The Big Picture: Frame Rate
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Hm... I can certainly see the problem they face and I can understand that to some people, it will seem slightly irritating at first. Seriously though, change is not bad. A progress in technology is not bad. Those critics are wrong.
Hmpf... I don't care, but I wish they'd stop with the CGI. When CGI gets old it gets VERY ugly, to the point of us saying "dude, that's not how I remember it", using props and stuff though, when they're well done, those stick forever or at least get a classic stamp to them.
Boy, I'm sure glad I'm so obtuse when it comes to the making of a film. I was wondering why the movie got mixed reviews, and really, I didn't, and still kind of don't, see why that is. I probably didn't see it in the 48 rate format, but I don't think it matters either way. Maybe it does to some people, but if a movie is more "clear" and more visually impressive, I honestly don't see how that can be viewed as a negative thing.
This frame rate "issue" is just plain dumb to me.
PC gamers are far from being alien to the term "FPS"(no,I don't mean First Person Shooter).I know PC Gamers with decent enough rigs strive for 60+ FPS on all games they run,and for a good reason,the same reason all professional players in e-sports always play on the minimun settings of the games to get maximum performance,which means less time player command to game reaction.
The difference between 30 and 60 FPS and even 120 FPS is quite noticeable.This tech is what "the PC gaming master race" has been developing for YEARS!And they're still working on it,as graphic rendering and fidelity is developing constantly.For example those CGI-rendered cutscenes which we see in trailers and the current CGI-animated films(see Dreamwokrs/Pixar) those take days to be rendered frame by frame,actual movies take months,and they're rendered by supercomputers with dozens of processors and GPUs.I'm not very tech savvy,but this is what I learned from 5 years in lurking around the internet.
Granted this is quite a luxury for games,let along movies to run above 24/30+ FPS,it is noticeable,but the change isn't as staggering to break a deal or fuss over about it.
TL;DR 48 frames is objectively better,but it's a luxury for now.
PC gamers are far from being alien to the term "FPS"(no,I don't mean First Person Shooter).I know PC Gamers with decent enough rigs strive for 60+ FPS on all games they run,and for a good reason,the same reason all professional players in e-sports always play on the minimun settings of the games to get maximum performance,which means less time player command to game reaction.
The difference between 30 and 60 FPS and even 120 FPS is quite noticeable.This tech is what "the PC gaming master race" has been developing for YEARS!And they're still working on it,as graphic rendering and fidelity is developing constantly.For example those CGI-rendered cutscenes which we see in trailers and the current CGI-animated films(see Dreamwokrs/Pixar) those take days to be rendered frame by frame,actual movies take months,and they're rendered by supercomputers with dozens of processors and GPUs.I'm not very tech savvy,but this is what I learned from 5 years in lurking around the internet.
Granted this is quite a luxury for games,let along movies to run above 24/30+ FPS,it is noticeable,but the change isn't as staggering to break a deal or fuss over about it.
TL;DR 48 frames is objectively better,but it's a luxury for now.
I don't know what the fps of most HD televisions is nor if that's even a factor. What I can say is the clarity of the image, especially when there's movement, is off putting. Anyone who says this is more like real life is going to hell for lying. The sharper image of, say, a tennis match looks less real than the old non HD image.
I think the problem may be there is a bit of an uncanny valley effect going on. As the filmmaking technology approaches when the human eye sees in real life, the difference become more glaring and off-putting. I'm not even talking about make-up, sets, and props effects not being up to snuff in the better image. I was watching a tennis match on my parent's HD television and it didn't look like real life and the effect of all the movement, watching the ball and such was off-putting.
So when I eventually see the Hobbit, it will be in a non-3D 24 fps theater. I don't need to pay amovie ticket prices to have a bad experience.
I think the problem may be there is a bit of an uncanny valley effect going on. As the filmmaking technology approaches when the human eye sees in real life, the difference become more glaring and off-putting. I'm not even talking about make-up, sets, and props effects not being up to snuff in the better image. I was watching a tennis match on my parent's HD television and it didn't look like real life and the effect of all the movement, watching the ball and such was off-putting.
So when I eventually see the Hobbit, it will be in a non-3D 24 fps theater. I don't need to pay amovie ticket prices to have a bad experience.
I saw it in 48 FPS. Here are my spoiler-free thoughts:
When it came to the fully-CGI aspects of the film, especially CGI characters and creatures, it was excellent. They felt really alive and authentic. We're used to this from video game cutscenes and the like, though. I think a fully-CGI film will look absolutely great in 48 FPS.
Conversely, when it came to scenes with live actors, it often looked too real. Like a bunch of LARPers with bad makeup putting on a play. This might have been fine with a story more grounded in reality, but my girlfriend and I felt it detracted from the mythic/fantasy illusion they were going for. It got a bit better later on. We want to see it again in 24 FPS and see if that restores the illusion.
Then again, the 3D did look a lot more convincing in 48 FPS than most 24 FPS films do.
On the other hand, when the camera moved very quickly, especially during action scenes, it almost gave me nausea. With static shots or slow pans it was fine. But if the side benefit of this is the death of shaky-cam, consider me an instant convert.
