time) choose to watch TV/Movie content with frame interpolation ON (I know I am in the minority on that, though). I warmly welcome TV/Movies to be filmed/shown at a higher frame rate than 24-30 FPS. I understand it is hard for people to get used to, as we've been watching content in 24 FPS FOREVER, but times are changing. Technology is changing. CG/effects are changing. Resolution is changing. It's only natural for frame rate to change too. I believe HFR is the future. I know some films are going to be (or already have been) shooting at an even higher frame rate than 48 FPS. It just makes sense, as you can down convert that to a lower frame rate, or keep the higher frame rate as technology changes/evolves.
I really believe that with both Hobbit movies (especially the 2nd), the 48 FPS adds SO much to the experience, This is the best way to experience an action based movie. Instead of the blurry mess 24 FPS can be, with 48 FPS everything is clear and crisp and not headache inducing. I personally can't wait to see 2D movies in HFR as well. Hopefully others will join in with Peter Jackson on innovation soon. I am ready to see some more high frame rate content!
AdamHD is offline  
post #183 of 316 Old 12-24-2013, 05:34 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 19,109
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2140 Post(s)
Liked: 2079
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 View Post

Have you ever seen footage of the exact same scenes shot in both 24fps AND 60fps? The 60fps is MUCH clearer and more realistic, but it definitely looks 'video' compared to the blur in 24fps.

 

 

I think, for me, Max, this is the crux of it. HFR to me looks like 'video' but when I watch a movie I want it to look like a movie. I accept all the tech arguments in favour of HFR but the end result still looks like a video. Videos efinitely look more like 'real life'. But I don't want movies to look like 'real life' - I want them to look like movies. I watch movies to be taken away from real life for an hour or so. The whole 'real life' thing is spurious anyway when we are talking movies, for obvious reasons. In real life, Bruce would have died in the Nakatomi Plaza :)

 

With me, it's not a change-resistant thing - I am an early adopter of any and all tech I can get my hands on. Frame rate has more to do with artistic decision and creativity for me. Note I am not saying that suspension of disbelief is impossible unless 24 fps is used, as some have said. I am simply saying that a movie is a form of art and we cannot apply 'real life' positions to art. The Mona Lisa would definitely not be better if it was a photograph (had photography been possible at that time) but there is no doubt that a photograph would be 'more clear', less 'blurred', more like 'real life' and so on. 

 

It will be interesting to see if HFR catches on and becomes the norm. If it does, then I will have to accept it and live with it. Eventually I will get used to it I guess. But that doesn’t mean I will enjoy it more. Because photography has been invented doesn't diminish my enjoyment of paintings. They are two different things, and maybe 24 fps and 48 fps are also two different things. If they are, then discussing which is 'best' is futile of course. The answer is 'neither' or 'both', depending on all sorts of factors.

 

This is an interesting thread and so far I have only read up to your post I am responding to now.

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #184 of 316 Old 12-25-2013, 11:38 PM
Member
 
MassConfusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: PA & NY
Posts: 155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
I just saw this on hfr and I for one loved it, it was clearer, sharper and easier to watch and I think is perfect for 3d.
I usually sometimes dread watching 3d movies due to the high levels of blurryness going on in action scenes, especially if its imax 3d, I can never tell wats going on. But with hfr I was able to see everything clearer and it didn't have to much of the soap opera effect as do most current tvs can produce. To me it made the scenery and action much more enjoyable and easy to follow.
I guess this is a 'to each his own' topic as I see a lot on here aren't for hfr, I don't get the love for blurryness used for action scenes as I always felt this is a tactic used by directors to sneak/edit their way through action scenes . I much prefer the fighting sequences of the bruce lee era then to the current rapid camera angle switching/constant zooming style used now. I rather see the art in the performance of the actors then the art of the director in an editing room (hope that makes sense). With hfr I feel I was able to view more facial expressions and movements during the action since it wasn't masked behind blurryness.
I at least hope 48 fps becomes the norm for 3d movies.
MassConfusion is offline  
post #185 of 316 Old 12-26-2013, 03:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,603
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 174 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by MANiaC3173 View Post

