The Big Picture: Frame Rate

Milanezi

New member
Mar 2, 2009
619
0
0
uneek said:
Milanezi said:
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.
Who was talking about CGI?
I admit MY bad lol I guess I just assumed CGI would be one of the things they'd try to make look better with FPS speed
 

Olas

Hello!
Dec 24, 2011
3,226
0
0
I think it's time for the parable of the Shit and Turkey Sandwich.


We've been eating shit for nearly a century for no reason.
 

Bostur

New member
Mar 14, 2011
1,070
0
0
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
...
There are all shots where there is not a lit happening. In the Star Wars case, it's just some kid looking into a flat desert and a pretty colourless sunset. And yet, when you see these scenes in motion, the grainy quality of the picture, and the movement at which the frames move, is precisely what gives these scenes their arresting atmosphere.
...
Snipped to save room.

That's some interesting observations. I have a theory that our brains sometimes needs some noise to make an impression stick. If the brain needs to put a little work into it to 'digest' the impression it may last longer. I think film grain, low frame rates or even artificial noise in music may serve to make the impressions a little harder to chew, but also make a more lasting impact because of it. Glossy quality can feel artificial in a way.

Or we may just need to get used to it, it's hard to tell.
 

Joriss

New member
Dec 27, 2011
71
0
0
Haven't seen the Hobbit yet and not sure wheter to watch it in 24 or 48 fps. I fear the 48 rate will hurt my eyes
 

w00tage

New member
Feb 8, 2010
556
0
0
Same problem with high-quality LCD TVs. I set one up for my sister recently, tuned the picture to look fantastic, and it does. It looks so good you can clearly see the difference in lighting when the show switches to a set, and in many shots, the difference in reflectivity of the costume materials from the real thing. This has that same yank-you-out-of-immersion effect as bad CGI or the 48fps issue Bob described.
 

Sande45

New member
Mar 28, 2011
120
0
0
The framerate they use in cinemas is too low in my opinion. In faster scenes it looks more like a fast slideshow than moving image and that really takes you out of the experience. I haven't seen 48 yet so I don't know what that looks like but what I can say is that 24 should not be the end of the line.
 

shiajun

New member
Jun 12, 2008
578
0
0
I'm in the "it feels odd" camp. My boyfriend keeps telling me it's just because I'm not used to it, but I spent nearly 3 hours with the Hobbit and, although it wasn't as distracting as the first hour, I could still see the fast-forward effect with all the characters. I agree it makes everything look crisper and sharper than ever, but the motion is still off. I'm not fixed on the 24 FPS film look, although it does prep my brain for a specific experience. Documentaries do seem more real when there's more detail and with more fluid movement (like in behind the scenes footage), but that's just it. It makes the movie feel like a weird documentary. The detail and sometimes the motion want my brain to think it's more real, but lighting, composition, effects, etc, want be to think it's not. It's a strange congnitive dissonance that just doesn't feel right, and yes, ends up seeming fake. I've had to disable such upscaling of frames on my TV because it was really ruining my enjoymnet of movies. I'm not sure the push for "life-like" realism and clarity adds much more to film than "realism" in games, which so far hasn't made them overall better, just more resource-hugging.

Somewhere in the thread someone wrote a little bit that seems pretty relevant (sorry for not quoating you, I'm just too lazy to go back and find that specific post). Psychologically it seems the brain is more drawn into the experience when it does the motion interpolation, not when it's fed the pre-procesed image. I think the gaps it fills up by itself contribute to the movie watching experience much like imagination does in book-reading.
 

JenSeven

Crazy person! Avoid!
Oct 19, 2010
695
0
0
Sheesh, what a bunch of total idiots.
Why not check out what we Europeans have to deal with? 29.97 FPS, with frame interlacing to cover the difference.
This is basically taking two frames and putting a "mixed" one in-between them and with mixed I mean cut like window blinds and put semi-transparent over each other.
When paused or put in slow motion you can clearly see it, however my eyes also seem to pick it up normally and it's a completely horrible and terrible idea. It makes a movie unwatchable for me.

