The Big Picture: Frame Rate

medv4380

The Crazy One
Feb 26, 2010
671
0
21
Aardvaarkman said:
It's very different than a frame on film. A frame on film captures a narrow field with specific boundaries. The human eye has more of an uneven field with detail at the center, and more peripheral vision, which tends to be sensitive to motion.

And what's your source for the idea that we can "see it reset"? f that were the case, wouldn't it indicate that we are capable of perceiving things beyond the supposed "frame rate"?
I've already provided one very good source for you. I'm not hunting down Biology, and Neurology text books or experiments that show the image on the human eye being upside down and resetting.

The only part of your argument about the differences that has any weight is a Field of View Argument, and if you want a fish eye lens and a concaved screen to display it on your welcome to it, but it wont change the film being used. You're also mistaking the focal length for the center of the eye. You can be looking at something with the center of the eye and it be completely blurry due to focus. Your eye has to adjust the focal length in much the same way as a camera man does. Your brain is sensitive to motion regardless of which part of the eye it's in, but we focus using the center to orchestrate stereoscopic vision using both eyes.

Being able to tell that the cones and rods reset at a given rate doesn't indicate that we're capable of seeing at a faster rate. There are tests that can make them run slower, but nothing has ever made them run faster. Even adrenaline tests using bungie jumping couldn't get the eye to send images to the brain any faster.

At 48fps we're actually displaying 3.2 fluid frames on the retina each with a gap of time between them so ~3 gaps.
At 24fps we're only showing 1.6 fluid frames on the retina with ~1 gap.
As far as the brain is concerned it only sees 1 fluid frame but one has a lot of gaps in the motion information and the other has very few gaps. Keep in mind, the only reason we didn't settle on 15fps is because of optical effects that were happening. The brain does a good job filling in the missing information but that's because it does this anyways, but the brain is lazy and doesn't like added work.

The problem is the lack of understanding of what a Fluid Frame is. Think of a single Fluid Frame as a continuous stack of still frames. The brain can extrapolate a lot of information from that single frame. In part, that is way people don't think they see as slow as 15fps, but that's because they think of a frame as a still drawing and not as a 1/15th of a second continuous exposure of information.

By going to 48fps they've made fluid frames look more like still frames. That gives you clarity, but at the sacrifice of the fluid motion. The brain actually cares more about that fluid motion than it does about the clarity of the image.

If all they wanted was clarity they should have done something with the resolution first. Getting the maximum number of dots on the screen for the average theater seat would have been a better bet, and I believe that's only an issue because of Digital and not an issue with 35mm film.
 

Sheo_Dagana

New member
Aug 12, 2009
966
0
0
I'm not sure if it was the new frame rate or not, but the special effects in this movie seemed worse to me than Fellowship had over a decade ago. I don't know if the frame rate was affecting that, and THAT is what critics are complaining about, or if it was because Peter Jackson is working with a much smaller budget for the Hobbit trilogy.

I readily admit to having little knowledge in this field, but it didn't matter to me because I still really enjoyed the film start to finish.
 

Yvressian

New member
Jul 19, 2008
20
0
0
I managed to see the movie in 48 frames, and I must admit that I didn't really like it.
On paper, a higher frame rate sounds great: more=better, and all it does is provide a higher image clarity, right?

Well, not exactly. First of all, yes, the image is stunningly clear, which is great. On the other hand, as Bob explained in the video, this is why some of the props and prosthetics in this particular movie look a bit fake. Obviously, this isn't a big problem, and even movies without so many special effects will have no problem with this.

However, my biggest complaint with the 48FPS video is that it gives movement a very "unnatural" feel. When characters move, they look ever so slightly too fast, as if the video is being unintentionally played at a higher speed, but not constantly. As a result, human movement looks a little bit too quick and jerky at times. It's hard to explain, but it kind of looks like a video-game cinematic that keeps slowing down and speeding up (like when you have a weak GPU). The result is an immersion-breaking "feel" to the movie. You do kind of get used to it if there is constant movement, but if the pace of the movie slows down and then speeds up again, you start noticing it again.

