or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Community News & Polls › Do You Like the Look of HFR?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do You Like the Look of HFR? - Page 2

Poll Results: Do You Like the Look of HFR?

 
  • 46% (164)
    Yes
  • 26% (95)
    No
  • 26% (93)
    I've never seen HFR
352 Total Votes  
post #31 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by degobah77 View Post

I can recall a movie in the last 2 years that was released in a B&W silent format that also won multiple academy awards (including Best Motion Picture).

Love, love, love B&W. Frances Ha was wonderful.
post #32 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by dargo View Post

I have good vision and love 3D so HFR is a welcome addition, I remember people saying they hated stereo is was just a gimmick. In Feb 1986 I saw Douglas Trumbull HFR demo at Showest
and it blew my mind only took 27 years to see it used for a movie.

Trumbull has been pushing this for years. Maxivision blows anyone away whose seen it.
post #33 of 316
I viewed the DoS in a RealD HFR 3D showing and overall my experience was far more positive than when I watched The Hobbit in an IMAX HFR 3D showing last year.

With The Hobbit I was frequently distracted by the rendition of the various forms of motion which often seemed rather skittish, imbuing a semblance to visual artifacts of frame interpolation.
Even though it seemed to share characteristics to FI it did not exhibit the soap opera effect per se, the blurry inferred information around the edges of objects in motion, but I understood the reason so many referred to it as an example.
Also I found the various attributes of the picture such as contrast, luminosity, color, etc looked somewhat off. Perhaps it was due to that specific theater projection system at the time.

In regards to TDoS it took a little while to become accustomed to the 48HFR once again but this time I rarely was distracted by the unique motion artifacts for 48fps.

I believe that 48fps simply is not a high enough frame rate to approximate human vision and since it is an intermediate frame rate to what people are accustomed to viewing it simply looks rather odd at times.

Certain forms of motion such as camera pans look fantastic at 48fps whilst other forms such as quick small motions exhibit rather skittish or jittery attributes due to the reduction of motion blur; it is fast enough to reduce the blur but the trade off is the frame rate is insufficient to provide a sustained visual reinforcement.


In regards to the 24fps debate, I am purist in respects to the native frame rate of the source material, ie no FI should be applied, with certain concessions such as films that are slower than 24fps and projection/viewing.
Straight 24fps projection is fatiguing and most folks have not watched 24fps source material that way and few would ever recommend it. Typically a film is exhibited at '48' or higher which reduces flicker.

The reasons of 24fps has always been more due to economics than necessarily artistic expression but since it has been the standard for so long its visual characteristics have become synonymous with the visual language of cinema.


I recommend folks to see the 48HFR version of The Desolation of Smaug, for me it was a superior experience.

Ideally I would enjoy seeing a 48HFR showing that was not 3D with Dolby Atmos, I find the higher frame rate far more compelling than 3D.

My vote would be for more films to be shot at 48fps and/or higher.
Ditch 3D and opt for HFRs.

Best Regards
KvE

PS Some of the analogies used for arguing certain positions are poor and erroneous.
Such as vinyl versus digital delivery of music. Digital recordings of today will always have the potential of sounding superior to any degenerative analog delivery format, the true crux of the issue is the quality of the recording and the mastering.
Vinyl has numerous quality issues, and I hold no nostalgia from experience of using the medium, but by virtue of the physical limitations of vinyl the master cannot be so drastically abused as digital masters can be, thus a vinyl record can sound better than a cooked digital counterpart.
When a digital recording is properly engineered and mastered with no excessive abuses of compressors or limiting then a digital recording, be it 16bit 44hz and higher, will always be superior to a vinyl record.
Edited by KMFDMvsEnya - 12/14/13 at 1:04pm
post #34 of 316
Again, people are thinking that everyone that doesn't like the Hobbit's presentation of HFR is someone who doesn't embrace the future advancements. The snide comments seem to continue about silent, to mono, mono to stereo, stereo to surround (and all of its formats), etc.. B&W to color, etc as well. Yes, all advances, and yet the current offering a year ago was crap. I can't speak to this year's offering because I haven't seen it, but it is rumored to be better. Maybe it is because the movie is a lot better too, or that this isn't the first time that people have seen HFR so they aren't critiquing it as harshly.