I , along with my friends and family, love it. And cant wait to bring HFR home! Any suggestions on how??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wilkinson View Post


There's no way to at this point. Hopefully, the next-gen disc format will include this capability.
There's 720p50 (European standard), 720p60, 1080i50, 1080i60 possible on Blu-ray, with 720p50 and 720p60 both supporting Blu-ray's 3D format. While they won't be as good as 1080p48/50/60 etc. or 2160p48/50/60/more 720p50 or 720p60 would still allow HFR HD on Blu-ray (even though 48 won't go evenly into 60). So HFR 3D is possible on Blu-ray (FIFA World Cup 3D is one disc that uses it), but Peter Jackson has decided not to distribute the Hobbit on Blu-ray in HFR for whatever reason.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #186 of 316 Old 12-26-2013, 04:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,603
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 174 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanbryan View Post

I didn't like the artificial speed-up perception I got from An Unexpected Journey, so I avoided it and went to the 24fps showing of The Desolation of Smaug.

FYI, the new X-Men movie out May 23, 2014 (Days of Future Past) has been shot in 48fps by Bryan Singer.
It actually hasn't.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hobbit-desolation-smaug-48-frames-655444
Quote:
But for X-Men: Days of Future Past, opening May 23, he stuck with 24 fps because, he says, "I had concerns about how certain sequences would look, and there is also a cost factor in rendering the visual effects."
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #187 of 316 Old 12-26-2013, 06:20 AM
Advanced Member
 
seanbryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Knowhere
Posts: 572
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Yeah I saw that. I heard about the HFR for this a while back and assumed it was a done deal.
seanbryan is online now  
post #188 of 316 Old 12-26-2013, 01:57 PM
Member
 
MassConfusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: PA & NY
Posts: 155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
On The Hobbit's webpage in the hfr section there is a mention of james cameron doing a movie with hfr
MassConfusion is offline  
post #189 of 316 Old 12-26-2013, 05:09 PM
Senior Member
 
TheFranchise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 29
The strangest argument against HFR is that "it doesn't look real." As if 24fps herky-jerky movies look more real.

A long, fast camera pan in 24fps is painful to watch.

48fps looks alive. 24fps looks lifeless in comparison.
fritzi93 and MassConfusion like this.
TheFranchise is offline  
post #190 of 316 Old 12-26-2013, 06:07 PM
Member
 
MassConfusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: PA & NY
Posts: 155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Agreed.
MassConfusion is offline  
post #191 of 316 Old 12-27-2013, 06:41 AM
Senior Member
 
fritzi93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 427
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFranchise View Post

A long, fast camera pan in 24fps is painful to watch.

Yes, painful is the word. (And that's why I tolerate the occasional haloing/artifacting of motion interpolation.)

With HFR, you don't have to pick whichever (for you) is the lesser of two evils. I do understand it's jarring for some who are unaccustomed to it.
fritzi93 is offline  
post #192 of 316 Old 01-03-2014, 07:28 AM
Member
 
Klownicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 46
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I can say that seeing both movies in HFR, I believe the technology is still developing. Secondly, the HFR experience throws most people off because it is not "natural" to them. We have been breed on 24fps our entire movie going lives. To change that will take time, and I for one embrace it. It takes about 15minutes for the brain to get adjusted and "zoned" into the screen. After that it just looks like a clean flowing window to the outside world of Middle Earth. Bring it on.

My first hobbit showing, I thought the movie was playing in "fast-forward" till I adjusted. I cannot see this taking off anytime soon for non 3d movies. In the end, its just a current fad till it reaches the home theater audience. I think one of the things they need to focus on is getting the camera steady in moving shots, as with the higher frame rate this shows more.
Klownicle is offline  
post #193 of 316 Old 01-03-2014, 07:00 PM
Member
 
anilrao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Arvada, Colorado
Posts: 84
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Put me into the "I don't like HFR" camp.
Here is what I think. I don't have direct evidence to back up what I'm saying, so take it for what it is; merely my opinion.
I would agree that HFR allows moving images to appear more real. It makes motion appear smoother, more sharp and improves the visual clarity of the image. But what is the "reality" that we are trying to achieve here? I think that the problem with HFR is that it reproduces, with high fidelity, the reality behind the motion picture; actors on a set. THAT is what bothers me more than anything; more than the fast motion, etc. I've been on a couple of sets during filming and HFR feels like that to me. As I was watching them shoot the scenes I never felt that I was watching something real. Yet when I saw the same scenes at 24 FPS (granted after editing, lighting exposure and VFX added in) that seemed less "fake".

