- Jun 8, 2011
TIL Movie Critics are Luddites.
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.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"?
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.Eabus said:Thanks Bob, that explanes why my roommate was going on about frame rates right before we went to see The Hobbit.
But is still in any way similiar to how I described it?Sexy Devil said: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.uneek said: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: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.
Basically what I'm getting at is it's not really comparable to actual HFR.
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.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.
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.medv4380 said:I've already provided one very good source for you.
We do NOT see in frames!medv4380 said:We do see in frames. Here is a book for reference.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 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.
Everyone keeps comparing the 48 frame film to the frame rates in video games, but it's apples and oranges.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
(shrugs) buggered if I know why...chozo_hybrid said:Really?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.
I'm in New Zealand and we already have it, how could you not, you're the closest country to us.