HFR WILL get better and we will all enjoy it at some point. It isn't a simple advancement of adding more channels or audio, or B&W to Color (simple as in easy to enjoy without having to increase CGI/reality blending, fool the brain with the "acceleration blur" etc)... This is different and admittedly the same at the same time. It is an advancement, and yet the source left a lot to be desired. Just because a majority (25 vs 13) people like HFR does not mean that it is perfect. Lets get off the high horses and stop with the bashing of the other opinions.
post #35 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 View Post

Much like finally having 3D for the home, I've been waiting a LONG time for films to move past the archaic 24fps standard. I'm one of the folks who, quite some time ago, realized that I'm REALLY not a fan of the juddery, blurry mess that is 24fps.

I realize though, that the majority of the moviegoing populace has been conditioned to not only accept, but expect all the visual artifacts and anomalies of 24fps, and as mentioned, this has become locked in some minds as a key for the suspension of disbelief. For me, it results in the exact opposite. My eyes don't see that way. When I look around a room or vista, my view doesn't judder like that and my eyes don't blur in that manner.

That link in the first few posts is obviously a non-scientist with a poor understanding of things. Our ocular system can perceive fast movement, and yes, has its own motion blur built-in. Showing a video display at higher rates though, simply leaves it up to the individual's visual system (eyes AND brain) to implemenf its limitations. Producing an image with lower than human perception limitations baked in is what is artificial. But folks are used to it.

Arguments like, "pans of landscapes looked great because of the detail, but closeups looked fake", perfectly illustrate the power of this conditioning to expect the artifacts and anomalies. Yes, the pans of the landscapes show much more detail because motion blur is reduced greatly, but there is no real reason for closeups to look worse.

The resolution in a closeup is the same in 24 or 48 fps, and shaky cam idiocy aside, there's little motion to cause blurring in closeups. It's just the person's brain going, "something's off compared to what I'm used to seeing", so they begin picking on all manner of things, some of which are completely unrelated.

Same thing goes for motion. Before I saw TH in HFR, I asked a friend what he thought, as he'd already seen it both in HFR and 24fps. He had the same impressions as some of the folks here, that the HFR motion looked off and, "looked like it was sped up" when there was lots of action and fast movement. According to him, in contrast, the first scene where Smaug appears and blasts the dwarven stronghold, where everything moved too fast and he had trouble focusing with the HFR, it looked much better in 24fps and he could follow everything.

When I watched it, I had the opposite reaction. When I watched that scene, 2 thoughts immediately popped into my head, "I have NO idea why my buddy felt the way he did because the whole scene was much sharper in HFR than it would be in 24fps. I can see everything clearly!", and, "this scene was OBVIOUSLY shot FOR HFR, because there's way too much fast movement for 24fps". And I was right. A lot of that scene is a juddery, blurry mess in 24p.

As far as the acting, makeup and artificiality of the sets go, well, that's just one thing that directors, makeup artists etc. are going to have to adapt to and raise their standards for.

My personal reaction when I first saw The Hobbit in HFR? I immediately thought, "WOW! It's SO much clearer and the motion is much smoother! 60fps would be EVEN better!".

I see the standards for HDMI 2.0 look to be ready for 4k60p. Can't wait!.


Max

Problem is, you'd need 4k @ 120 for 3D at 60hz which HDMI 2.0 doesn't do, sadly. (much to the chagrin of videogame programmers like me). Such a freaking annoyance.

I agree 100% with the rest of your post, 24hz is terri-bad, it should die. But I suspect it won't die until the current generation of people pass away, old habits die hard, they resist change, even change for the better.

The Hobbit's action was way too fast and furious for 24hz, you miss literally 1/2 the movie at 24 instead of 48hz. Seriously, I watched it at 24hz first, then at 48, and although it felt off for the first 5 minutes (especially the close ups), I loved the action scenes and the pans. I think the dwarves playing with the pots and pans in Bilbo's pantry looked comical, especially more so at 48hz, but that was the point of the scene! 48hz made serious, fast-paced action bearable and watchable. I'm sure you'd miss 1/2 the cool stuff happening on screen. It was just so action-packed. And slow scenes expose the actors and makup more, so what, get them to act better and wear better makup next time. They said the same thing about actor closeups going to 1080p, you could see every little pock mark in people's faces.