I'm not dismissive of the format as a whole, and I think it will definitely improve over time, but, like Bob, I feel filmmakers will have to do a lot of reinventing of their craft. Not just camera placement, but lighting, editing techniques, new types of makeup, and so on. And I'm not sure having a fantasy film being the first test of the format was the wisest decision, but as my friend said, someone had to be first.
When it came to the fully-CGI aspects of the film, especially CGI characters and creatures, it was excellent. They felt really alive and authentic. We're used to this from video game cutscenes and the like, though. I think a fully-CGI film will look absolutely great in 48 FPS.
Conversely, when it came to scenes with live actors, it often looked too real. Like a bunch of LARPers with bad makeup putting on a play. This might have been fine with a story more grounded in reality, but my girlfriend and I felt it detracted from the mythic/fantasy illusion they were going for. It got a bit better later on. We want to see it again in 24 FPS and see if that restores the illusion.
Then again, the 3D did look a lot more convincing in 48 FPS than most 24 FPS films do.
On the other hand, when the camera moved very quickly, especially during action scenes, it almost gave me nausea. With static shots or slow pans it was fine. But if the side benefit of this is the death of shaky-cam, consider me an instant convert.
I'm not dismissive of the format as a whole, and I think it will definitely improve over time, but, like Bob, I feel filmmakers will have to do a lot of reinventing of their craft. Not just camera placement, but lighting, editing techniques, new types of makeup, and so on. And I'm not sure having a fantasy film being the first test of the format was the wisest decision, but as my friend said, someone had to be first.
I haven't seen The Hobbit, but I've been told what it looks like by reminding me of something that it's supposed to be like. I remember looking at HD TV's at a Sony Store and some of them have some type of technology that makes it look like what I've been told 48fps looks like. It's kind of hard to describe but it's sort of like this: You know the little screen on camcorders that let you see what you're recording? Imagine a movie that looks like you were seeing it through that. It may sound like it doesn't make a difference but trust me it does. The way I imagine the movie it's that it looks like behind-the-scenes footage and you can tell the props are fake and everything. Like I said, it's hard to explain.MB202 said:
Well, if it looks as shitty as 48 FPS looks because they're using old tricks on new tech, they'd have every right to.brazuca said:
Speaking of, 48 FPS isn't new tech. It's old tech, not commonly used for cinematography. This still holds some of Bob's points valid, however. Props look cheap, makeup looks bad, and so on. It's like HD porn: good in theory, but the clarity it gives often shows things you don't want to see.
Compact Discs and digital mastering went through growing pains like this, with few of the early masters being worth a crap. They spent a freaking FORTUNE on the Beatles CDs, and even those aren't so hot compared to what we can do now (Though they've aged much better than almost anything else).
The tech probably will be good eventually, but you're applying new technology to techniques that have been around for decades. If you did the same thing with gaming, it would probably still "spin" the head of gamers. This is falling asleep in Kansas and waking up in Oz.
And the real reason this is getting so much attention is because of how much hype there was behind it. If you tout your visuals, people will look at your visuals. No mystery here, Bob.
HDTVs can do frame rates in excess of 48.the antithesis said:
I saw the "High Frame Rate" (48 fps) version of The Hobbit yesterday. Looked a bit odd for the first few minutes, as the actors seemed to move really fast, but by the time Bilbo left the Shire everything felt perfectly fine.
Hell, this was the first film I've seen in 3D where the visual depth of the scenes felt both natural and constant for the duration of it all. (Note that I have yet to see an animated movie in 3D, due to various circumstances.)
Hell, this was the first film I've seen in 3D where the visual depth of the scenes felt both natural and constant for the duration of it all. (Note that I have yet to see an animated movie in 3D, due to various circumstances.)
Ah, good. So it is a factor. Put me squarely in the "hate it" camp, then. For something that is supposed to make the image even more clear, that it actually makes the image worse is just false advertising. We should sue.Zachary Amaranth said:
60fps is a target, but many of those games due to differences in even small points will drop that number to somewhere around 40-50 on the PC, but will mostly maintain high 50s on the consoles. though it should be noted that there is still some level of debate as to if the human eye can even tell the difference:brazuca said:
the test is to take a 1-2 minute segment of continues shot, and then randomly inter-splice a different frame, and then show it 3 different times (just in case someone wasn't paying attention the other 2), and then having each person state where the inter-spliced frame was. the result is that many people don't/can't really recognize past the upper 40s
though there is a big difference between "film" and digital (video games, and some movies). film (the medium in which light is exposed onto a strip of thin plastic) is controlled by the rate of the motor that is moving it. while digital is controlled by the refresh rate of the system/screen that is displaying it (along with other calculations, and controls that are taking place), and usually the reason that it is not really recognized in a game is because in a game it is not so much that frameB is moving to replace frameA as frameA is thrown away, and frameB is drawn in its place.
not to mention that in order for movies to reach 60fps (the way in which they are recorded/captured would have to be dramatically changed, and in some cases it would just not be as noticeable as you would think.