Another problem I have with HFR is that I was less engaged with what I was seeing. It did not seem to have the emotional weight that I am used to. HFR, paradoxically, seemed less real (actors on a set) and hence I lost the emotional connection. The hyper-real images rob the brain of the effort to interpret what it perceives. I think what gives paintings their emotion draw, particularly ones that are are impressionistic, is the effort the brain expends to suspend disbelief. I think this works to a certain extent with both paintings and movies. Of course, you can go too far in either direction with this.

Anil
" Too low they build, who build beneath the stars"
Edward Young
robnix likes this.

Anil
" Too low they build, who build beneath the stars" Edward Young
http://emergentcomplexity.org/Anil_Rao_Scientific_Illustrations/Biology.html
anilrao is offline  
post #194 of 316 Old 01-04-2014, 12:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
robnix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,775
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
Liked: 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by anilrao View Post

Put me into the "I don't like HFR" camp.
Here is what I think. I don't have direct evidence to back up what I'm saying, so take it for what it is; merely my opinion.
I would agree that HFR allows moving images to appear more real. It makes motion appear smoother, more sharp and improves the visual clarity of the image. But what is the "reality" that we are trying to achieve here? I think that the problem with HFR is that it reproduces, with high fidelity, the reality behind the motion picture; actors on a set. THAT is what bothers me more than anything; more than the fast motion, etc. I've been on a couple of sets during filming and HFR feels like that to me. As I was watching them shoot the scenes I never felt that I was watching something real. Yet when I saw the same scenes at 24 FPS (granted after editing, lighting exposure and VFX added in) that seemed less "fake".

Another problem I have with HFR is that I was less engaged with what I was seeing. It did not seem to have the emotional weight that I am used to. HFR, paradoxically, seemed less real (actors on a set) and hence I lost the emotional connection. The hyper-real images rob the brain of the effort to interpret what it perceives. I think what gives paintings their emotion draw, particularly ones that are are impressionistic, is the effort the brain expends to suspend disbelief. I think this works to a certain extent with both paintings and movies. Of course, you can go too far in either direction with this.

Anil
" Too low they build, who build beneath the stars"
Edward Young

This does an excellent job of summing up exactly how I felt after seeing The Hobbit in HFR. I have no doubt that the techniques will be ironed out, but they aren't there yet.

Looky here!
robnix is offline  
post #195 of 316 Old 01-04-2014, 12:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
djbluemax1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: MI
Posts: 2,278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 287
Finally got around to watching Desolation of Smaug in HFR and it confirms for me that I undoubtedly prefer higher frame rates. Bring on the 60fps or even 120.

What was particularly interesting though is that I had 2 friends along, one of whom was viewing HFR for the first time, and the other happened to be the friend that I mentioned in a few posts who hated AUJ in HFR and preferred it in 24fps. Well, I managed to talk him into giving HFR another shot with DOS.

The person who was viewing HFR for the first time is now a fan of it. He said that for the first 5 minutes the motion definitely looked odd to him, but after the first 5 minutes he adjusted to the difference and said that it was much better. In fact, his exact words were, "Hmmm... why don't they shoot all movies like this?"

It's the reaction of the other friend, who hated HFR in AUJ though, that I found most interesting. I managed to talk him into giving it another try by explaining what HFR is and does. This time around, he greatly enjoyed the experience and is eager to see the 3rd movie in the series in HFR (as well as being excited about Avatar II when I told him JC is planning to do that in HFR). He wasn't sure what made the difference, but he thinks that with AUJ, he didn't know what to expect and the difference in the way it looked from what he was used to was just too great, and his brain couldn't accept it. This time around, he had an idea of what to expect and quickly adjusted to the way it looked, after which, he said that the movement DID look a lot more like real life.