Every time I watch a scene with tons of fast action at 24hz, I hate it. It ALWAYS confuses me and makes me mind go yuck. The main thing that animators do with 24hz is have the shutter speed introduce blur to smooth things out, that's on purpose because if they didn't, it would suck even worse.

One thing that I read that seems promising to bridge the gap here, is to keep close ups at 24hz (double strobed) as current films do, but pans and action sequences in 48hz. So the entire movie would be encoded at 48 or 60, but the director could make close ups use 24hz or 30hz. Then as people become more and more used to the fluidity of the fast action parts, the slower scenes will be the ones that look off, meaning eventually the trick will work : people should be tricked into liking what's superior, in order for progress to be made. Lots of people didn't like cars replacing horse-drawn carriages.

Also, the same argument about 24hz to 60hz could have been made (and I'm pretty sure it must have been), when NTSC came out : looks different. People ARE used to 60hz video already, and calling an explicit difference between video and movies is the real sillines here. If 24hz is good for super large screens only, why not have TVs have 60hz movie content?

I rarely see movies at the cinema anymore, I'm spoiled by watching them all at 60hz now with SVP.

And it's totally the same argument that vynil lovers make regarding digital. It's tradition for tradition sake only, has nothing to do with reality only perception of reality and delusional ones, at that. People can say they think 48hz looks weird, yes it does. They should get over it, 24hz cannot last forever, it's a dumb standard that was invented to prevent film reel from catching fire or movies from costing too much because film cost a lot of money and they paid by the foot. A 60hz movie would be more expensive to make, store, and distribute, but there's no reason why you couldn't play 60hz content at 24hz, is there? Maybe the blur would be missing and the shutter times wouldn't be compatible. I worked with some Disney animators once and they told me they add artificial blur to mask the terrible motion characteristics of 24hz.

When I was able to play back their animations in realtime at 60hz (in videogames), instead of prerendered at 24hz, they said they had no use for blur effects in their compositions and to disable them, since the animation was way superior and didn't need extra fake blur added.
Edited by RLBURNSIDE - 12/14/13 at 12:54pm
post #36 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickbuol View Post

Again, people are thinking that everyone that doesn't like the Hobbit's presentation of HFR is someone who doesn't embrace the future advancements. The snide comments seem to continue about silent, to mono, mono to stereo, stereo to surround (and all of its formats), etc.. B&W to color, etc as well. Yes, all advances, and yet the current offering a year ago was crap. I can't speak to this year's offering because I haven't seen it, but it is rumored to be better. Maybe it is because the movie is a lot better too, or that this isn't the first time that people have seen HFR so they aren't critiquing it as harshly.

HFR WILL get better and we will all enjoy it at some point. It isn't a simple advancement of adding more channels or audio, or B&W to Color (simple as in easy to enjoy without having to increase CGI/reality blending, fool the brain with the "acceleration blur" etc)... This is different and admittedly the same at the same time. It is an advancement, and yet the source left a lot to be desired. Just because a majority (25 vs 13) people like HFR does not mean that it is perfect. Lets get off the high horses and stop with the bashing of the other opinions.

Good points, HFR is in its infancy in film, it will get better, much better. Cinematographers have had a century to perfect their 24hz skills, it will take some time to perfect 48 or 60hz too, so it's time to put 24hz to bed, just like silent movies and the black and white. A century of bad tech resulting from a compromise is long enough.
post #37 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by dargo View Post

I have good vision and love 3D so HFR is a welcome addition, I remember people saying they hated stereo is was just a gimmick. In Feb 1986 I saw Douglas Trumbull HFR demo at Showest
and it blew my mind only took 27 years to see it used for a movie.

HFR is twice as important in 3D, I think

It really makes the 3D effect work much better.
post #38 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post

Good points, HFR is in its infancy in film, it will get better, much better. Cinematographers have had a century to perfect their 24hz skills, it will take some time to perfect 48 or 60hz too, so it's time to put 24hz to bed, just like silent movies and the black and white. A century of bad tech resulting from a compromise is long enough.

Thank you for your calm and sensible response. It is refreshing. I agree that we are at the early stages of moving away from 24FPS. Heck, for those that don't know, it is 24FPS because of the cost savings vs. 30 FPS and the (at the time) perceived idea that people couldn't tell the difference between 24FPS and 30FPS. There is a lot of interesting history there if anyone else decides to look into it.