So before people start bitching about dumb things like 48 FPS, just try and think of worse ideas, because there are plenty of them
 

epichappy

New member
Dec 6, 2010
6
0
0
I just with they would use 60 FPS rather than 48. 60 Is actually close to the maximum speed the human eye can perceive so it would be a logical choice.
 

karamazovnew

New member
Apr 4, 2011
263
0
0
Just seen it. One word? EPIC!!! Loved every second of it. I expected to like it more than I did LotR (which I didn't like, actually), but I didn't expect to bloody LOVE it. Best movie I've seen this year, probably the best fantasy movie ever made. Fingers crossed for the next two. I'm glad now that Jackson split it in 3 :D More epicness to see.

Now... for the technical part. I watched it at a 3d hfr theater. Unfortunately, I had seats in the 5'th row, and the screen was HUGE. Since this was a 3D movie, you can bet that I wished it wasn't 3D in the close battle shots and some interior shots. But the rest of the movie was... I was there man... inside. And the improved framerate did help a lot, especially with camera panning and fast action. Even in the fast paced goblin chase scene, my I adjusted pretty well. A word of caution tho... in the first scenes, you'll be "wtf?! why are they moving so fast?", by the end you'll just wish you could stay and see it again (maybe from the back row tho).
 

Epidemic Magick

New member
Dec 19, 2012
7
0
0
I don't get why the 48fps is such a big issue to a lot of people. There are a lot of music videos, sport streamings and even some movies done at 60 or 120 fps, that look WAY MORE NATURAL in regards of human movement and especially camera panning than the standard 24fps stuff.

24fps to me always felt jerky in theatres, and with newer movies and upgraded projectors at my home town the limitation is clearly visible. People like saying that it's the norm and most brain-pleasing, but in reality 24fps is the LOWEST point at which mind doesn't alarm you that something is wrong with what you're seeing, and I don't accept that it gives it the right to be the "be all end all" standard all 48fps naysayers make it out to be.

Also, hello everyone, this is actually my first post here, tried to join a couple of times before in months past, but had some capcha issues that mysteriously went away now !
 

Tim Chuma

New member
Jul 9, 2010
236
0
0
A lot of the newer movies are not even being released on film, they just ship a hard drive.

My local theatre (http://www.astortheatre.net.au/)has a 4k digital projector and still runs 70mm films (one of the only 70mm screens in the country).

You can definitely tell the difference with the 4k films, I recently saw Lawrence of Arabia at that theatre.

Some films are downloaded via satellite, which does not hold up as well I have heard from the Universal Classic Monsters screenings - http://willmckinley.wordpress.com/2012/10/26/we-belong-dead-why-frankenstein-looked-horrific-on-the-big-screen/

As for the Hobbit, I will probably just end up watching it at the cheap $9 day at another local theatre. The Astor did do a triple bill of the Lord of the Rings movies recently, but I was away that weekend.
 

V8 Ninja

New member
May 15, 2010
1,903
0
0
Hitchmeister said:
"The inherent crappiness of a standard based on near century old technology must be preserved for all time."

No thank you, Mr. Movie Critic.

"The first attempt at using any technology will have certain flaws, therefore it's better to abandon any hope of progress."

Yeah, that doesn't sound any better.
If this is what I think it is (an attack against MovieBob), the man did say he liked the 48 FPS.

Moving On: There's a 95% chance that I saw the Hobbit in 24 FPS, so I really don't have an opinion besides "I bet 48 FPS would look pretty cool in a movie!"
 

Signa

Noisy Lurker
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
4,742
0
41
Country
USA
I can tell you right now without even seeing it that I will dislike the change. A few years back, I got a new TV that was 120hz, and it did its own version of motion scaling. While not perfect, it did ruin the illusion of many films or shows I played on it. It gave it as somewhat shot-in-video quality that most soap operas have, even for higher quality shows and films. I doubt I'd hate 48FPS enough to get sick from it, or feel that it ruins a movie, but if my TV is anything to go by, the gritty, jerky quality of motion in a film is part of what makes it look real.
 

medv4380

The Crazy One
Feb 26, 2010
671
0
21
TheDAus said:
We do NOT see in frames!
Our eyes have no shutters!
The Cones on your retina activate in the same way as film, and reset once ever 15 seconds. The "shutter" you're so tied up about is the resetting of the Cones in the same way a camera slides in a blank frame for the next exposure. Rod operate faster but just see light intensity since they are mostly responsible for your black and white night vision.
 