One thing to note though (and I confirmed this after watching the movie and Googling it) was that I noticed more blurring in DOS than in AUJ. Although the increased smoothness was still apparent (and even higher frame rates with even more smoothness would be welcome to me), I was now seeing more blurring in some of the fast motion scenes as well as some pans and closeups than I recalled seeing in AUJ. I wondered if it was simply my imagination and fuzzy memory since it had been quite a few months since viewing AUJ in HFR, but I distinctly recall one of the things that impressed me the most with AUJ, aside from the smoother motion, was how clear everything was, whether it was in pans, or especially in fast motion.

I hadn't read anything about DOS prior to viewing it (not even reviews), but after viewing DOS, I was compelled to Google it to see if there were any comments made by PJ about changing the look of HFR, specifically blurring the image to increase its acceptance/palatability for the general audience, and sure enough, that's exactly what I found here:
http://variety.com/2013/film/news/peter-jackson-hobbit-3d-looks-1200941962/

As I'd thought when I noticed what looked like more motion blur in DOS vs AUJ, he intentionally increased the motion blur in DOS compared to AUJ based on viewer complaints about the hyper clarity making things look too video. I guess he's basically revised his methods in order to try recalibrating viewer's perceptions more gradually, as it seems that a great number of folks are apparently not ready to handle the full capability of 48fps. I guess for many folks, the combination of the increased motion smoothness AND much greater clarity is just too much to accept, so since the increased smoothness is inherent with the higher frame rate, he's compromised by reducing the clarity so folks have to adjust to only one thing at a time. They can get used to the increased smoothness of motion, while still enjoying their good 'ol blurry movement. so they hopefully can accept HFR more easily. If it works and 48fps (and possibly higher frame rates?) become more and more common, I wonder if directors will eventually begin reducing the baked-in blur as folks become more accustomed to the differences? I definitely hope so.

I still think it's a little sad that a director has to actually intentionally degrade the image, simply to appease the vast majority of folks who have been so ingrained and accustomed to the crappy motion artifacts of 24fps. Oh well, Viva la HFR!


Max
djbluemax1 is offline  
post #196 of 316 Old 01-04-2014, 12:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
djbluemax1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: MI
Posts: 2,278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 287
BTW, I always find it odd when folks make the, "it looks like actors on a stage" or "like I'm watching a play" comments. I've watched numerous plays and stage performances and had no problems being engrossed in the performance. I still think that it's simply a matter of people not liking the differences from what they're accustomed to and finding faults with any and everything else to focus on. Some folks made the exact same comments about HD, eg. "it's too clear. I can see the makeup", "the stage sets look like stage sets and props look like props" etc.

All I can say is that just as with HD, some adjustments and considerations will need to be made, i.e. refining their craft so makeup is less obvious, sets and props look more realistic etc. As for the comments about acting. I found those particularly odd. The acting didn't change between 24fps and HFR. As I said, it's simply a matter of perception. Folks who don't like the look of HFR then begin looking at everything else to find fault with. As I mentioned, I've been able to feel pulled into the 'story' while watching live actors on a stage, and I've been able to feel emotionally involved while watching material in video shot at 60 interlaced frames. Yes, the first time I used creative frame interpolation, it took me a couple of minutes to get used to it (literally ~ 2 minutes. I guess some folks acclimatize easier). My initial reaction to it was similar to most folks, i.e. it went from looking like a Movie, to looking like a bonus extra of 'The Making Of...' shot in video. Within that first 2 minutes though, I adjusted to it and immediately preferred the smoother motion. I've used frame interpolation in the HT ever since.


