Originally Posted by James Freeman
I have noticed that too when watching the three Hobbits in HFR.
HFR exposes the minute behvior which our brain interprets the act/face as fake/lie and not real, we were born to detect that naturally.
With HFR the line between a good performance and an "almost convincing" one will be VERY clear.
No more acting or mediocrity in HFR, acting in a behavioral level would be necessary to not brake the suspension of disbelieve.
HFR Drama movies would be extremely difficult for the actors because it's where any subtle wrong expression would give the performance away and ruin the moment.
The line I bolded makes no sense at all. It's actually the opposite. What's fake is putting a static image up for 41 ms at a time (24hz sample and hold), then skipping to the next one with actors with sustantially different positions, which your mind then blurs together during integration. This isn't visual, it's perceptual and part of how the brain works. 24hz, on top of the blurring inherent in the source video, adds blur from sample and hold which is generated in your mind. Go over to Blurbusters.com to learn more. The point is, reducing the amount of time an image is held allows your brain to interpolate the frames better on its own. And that's less taxing and jarring because getting more samples yields a more faithful-to-the-original signal. People who say high frame rate looks fake are projecting their bias from years of watching fake 24hz movies and then imagining that that fakeness is what's real. It's a complete inversion, and easily provable. The motion blur that's cakes into each 24hz frame from longer exposure also reduces clarity, which is the reason for upgrading beyond SD and into FHD and UHD. Not addressing the main cause of loss of clarity and definition during motion is absurd, for movies
. Movies = motion.
Does watching sports at 60hz look fake to you? Smoother motion is more realistic and accurate, and I don't think one should judge what high frame rate is capable of based on The Hobbit, which is a fantasy movie with tons of CGI and makeup and other fake elements and so on.
HFR drama movies would be harder to act in? Ever hear of Soap Operas? They are all in high frame rate, and launched many successful careers with shows having fanatical viewers over decades. I don't personally like them, but lots of people do, and they are definitely character-driven with tons of closeups. A good actor should be a good actor whether you see them live (unlimited frame rate) on a broadway stage or in a TV show or in a movie. Sure not most actors are broadway caliber, but an actor sucking or being bad at facial expressions or inflections would be bad regardless of high frame rate or not.
I don't agree with your premise. And making actor's jobs easier is not the reason they chose 24hz in the first place, so retconning that as a good reason to keep it just masks the reasons why it was chosen, so that the projectors at the time (1920s) wouldn't catch fire and the film stock wouldn't cost studios a lot of money. Sure 60p is more than double the bandwidth and storage costs of 24p, and that multiplies the cost for things like animation movies that are completely CGI, but they are making off with a mint anyway and their product would actually be better with 60p (many people who hate FI don't mind it or even like it with animations, because it's terrific). And the movie studios and directors are then freed from punitive restrictions on panning speed and action that 24p forces on them. I really don't get why 24p is often brought up as "director's vision" when in fact it's the opposite, it imposes all kinds of restrictions on action that otherwise would make movies have way more flexibility during shooting.