The most ironic thing is that human movement in the new 48 frame technology actually reminds me of the footage from old hand-crank cameras from the beginning of the 20th century, for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJNbO1Mbl2w
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
34,983
1,626
118
I saw it in 48fps and it was great. I don't know what people are talking about where it makes things looker faker than it normally would...
 

nondescript

New member
Oct 2, 2009
179
0
0
Eabus said:
Thanks Bob, that explanes why my roommate was going on about frame rates right before we went to see The Hobbit.
Seriously! I do music videos for fun, and some wanker posted a comment about it having "slow fps". As if 24 was now arctic slow. Next they'll say smart phones are something "my grandpa uses." Whiny entitled brats.

As far as the movie went, I didn't notice, or gave it a pass on how it looked. The only place I did a double take was Gollum looked... different. 'Course, that could have been an update on effects overall, and not the frame rate. Won't know till the extended edition DVD comes out.

WHEN DOES IT COME OUT?!?
 

TitanAura

New member
Jun 30, 2011
194
0
0
As an animator, having twice as many frames per second to work with scares the ever loving shit outta me for reasons that should be entirely obvious. Why should I draw twice as many inbetweens for minimal added effect?
 

Sn1P3r M98

New member
May 30, 2010
2,253
0
0
Thanks for the clarification. I was confused as to why it looked the same as any other movie when I saw it, but considering I live in Montana it's more than likely that it was in plain old 24 FPS.
 

uneek

New member
Sep 4, 2011
412
0
0
Sexy Devil said:
uneek said:
MB202 said:
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.
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.
The HDTV thing is motion interpolation or some shit. It works by taking two frames and creating an image that would fit in between those two to create the illusion of a higher frame rate. So basically you still get the motion blur and all that jazz with none of the additional clarity of HFR and it just looks smoother.

Basically what I'm getting at is it's not really comparable to actual HFR.
But is still in any way similiar to how I described it?
 

uneek

New member
Sep 4, 2011
412
0
0
Hutzpah Chicken said:
It's all Greek to me...
I don't understand how the speed of the movie projection has anything to do with the content.
It's not the speed, necessarily. It's the amount of frames per second. More frames in the movie means more real-looking motion. Doubling the framerate makes the movie look noticeably different. It's like a flip book. It looks better when it has more papers.
 

jetriot

New member
Sep 9, 2011
174
0
0
I had a lot of trouble adjusting to HD at first but now I am on board. I just don't understand how this FPS has any bearing when I thought almost everything was recorded and shown digitally. Why use film at all? I can't comprehend a scenario where film would have an advantage over digital. Of course, I know next to nothing about film and am probably the last generation that even used film in home cameras.
 

Nurb

Cynical bastard
Dec 9, 2008
3,078
0
0
People don't put up with games less than 30 FPS in games, why the fuss over higher framerate in film? You'd think removing the effect of the eye's inability to see clearly with fast movement would be a good thing
 
Feb 11, 2009
97
0
0
I got really distracted by how fast the swooping panoramic shots seemed to move. Saw it an an iMAX and some scenes intended to be impressive were very reminiscent of old Benny Hill sketches. Everything moved just a tad too quick - I guess an adjustment in camera movement could solve this.
 

Grabehn

New member
Sep 22, 2012
630
0
0
Just last year 3D became a thing over here, and then every movie theater got at least one room with 3D, from previously having just one movie theater with one 3D room in the whole country. So I'll probably get to see this "48fps" sorcery during 2020, or a bit later.
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
medv4380 said:
I've already provided one very good source for you.
No, you didn't. You linked to a book that just flatly stated the eye's effective "frame rate" without citing any actual sources or research for the statement. Not even a footnote. That's a terrible source. Especially as it was a book that had very little to do with the topic. There are lots of these kind of "rule of thumb" or "received wisdom" statements that just get flung around without any fact-checking.