Max
djbluemax1 is offline  
post #197 of 316 Old 01-04-2014, 02:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
pokekevin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 5,070
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 101
After watching both Hobbits in HFR and 24p I gotta say its a mixed bag for me. I really liked HFR on panning scenes but everything else I preferred 24p. The close ups in HFR looked a bit..."weird" I guess like stop motion sped up. Now I'm sure many of you will tell me it's just because I'm not used to it... Maybe ..But I can't recall ever seeing something like that with my own 2 eyes when I'm looking at people during a conversation lol.

I'm sure with time, HFR will get better but for now I'd choose 24p.

No subwoofer I've heard has been able to produce the bass I've experienced in the Corps!

Must..stop...buying...every bluray release...
pokekevin is offline  
post #198 of 316 Old 01-04-2014, 11:49 AM
Member
 
anilrao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Arvada, Colorado
Posts: 84
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Hi Max,
I don't have a problem getting engaged with a play either, but I think we are setting up a false equivalency here; a play or a movie are different and operate with different visual rules. A movie can provide a fluid perspective (pans, zooms, dollies, wide shots, closeups, etc.) that you can't get with a play. Try the play equivalent of a pan or a closeup; an audience member can run from one side of the stage to the other or get in the actor's face. A great formula for getting tossed out by security. So, how a play manages your emotions must be different than a movie. Also there is an immediacy with a play; each act is done in real time. There are no edits. There is a spontaneity in a play that must manufactured (through editing) in a movie. In addition, because the audience in removed from the action, the performers would need to project more (a broader acting style) to get the emotions across. I wonder if HFR would require a different style of acting.

The fact that HFR looks like a play but still operates like a movie is creating a dissonance between these two media. I think what we are seeing is evolution of a new media. Whatever this is, it is not a stage play and it is not a movie. I am very intrigued by Douglas Trumbul's ideas about variable or dynamic frame rates that can be manipulated by cinematographer or director to produce a desired effect.

I am not dismissing HFR outright. The sooner a new visual language is developed for HFR the better. However, this may not be very easy. I suspect this is going to require a lot of experimentation and many false starts. It may also require an abandonment of some of the visual tools that characterize motion pictures. Just as motion pictures are not filmed plays, HFR is not just fast, clear motion pictures. This is a new animal and should be treated as such.

I believe that HFR is not the future of motion pictures; for good or ill, I believe it is its own, new visual medium.

Anil

" Too low they build, who build beneath the stars" Edward Young
pokekevin likes this.

Anil
" Too low they build, who build beneath the stars" Edward Young
http://emergentcomplexity.org/Anil_Rao_Scientific_Illustrations/Biology.html
anilrao is offline  
post #199 of 316 Old 01-04-2014, 11:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,603
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 174 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 View Post

As I'd thought when I noticed what looked like more motion blur in DOS vs AUJ, he intentionally increased the motion blur in DOS compared to AUJ based on viewer complaints about the hyper clarity making things look too video.
He says he softened the image with Pro-mist filters etc. to make it look less like video. He doesn't say he added more motion blur.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #200 of 316 Old 01-04-2014, 09:05 PM
Member
 
laggerific's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 13
HFR is definitely something that can take some time to get used to, but when it comes to action sequences, especially in 3D, I can't think of a better use for it. Having seen the first hobbit twice in HFR, it was easy to slip into the HFR of Desolation. It looked superb...I'm bummed that I am unlikely to get a chance to see it again in HFR, post theater, for a very long time.

I find the psychology of adapting to HFR quite fascinating...there is definitely dissonance in people's heads...it's almost like wrapping your head around the concept of the earth rotating around the sun, when you've considered the earth the center of the universe for ever. To some, it will never work for them...they think it removes the separation between life and movie, and that a movie is this thing that you see at 24 (or less) frames per second. I personally like the use of it, and hope to see it used more. I do wonder, though, how I'd feel to see something like Silver Linings Playbook in HFR, and if my attitude towards the technology would shift seeing something so "mundane" without the 24 FPS filter.
laggerific is offline  
post #201 of 316 Old 01-05-2014, 02:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
djbluemax1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: MI
Posts: 2,278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by anilrao View Post