We will get to something higher than 24FPS for everything at some point, and each offering should get better and better for a while.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post

HFR is twice as important in 3D, I think

It really makes the 3D effect work much better.

True. No other comments needed there. smile.gif
post #39 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by robnix View Post

I don't like it, but I'm hoping that it's more that it's a new technology and the techniques to properly use it haven't been worked out yet. I had a few issues with The Hobbit, most of it I attribute to improperly used lighting.
  • The make up for the Dwarves really stood out at times.
  • There were times where the framerate and the action made the movie look out of sync, most notably in the opening when the book pages flip.
  • Lighting was very stagelike. It brought to mind efforts to put stage plays on TV. Some of the lighting was very direct and harsh when it shouldn't have been.
  • There were some severely overlit scenes that look right in the 24fps version, the moment that Bilbo finds The Ring comes to mind, along with the Gollum/Bilbo chase through the tunnels.
  • It overemphasizes the fact that CGI is used in the battle scenes, making them look almost video game like. Oddly enough they can also be hard to follow.
  • The chase through the Goblin Kingdom looked like plastic. It was just terrible.


On the flip side:
  • The 24fps version doesn't have these issues.
  • It's show us what a beautiful movie it is, one that borders on stunning at times.
  • The night time and underground scenes are lit in a manner that brings out the claustrophobia of being underground when needed, and opens up into an amazingly rendered troll kingdom as well.
  • The characters look convincing from the Trolls to the Goblins to the Dwarves and the Hobbits.
  • Lastly, the action scenes are surprisingly easier to follow.


My son, at 10, had the same complaints. We both walked out of the theater telling each other that we'd watch Smaug at 24fps.

There's an interesting article here that discusses why 48fps is a bad idea, and that 40fps may actually be the optimum frame rate:

http://movieline.com/2012/12/14/hobbit-high-frame-rate-science-48-frames-per-second/

I'm sure there are plenty of people that will chime in with the opposite opinion, a good friend of mine loved the 48fps version. However, as people look back I think a lot of that love comes from the desire for a better technology rather than the technology actually being better.

I bought the extended version of "The Hobbit" on blu-ray which I played via Oppo 103 to a 65" plasma at 24 fps. Some of the complaints you gave above for the 48 fps. In particular some of the heavy CGI scenes seems to exists at 24 fps (for some of us). However, I would have to agree that it would be even worse at 48 fps. Perhaps if 48 or higher frames per second are to be used, far more care will be needed to render live and CGI scenes more "life like." In short, there will be far more to making 48 and above work and that will include far more attention to details in make up, scenery, CGI, lighting and much much more.

24 fps works because it is just enough speed to get the eye/brain to accept natural motion. Those that talk about blur, well guess what - your brain sees blur and assimilates it. Even turning your head/eyes there is blur but the brain can compensate. My biggest fear is that we are headed for a more soap opera effect type of viewing. I suppose for some this will be fine and for some of us, we like the look of "texture" that film provides. Let's hope those involved with 48 and above come to realize the other factors and deal more seriously with them in future projects. It is a real shame CGI has already (in some projects) gone the way of Hanna Barbara animation - that is - overly formula to the point of not using the technology for the best looking output but rather for cutting cost and speed of production.

Last - I am counting on Smaug to be a bit more satisfying than the first Hobbit film. For those that enjoy 48fps I am glad for you but ideally you will demand "more" from this technology than what we are being given as the author of the original post I am commenting back on pointed out real flaws that should be addressed and can be.
post #40 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya View Post


PS Some of the analogies used for arguing certain positions are poor and erroneous.
Such as vinyl versus digital delivery of music. Digital recordings of today will always have the potential of sounding superior to any degenerative analog delivery format, the true crux of the issue is the quality of the recording and the mastering.
Vinyl has numerous quality issues, and I hold no nostalgia from experience of using the medium, but by virtue of the physical limitations of vinyl the master cannot be so drastically abused as digital masters can be, thus a vinyl record can sound better than a cooked digital counterpart.
When a digital recording is properly engineered and mastered with no excessive abuses of compressors or limiting then a digital recording, be it 16bit 44hz and higher, will always be superior to a vinyl record.