medv4380

The Crazy One
Feb 26, 2010
671
0
21
Aardvaarkman said:
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.
The Flip to the Bibliography on page 342
Or you can pick up
"Topography of the layer of rods and cones in the human retina" c 1935
Which is a large source of that "received wisdom"
Or sit down and watch some good old Nova on PBS with the Neurologist who tried to test out the effect of people experiencing things "slowly" while they're bungie jumping or thrill seeking. Proved that even though they report seeing things slowly they don't see any faster.

But I'm not buying any of the books for you, or helping you out in any way. You already believe the nonsensical counter points without even looking up the information for yourself.
 

EvilRoy

The face I make when I see unguarded pie.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
1,540
164
68
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.
That isn't precisely correct, while an individual eye cell is limited by chemical reaction speed and impulse transmission, 10 fps is correct only for an individual cell. It hasn't been determined for certain how these cells interact, whether that means that two cells just sit side by side, sending images at 10 fps each, or if the cells stagger themselves so that they work together to produce an image at 20 fps. Considering what I've found, the latter seems more likely.

It makes sense that the book you quoted would produce these numbers for the sake of film making, but medical journals focusing on our ability to retrieve and react to visual input have found that the values are excessively variable person to person. For instance, saccadic eye movements can be up to 1000 deg/s, in addition to a constant 30-70 Hz vibration, all working to 'refresh' the image the eye provides to you, since-like the mighty T-Rex of Jurrasic Park-we actually can't perceive things without motion.

Unfortunately I haven't been able to find a medical journal for free that discuses this type of visual acuity, but I did find this: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a178485.pdf which is a discussion of tests performed on aviators in WWII. Although the results cannot be used as a direct evaluation of eye perception, it is notable that some of the pilots were able to react within 150 msec of visual stimuli. Considering an upper limit of 15 fps that leaves us with 83 msec for the pilot to actually perform a physical action to signal the researchers. However, as noted by this fancy blog because I'm tired now and don't feel like browsing journals I can't reasonably afford [http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/09/15/time-on-the-brain-how-you-are-always-living-in-the-past-and-other-quirks-of-perception/], it takes the brain about 80 msec to get to the present.

That 80 msec actually comes after the 'fps' of our eyes, because it is related to our brain trying to sort out what it just had sent to it, rather than it just being how long it takes for our brain to receive and understand the info in general. So with a little bit of simple subtraction we can see that a number of WWII pilots were able to perform a physical action within 3 msec of registering the need to act. Based on this, admittedly extremely tenuously related, information I would postulate that the human eye is capable of transmitting information much faster than 15 fps. It is possible that the registration time of these faster reacting pilots is substantially lower, but even accepting that they are able to process information 50% faster than the average human, 43 msec is not a very long time to perform a physical action.

That was fun, it's been a long time since I've actually researched on purpose.
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
medv4380 said:
Or you can pick up
"Topography of the layer of rods and cones in the human retina" c 1935
Which is a large source of that "received wisdom"
Gee, that's some cutting-edge research there, which has nothing to do with some kind of supposed "frame rate" of the human eye. You're just digging a bigger hole for yourself here.
 

McMullen

New member
Mar 9, 2010
1,334
0
0
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
You just spent a few paragraphs describing how you're a fan of the Reality is Unrealistic trope. Aesthetics borne out of technical limitations are not necessarily better. It's merely a form of stylization, one that can be maintained digitally if future artists so wish. I think it's premature to say that there is no promise in the technology.
 

Smertnik

New member
Apr 5, 2010
1,172
0
0
The movie looks jaw droppingly awesome. Once I got accustomed to the lack of the usual "movie feel" I started to appreciate the higher framerate greatly, especially during action scenes and when fast movements were involved in general. And the detail on both actors and CGI characters is unbelievable. It's the first time I was actually amazed by a movie. Also I found the higher framerate to be more comfortable to watch, it didn't strain my eyes at all, as opposed to normal 3D.
I can't wait to see more movies filmed this way.