Hi Max,
I don't have a problem getting engaged with a play either, but I think we are setting up a false equivalency here; a play or a movie are different and operate with different visual rules. A movie can provide a fluid perspective (pans, zooms, dollies, wide shots, closeups, etc.) that you can't get with a play. Try the play equivalent of a pan or a closeup; an audience member can run from one side of the stage to the other or get in the actor's face. A great formula for getting tossed out by security. So, how a play manages your emotions must be different than a movie. Also there is an immediacy with a play; each act is done in real time. There are no edits. There is a spontaneity in a play that must manufactured (through editing) in a movie. In addition, because the audience in removed from the action, the performers would need to project more (a broader acting style) to get the emotions across. I wonder if HFR would require a different style of acting.

The fact that HFR looks like a play but still operates like a movie is creating a dissonance between these two media. I think what we are seeing is evolution of a new media. Whatever this is, it is not a stage play and it is not a movie. I am very intrigued by Douglas Trumbul's ideas about variable or dynamic frame rates that can be manipulated by cinematographer or director to produce a desired effect.

I am not dismissing HFR outright. The sooner a new visual language is developed for HFR the better. However, this may not be very easy. I suspect this is going to require a lot of experimentation and many false starts. It may also require an abandonment of some of the visual tools that characterize motion pictures. Just as motion pictures are not filmed plays, HFR is not just fast, clear motion pictures. This is a new animal and should be treated as such.

I believe that HFR is not the future of motion pictures; for good or ill, I believe it is its own, new visual medium.

Anil

" Too low they build, who build beneath the stars" Edward Young
So first you're saying that HFR is distracting because it looks like actors on a set, then you're saying that movies DON'T look like actors on a stage? So which is it? I don't generally pan, circle and swoop around people when I'm talking to them either, so I don't see the issue.

As for the difference in acting methodology and styles, yes, there's definitely a difference between stage acting vs movies, but again, I don't see the issue. I've watched both the movie version of Phantom Of The Opera as well as the recorded 25th Anniversary stage production (not to mentioned seeing it live). Although I found it interesting to note the different acting styles in the movie vs the recorded stage production when watching both in the HT, I had no problems being engrossed in both. As such I feel the topic is a red herring.

The actors in the movies are acting the same way they have been in movies. Just because the motion is smoother doesn't require a different style of acting. I simply can't agree with this. I can agree that with increased detail and clarity in the images, they need to concentrate on the details like makeup and sets etc., but not with a need to change acting styles simply due to a change in frame rate.


Max
MassConfusion likes this.
djbluemax1 is offline  
post #202 of 316 Old 01-05-2014, 03:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
djbluemax1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: MI
Posts: 2,278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 View Post

As I'd thought when I noticed what looked like more motion blur in DOS vs AUJ, he intentionally increased the motion blur in DOS compared to AUJ based on viewer complaints about the hyper clarity making things look too video.
He says he softened the image with Pro-mist filters etc. to make it look less like video. He doesn't say he added more motion blur.
It doesn't really matter to me WHAT he used to blur the image (and soften and blur is just semantics). The result is increased blur in motion (reduced clarity).

I wonder if my buddy who hated AUJ, but enjoyed DOS in HFR, would have hated DOS if it was as clear as AUJ.


Max
djbluemax1 is offline  
post #203 of 316 Old 01-05-2014, 12:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,603
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 174 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 View Post

It doesn't really matter to me WHAT he used to blur the image (and soften and blur is just semantics). The result is increased blur in motion (reduced clarity).

Max
No it would look different if it was motion blur. The filters he said he used would blur it when nothing was in motion. Motion blur would blur the things that were in motion, in the direction of motion, not like a blur that blurred everything.
So the result is increased blur for everything (that he applied the filter to) - whether it's in motion or not.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #204 of 316 Old 01-05-2014, 02:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
djbluemax1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: MI
Posts: 2,278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 View Post

It doesn't really matter to me WHAT he used to blur the image (and soften and blur is just semantics). The result is increased blur in motion (reduced clarity).