As for the rest of your arguments, again, they are unsupported folk wisdom, not facts.
 

TheDAus

New member
Mar 13, 2012
4
0
0
medv4380 said:
Aardvaarkman said:
Eyes don't have a frame rate, because they don't use frames. Where are you getting the 15fps figure from? It sounds like quackery to me.

That doesn't make any sense. If the film is moving faster than your eyes/brain can perceive, then you will perceive that as "blur," just as you would with real-life objects moving faster than you can perceive in detail.

If your comment was true, it would mean that film-makers have found a way to bypass human perception, and give the brain more information than it can process outside of a cinema. That would be a pretty amazing discovery, something worthy of a Nobel Prize or other distinguished science award. I'm pretty sure that's not what's happening, especially as 48fps is a pretty low speed, and well within human perception if you're not intoxicated or have vision difficulties.
We do see in frames. Here is a book for reference.
http://books.google.com/books?id=jzbUUL0xJAEC&pg=PA24#v=onepage&q&f=false
We see at about 15fps when you're talking about color. The Retina resets about ever 1/15th of a Second which is 15 frames per second. For some it's as low as 12 and others it could be a bit faster than 15.
There are a couple of notable exceptions though. Your night vision which is in Gray Scale is more sensitive. It has a faster refresh than color. It's also why good compression tech splits RGB into YUV which is Gray Scale, Red Croma, and Blue Croma. Because we're more sensitive to changes in the Gray scale we put the best compression on Gray and the loosy compression on the Croma values.

They haven't found a way to bypass human perception. They just found a way to display a fake image to the eye in a way the brain can tell that it's fake. You're also not getting more information. You're losing information on the motion of the image, and gaining clarity of an image. You've actually lost information to gain the clarity so you're not giving the brain more than it can take it. But because it's not how the brain sees it knows the image is fake. In part, this is because we evolved to pay attention to motion and motion blur more than clarity.
We do NOT see in frames!
Our eyes have no shutters!

They send a constant stream of data to our brain!

If you used some simple logic you would know that if our brain could only see at 15FPS then anything higher would not make any difference!!
Objectivity we can see more than 15FPS! Just about all people can show that in a blind test!
Photons hit our eyes many more times that 15 in a second, why does really life not look fake?!

Also, a higher frame rate can not make anything look faster, only of the film was shot at something like 24FPS then played at double speed to get 48FPS!
A film shot at 48 FPS and displayed in realtime at 48FPS will not be faster or slower.



P.S A higher framerate will not make anything look "fake", people and objects don't move at 24 discrete positions per a second!
 

Yvressian

New member
Jul 19, 2008
20
0
0
Nurb said:
People don't put up with games less than 30 FPS in games, why the fuss over higher framerate in film? You'd think removing the effect of the eye's inability to see clearly with fast movement would be a good thing
Everyone keeps comparing the 48 frame film to the frame rates in video games, but it's apples and oranges.
A high frame rate in games produces a more natural look and motion. In movies, however, a 24fps version already shows a perfectly natural motion, and adding frames just offsets it.
The movie looks slightly like Benny Hill in the 48FPS version. Believe me, it's distracting.

Image clarity should be achieved with higher resolution photography and cameras, not fiddling with the frame rate. That way, you could get a clearer picture, but you wouldn't unintentionally mess up motion.
 

leviadragon99

New member
Jun 17, 2010
1,055
0
0
chozo_hybrid said:
leviadragon99 said:
Well for some utterly arbitrary and assinine reason I won't be able to see the movie until Boxing day anyway, because Australian cinemas are dumb like that.
Really?

I'm in New Zealand and we already have it, how could you not, you're the closest country to us.
(shrugs) buggered if I know why...