Let me state it again, because people are missing my point. I said newer is not ALWAYS better and it's up to the artist or visionary to decide on a medium that expresses their art in the most effective manner. A movie shot with the latest tech can be worse than a 50 year old movie shot in mono B&W. And as far as I'm concerned as a musician, a new re-mastered digital version is almost always worse than the original, whether it was pressed to a cassette, CD, or vinyl. But then again, some people CAN utilize new tech to make great sounding stuff.

Anyways, I don't watch movies based on frame rate and I don't listen to music based on the sample rate. A talented professional photographer can probably take a better picture with their 65 year old analog camera than you can with the latest greatest DSLR.

Newer tech does not necessarily equal better product, but I love advancements all the same because it opens up more options for the artist to choose from.
post #41 of 316
Your premise and logic is flawed with unnecessary straw-man examples to support fallacious arguments.

"A movie shot with the latest tech can be worse than a 50 year old movie shot in mono B&W."
This example is making a false equivalence between the quality of the capture and delivery medium to the quality of the script and acting.

"And as far as I'm concerned as a musician, a new re-mastered digital version is almost always worse than the original, whether it was pressed to a cassette, CD, or vinyl. But then again, some people CAN utilize new tech to make great sounding stuff."
Again it is not the advances in technology that is at fault but the decisions made by the audio engineer in mastering, likely due to the client requesting a louder mix rather than a quality dynamic one.

"Anyways, I don't watch movies based on frame rate and I don't listen to music based on the sample rate."
Being pedantic only muddles discussion.

" A talented professional photographer can probably take a better picture with their 65 year old analog camera than you can with the latest greatest DSLR."
Unfounded presumptions on several counts along with a straw-man argument.

"Newer tech does not necessarily equal better product, but I love advancements all the same because it opens up more options for the artist to choose from."
True, the newest tool in of itself does not guarantees a quality product but is dictated by how well it is used. Yet you have persisted arguing contrary to advancements that are quantifiable improvements.

In regards to the main topic, as I mentioned prior there are certain characteristics of how motion is reproduced at 48fps that appear odd and this largely due to our minds being conditioned and familiarized to accept the technological visual drawbacks of 24fps.
If 48fps becomes the standard people with time will come to accept it.

Here is a fair analogy.
24fps motion blur and judder is like vinyl's high noise floor, distortion, and surface noise; such as hiss, pops, etc.
All drawbacks of their respective mediums but some have been so conditioned to expect them that when they are absent it seems as though something is amiss, when in actuality things have been improved.
48fps provides less motion blur, less judder, and increased detail. A well recorded, engineered, and mastered digital recording will always surpass in quality and dynamics of a vinyl version.

My first experience with native 48fps content with last years Hobbit was not a positive one, it may have been due to the venue or a fault of the IMAX HFR 3D system, whereas viewing TDoS in RealD HFR 3D definitely swayed me to be more in favor of HFR capture for films.
Especially if 3D must persist, the increased frame rate definitely improves the illusion. Thankfully we no longer have to view 3D via anaglyph projection. Or is that another bygone tech that we should be lamenting as well?

Best Regards
KvE
Edited by KMFDMvsEnya - 12/14/13 at 3:37pm
post #42 of 316

I hate it, it makes the actors to plastic looking. It reminds me of hdtv feature motion blur effect!. But i m aware that if i look at more films with HFR i'll probably get use to it 

post #43 of 316
I stand by my assertion that newer is not always better and it's up to the artist or visionary to decide on a medium that expresses their art in the most effective manner. Since my opinions on the artistic value of technological advances are not based on simple logic, let's just move on.
Edited by degobah77 - 12/14/13 at 10:22pm
post #44 of 316
I thought there were scenes that really shined but for the most part I found it to be a distraction.
I like the idea but would like to see the same film shot in several frame rates for comparison (3/4/5...).
The idea certainly has merit but I think it needs to be improved upon.
post #45 of 316
HFR will take some time to get used to, but down the road when most movies go to higher frame rates we will look back and see how bad 24p looks in comparison. I hope we get more movies done in 48 or higher.
post #46 of 316
Perhaps a more interesting approach would be variable frame rate based on rate of change in image. With this, you can have mostly a 23.xxx frames and jump at certain points to 40 or 48 frames to reduce blur. I still believe that given some of the facets of 48 fps, far more care will be needed in setting up before the camera even runs - makeup, lighting, scenery, cgi on and on. It isn't the same game as 24 fps.
post #47 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phrehdd View Post

Perhaps a more interesting approach would be variable frame rate based on rate of change in image. With this, you can have mostly a 23.xxx frames and jump at certain points to 40 or 48 frames to reduce blur. I still believe that given some of the facets of 48 fps, far more care will be needed in setting up before the camera even runs - makeup, lighting, scenery, cgi on and on. It isn't the same game as 24 fps.