Max
No it would look different if it was motion blur. The filters he said he used would blur it when nothing was in motion. Motion blur would blur the things that were in motion, in the direction of motion, not like a blur that blurred everything.
So the result isn't increased blur in motion, it's increased blur for everything (that he applied the filter to) - whether it's in motion or not.
If you check out the link I posted, you'll note that he stated it wasn't a simple one-setting approach. He implemented it on a scene by scene basis.

If you actually watched/watch DOS, you'll see it. In most scenes, the added clarity is there, but in some scenes like closeups, they added this softening/blurriness and in ALL the fast motion. All the fast movement is blurred compared to AUJ, which was what led me to research it after the viewing.

I don't really care what they call it or what they used to do it, what I'm concerned about is the net result: clear images and movement in AUJ, blurry images in movement in DOS.

It's like the 'filtered bass' discussions where folks say, "How do you know the bass was filtered? Maybe it was designed/mixed that way?" That's semantics. I don't particularly care if it was mixed that way or if it was filtered in the mastering stage, or for the nearfield BD mix, it's the resultant missing ELF/infrasonic content I'm concerned about. There's infrasonic frequencies all around us in daily life, from slamming a car door, thunder, a semi passing, driving under an overpass with traffic travelling over it, wind buffeting my vehicle on the highway. Removing this content whether by design or in post production/mastering removes an element/dimension that increases the experience (in setups capable of reproducing it).

Likewise, reducing/removing image sharpness/clarity is downgrading the potential, whichever way it's done. The net result is more blurriness/less clarity than the technology has the capability of displaying.


Max
djbluemax1 is offline  
post #205 of 316 Old 01-05-2014, 03:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pokekevin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 5,070
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 101
You should also be unhappy about those filming in 4k and mastering in 2k?

While there is ULF in real life I can guarantee you in most action films, a grenade digs way to low to be realistic. Remember sound design is an art, it is up to the artist to determine what he wants. I don't go into a film thinking sound design should be an accurate representation of realistic sounds. Well I did before till I did my first try at sound design lol.

No subwoofer I've heard has been able to produce the bass I've experienced in the Corps!

Must..stop...buying...every bluray release...
pokekevin is offline  
post #206 of 316 Old 01-05-2014, 06:45 PM
Senior Member
 
WestCDA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 203
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

No it would look different if it was motion blur. The filters he said he used would blur it when nothing was in motion. Motion blur would blur the things that were in motion, in the direction of motion, not like a blur that blurred everything.
So the result is increased blur for everything (that he applied the filter to) - whether it's in motion or not.

Agreed - elimination of motion blur is one of the biggest reasons the Jackson is championing HFR. He worked in the second movie to soften the 'video' appearance using (among other things) pro-mist filtering, but definitely did not re-introduce motion blur. The smoothness of the rapid action sequences afforded by HFR (e.g. the river barrel passage) was apparent, and really a pleasure to watch.

Per Jackson (emphasis mine):

"I spent a lot of time in the color-grading room really putting my head into how we make the 48 not have a video feel," says Jackson. "Some of the criticism of the 48 frames was not actually to do with the frame rate per se, which is just making it easier on your eyes, reducing motion blur. It was to do with the fact that it felt like TV, like soap opera."

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/peter-jackson-stands-48-frames-second

Jackson insists “48 (frames per second) is a way, way better way to look at 3D. It’s so much more comfortable on the eyes.” And it addresses the problems with “strobing,” a.k.a. “judder,” where the image blurs up when the camera moves or there’s fast action onscreen.

http://variety.com/2013/film/news/peter-jackson-hobbit-3d-looks-1200941962/
WestCDA is online now  
post #207 of 316 Old 01-05-2014, 06:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
djbluemax1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: MI
Posts: 2,278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokekevin View Post

You should also be unhappy about those filming in 4k and mastering in 2k?

While there is ULF in real life I can guarantee you in most action films, a grenade digs way to low to be realistic. Remember sound design is an art, it is up to the artist to determine what he wants. I don't go into a film thinking sound design should be an accurate representation of realistic sounds. Well I did before till I did my first try at sound design lol.
To the first question, if I was paying for 4k and they're loudly touting the increased resolution and clarity of 4k, but I'm actually getting 2k, yes, I'd absolutely be unhappy.

It's like some of these foreign reissues of older movies in BD, where they don't tell you that they simply upscaled the DVD resolution to BD, instead of using a High Def transfer. Yeah, it's aggravating.

To the second comment, yes, there's artistic license. As far as grenades go, and movie grenades going lower than real life, you're joking right? Sure, movie grenades don't sound like/replicate the real thing (and we wouldn't want them to), but the pressure wave that turns your internals to mush and blows off extremities at close range even WITHOUT any shrapnel? That's equivalent to a super high 200+ SPL pressure wave all the way down to DC.

If you reread that post, I didn't say I wanted accurate replication in sound design. Aside from live gunshots producing instant hearing damage (and annihilating drivers even before that), it just isn't feasible or sensible.

What I DID say was that infrasonics are a part of everyday life. Adding it in appropriate situations adds to the experience. For instance, in Transformers, when the Autobots first meet Sam, they added infrasonic content to the footsteps, emphasizing the impression of BIG, heavy metal robots moving around. The scene would have been less impressive without the infrasonic content, and FAR less impressive if there had been no content below 80Hz.

It's just a little sad that the industry has cutting edge technology available to push the envelope, but has to neuter things to appeal to the lowest common denominator (for folks with less capability bass setups or with HFR).


Max
djbluemax1 is offline  
post #208 of 316 Old 01-06-2014, 12:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
pokekevin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 5,070
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 101
Was just reading around online and found out that Soaring Over California was filmed in 48fps. It's been awhile since I've been on that ride but I don't remember having the same viewing issues with it as I did with the hobbit.

No subwoofer I've heard has been able to produce the bass I've experienced in the Corps!

Must..stop...buying...every bluray release...
pokekevin is offline  
post #209 of 316 Old 01-06-2014, 03:48 AM
Newbie
 
BurnyBurns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13

Without having followed the whole discussion, it's obvious this is one of those topics that spark religious debates. :p

 

For me 48fps > 24fps holds in about every possible way. I've started to notice a 24fps movie is well below what we (at least I) perceive as fluent. Once seen, I cannot unsee it anymore. In about any scene where the camera quickly pans through the scenery, I immediately notice the stuttering edges of any objects that moves quickly through the image. It has nothing to do with artistic qualities for me. It's simply a technical limitation that - by all rights - shouldn't be there anymore in this day and age. Still, I'm not anal about it and will refuse to watch a movie because of it. Given the choice however, I would always want to watch the version running at a higher framerate.

 

The perceived "speed up effect" was however something I also noticed during the first scenes of the Hobbit 1. It's the first time I'm reading that others have had that, too. I got used to it quickly, but would really like an explanation why this is. For me it wasn't comparable to the effect produced by modern TVs trying to artificially smooth out scenes with additional computed images, which I find aggravating. That's probably because the TVs are imperfectly trying to fake information that isn't there, which isn't the case in an HFR movie.

 

I cannot compare the HFR movie to soap operas, as I hardly ever watch those (and not on TV). But I believe complaints about a movie looking like a cheap soap opera are mere psychological issues. If people didn't already associate soap operas with the effect the higher framerate has, I doubt there would be as many complaints. Also, visual imperfections in setpieces etc. that become noticeable due to HFR should be an incentive for movie makers to improve the techniques they use. ;-)

dougc11 and MassConfusion like this.
BurnyBurns is offline  
post #210 of 316 Old 01-06-2014, 11:12 AM
Member
 
dougc11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: MASS
Posts: 45
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I truly want to second that view. Every part of it I agree with but I have not seen HFR yet. I expect to see it this weekend (in ATMOS too!) before it leaves the theaters.

UPDATE: I went to see Smaug HFR3D this weekend (Dedham, MA, Had to drive close to 40 miles to see it in the HFR format).
I basically liked it.
My son definitely liked it.
It seems to me that this will be a personal choice and that the kids will migrate to it more quickly than us older folks.
dougc11 is offline  
Reply Community News & Polls

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