It was mentioned earlier, but this is what Douglas Trumbull has proposed with Showscan.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/siggraph-2012-douglas-trumbull-showscan-variable-frame-360410
post #48 of 316
I think there are some misconceptions about human visual perception as well as the 24fps standards.

The 24fps standards came about in the early ages of moving pictures. They tested various frame rates to find the lowest usable frame rate and 24fps was about the lowest frame rate that was found to provide the illusion of movement with a lower percentage of complaints from most viewers. Frame rates below 24fps elicited too many complaints and higher frame rates increased the costs in filmstock as well as developing and processing costs.

Even at 24fps though, the juddering motion was quite obvious and distracting, so to compensate for this, they realized that increasing the exposure for each frame created a blurring effect on objects in motion. This blurring of the moving object in each successive frame removed the sharp lines that made the judder obvious.

For example, using short exposures of a rolling ball, the ball could be in sharp focus in each frame, and you would quite easily notice the ball's position 'jump' forward a few inches in each successive frame.

By increasing the exposure duration of each frame, the ball is no longer a sphere with a clear boundary, but a blurred oblong and the blurred boundaries merge between frames making the judder less obvious.

That isn't how things are in real life though. The ball doesn't have built-in blur in real life. If I'm not focusing on the ball as it rolls by, yes it might appear as a blur going by, but I can choose to focus on it and track it with my eyes and unless it's a cannonball blasting past, I can track it and see it quite clearly.

Likewise, a fast moving object will naturally blur in my vision. I don't need to have blurriness added or baked into the image.

It's akin to James Cameron filming the 3D in Avatar where he deliberately left the seeds of Eywa (sp?) out of focus while floating in the foreground. In some scenes, they almost seem close enough to touch, but try as you might, you CANNOT focus on them because JC deliberately made them out of focus. His philosophy is that the director can use Depth of Field and shallow focus the same way they do in 2D, i.e. to force the viewers to look where the director wants us to look and focus on what they want us to focus on.

Personally, that just irritated me and took me out of the film and the immersive experience. My eyes don't work that way in real life. If I want to look at something, I can look at something and focus on it. Why put things floating in space near me but ensure that I can never see them properly even if I want to? DON'T bake in the blurriness. I should be free to explore with my eyes the way I can, and do, in real life. Besides, in that particular case, can you imagine the rewatchability when you can focus on and look at different things each time you watch it again? Just think of people going, "Hey, did you notice the XXX over in the top left corner when Neytiri is talking to YYY in that one scene?", and they go, "What? Really? Man, I'll have to look for that next time".

But to get back to the point. Real life doesn't include baked in blur in movement. Our perception can produce it, or reduce it, depending on how we use our eyes. It's unrealistic when it's baked in, and that's just the blur, not counting the juddering.


Max
Edited by djbluemax1 - 12/15/13 at 3:27am
post #49 of 316
I like HFR.

We've had this argument before in the HTPC forum regarding SVP ( smooth video project ) which does 60FPS upconversion.

This thread in the HTPC forum started it, and the jury is out on if people like the high frame rate or not.

60fps definetely has a feel of "video" to it and many call it the soap opera effect. But at the same time the motion is smooth, and the image is solid and constant.

At first I did not like SVP for movies as much as I did on animation. Something like BRAVE or MONSTERS INC was just awesome on it.

Basically SVP interpolates extra frames in between the real ones to give you a smoother more solid look. You can try it here free but just a warning you need a good PC.

460px-Memc.jpg
Quote:
"We are indeed shooting at the higher frame rate. The key thing to understand is that this process requires both shooting and projecting at 48 frames/s, rather than the usual 24 frames/s (The great majority of films have been shot at 24 frames per second since the late 1920s). So the result looks like normal speed, but the image has hugely enhanced clarity and smoothness. Looking at 24 frames every second may seem ok—and we've all seen thousands of films like this over the last 90 years—but there is often quite a lot of blur in each frame, during fast movements and if the camera is moving around quickly, the image can judder or "strobe." Shooting and projecting at 48 frames/s does a lot to get rid of these issues. It looks much more lifelike and it is much easier to watch, especially in 3-D." - Peter Jackson
"3D shows you a window into reality; the higher frame rate takes the glass out of the window" - James Cameron



My take,

It's an acquired taste. I think we get used to seeing 24FPS so anything else seems wrong or strange. But once I started using SVP (at first just playing around, then on certain titles, then more) I now appreciate it. It's like the first time a child tries beer or coffee they almost always think it's gross and wonder why adults drink it. But often many of them grow up and drink and enjoy coffee or beer. It just takes a while. It's an acquired taste.
post #50 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by degobah77 View Post

but I bought the "Mastered for iTunes" Pink Floyd The Wall, listened to it in pure disgust, then put on my original vinyl and the proof is in the pudding.

There was your first mistake because itunes music is highly compressed. I have the SACD of DSOTM and it blows away any vinyl version I have ever heard on any turn table at any price.
post #51 of 316
Hate it. For me it does exactly the opposite of what it is supposed to do. It's so unforgiving that sets look cheap and makeup looks terrible. It takes me right out of the movie.
post #52 of 316
I like it! biggrin.gif
post #53 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

We've had this argument before in the HTPC forum regarding SVP ( smooth video project ) which does 60FPS upconversion.

Never confuse interpolation with an actual high-framerate source. Interpolation can only do so much, and actual high framerate material will look much better, sharper, clearer, with appropriate motion blur.
Interpolated material will always have wonky motion blur, is never going to be perfectly sharp, and has a host of other issues. It may look nice on some content (especially animation), but it can't hold a candle to actual HFR material (be it 48p or even 60p), and comparing the two does not make much sense.

Don't spread false information giving people the feeling that they get actual HFR out of such a tool. The feel of an HFR movie is quite different than an interpolated one.
post #54 of 316
Well I do agree with you that there is only so much "fake" HFR can get you. And with it will come the issue from how it's sourced (like ringing or blur or whatever). But the effect to the end user is much the same, that smooth and full image being presented.

I agree with you that a natural source (like shot in HFR camera) is going to look much better. But for the majority of 24p material there is only one thing you can do. You can't go back and reshoot the movie in HFR. At the end of the day, it's always going to be individual choice if someone likes the HFR or not. Some don't even seem to like it when shot native with HFR, while others like even 24fps->60fps interpolation better. I wasn't trying to spread false info, rather I was only commenting on the debate about HFR or not.

I am guessing that in years to come many things will be made in HFR and that will become normal to us. We will look back on 24fps stuff and it will look strange and old. Much like how 4:3 looks to us today in an HD world. Change is coming. (guessing)
post #55 of 316
I , along with my friends and family, love it. And cant wait to bring HFR home! Any suggestions on how??
post #56 of 316
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??

Good question.
post #57 of 316
Saw The Hobbit DoS yesterday. This was my first experience w/ HFR. There were certain scenes that I found it distracting, Im not too crazy about it, but I would not skip seeing a movie being shown w/ HFR.
post #58 of 316
I'm unfortunately one of those who suffers from feeling nauseated/headaches while watching HFR. I still watched The Hobbit in it's entirety just to compare later.

I much prefer the 24fps 3d. Where I don't suffer from any side effects.

As long as they continue to offer in both rates, all is good. smile.gif
post #59 of 316
Thread Starter 
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??


There's no way to at this point. Hopefully, the next-gen disc format will include this capability.

post #60 of 316
Saw the 1st Hobbit in HFR. I got used to it pretty quick and felt it improved the 3D to an extent, but I'm not sure how much it added to the experience at the end of the day. I go to movies to get absorbed in the story, something I have no trouble doing when the filmmaking is good regardless of frame rate. There's a threshold for an audience getting involved in a movie and I don't think 3D or HFR or anything else makes it easier for the audience to cross that threshold. Other things are far more important.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Community News & Polls
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Community News & Polls › Do You Like the Look of HFR?