|
|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
haireez
Joined: 14 Jun 2007 Posts: 207 Location: singapore
TV/Projector: Vidikron Vision 1 - Ultra
|
Link Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2016 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apparently, there's some movies that's available from some website that indicate 60fps. I tried them and the details are much much better than 24fps. I can't go back to 24fps after seeing the 60fps.
I'm not too sure how they did this as I also thought that some movies are shot at 60fps.
_________________ 2 White Vision 1
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
barclay66
Joined: 27 Jun 2011 Posts: 1291 Location: Germany
TV/Projector: Marquee 9500 Ultra
|
Link Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2016 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi,
To my knowledge, movies (with the exception of the 'Hobbit' trilogy and other 48fps titles) are shot at 24fps. BUT: When played in the cinemas each frame is shown twice, thus having a built-in 'frame doubler'.
Please see the relevant article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate -> Section 'Sound films'.
This is my theory only: The cost involved with special effects and CGI is related to the number of frames where either graphical manipulation (e.g. removal of wires, background manipulation etc.) or computer generated images (rendering time per frame) are being used. Therefore, switching the production to 60fps would increase its cost by the factor of 2.5! And -using traditional film- the amount of footage would increase by the same factor, making the editing process much more complex and the final reels bigger or more often to be changed...
Regards,
barclay66
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
cmjohnson
Joined: 03 Apr 2006 Posts: 5180 Location: Buried under G90s
|
Link Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2016 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But increasing the rate to 30 FPS over 24 is just a 25 percent change, and that would be sufficient for all "modern" video purposes.
Plus, thanks to the wonders of automated animation and editing software and their ability to generate most of the imagery without human input, using keyframes as the reference points, the labor to deal with these extra 25 percent of frames (or more) is far less than the labor to hand animate and edit individual frames.
The animation process (editing, too) is becoming increasingly sophisticated, automated, and less labor intensive for a given level of scene complexity.
If 30 or 60 FPS moviemaking isn't yet a standard, I predict it will be before long. But that won't help any of us viewing the existing catalog of 24FPS movies that are unlikely to be remade at 30 or 60FPS.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
kal Forum Administrator
Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 17850 Location: Ottawa, Canada
TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7
|
Link Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2016 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cmjohnson wrote: | I'm admittedly rather surprised, and dismayed, to learn that even now most movies are still recorded at 24 FPS. Really that makes no sense at all since movies today are not expected to EVER be shown on film, although that is actually a pretty recent development. It may be that producers and engineers will soon figure out that recording content at 30 or 60 FPS simply makes a lot more sense. |
Video content has been shot at 30 fps for years. Movies are not because the look and feel is completely different and generally speaking people don't like it.
The fact that content's recorded on film or not these days is not the core issue.
Kal
_________________
Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
kal Forum Administrator
Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 17850 Location: Ottawa, Canada
TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7
|
Link Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2016 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
barclay66 wrote: | To my knowledge, movies (with the exception of the 'Hobbit' trilogy and other 48fps titles) are shot at 24fps. BUT: When played in the cinemas each frame is shown twice, thus having a built-in 'frame doubler'.
Please see the relevant article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate -> Section 'Sound films'. |
That's for light output. It does not does not make the motion smoother or reduce judder. There is no new content.
You guys are reading too much into this. Technical issues aside, audiences don't like higher than 24 fps for theatrical releases. To quote that same Wiki page about 48 fps:
"At a preview screening at CinemaCon, the audience's reaction was mixed after being shown some of the film's footage at 48p, with some arguing that the feel of the footage was too lifelike (thus breaking the suspension of disbelief)."
Shoot a movie at 30fps and people complain of the 'soap opera look' because that's the framerate that much video (TV only) content is shot at.
Ironically, most TV shows are actually shot at 24 fps today to give it a more cinematic feel, just like filmmaking. (Soap operas and a few others aside).
There are cases for both, but generally speaking higher refresh rate doesn't automatically mean a better movie. It's a completely different feel, that a large portion of people do not want.
Kal
_________________
Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
nidi
Joined: 17 Aug 2008 Posts: 299 Location: Switzerland
|
Link Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:32 pm Post subject: 30fps soap opera look , NOT! |
|
|
30 fps has no soap opera look.
I urge people to look at Oklahoma (1955) or Around The World in 80 Days (1956)
both 70mm versions of the movies have been filmed in Todd-AO (30 fps) (70 mm version)
and they definately don't look like a soap opera.
http://in70mm.com/news/2014/oklahoma/index.htm
Michael
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006 Posts: 15909 Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
Link Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kal wrote: | There are cases for both, but generally speaking higher refresh rate doesn't automatically mean a better movie. It's a completely different feel, that a large portion of people do not want. |
+1
Count me in that group who actually likes 24fps. To use a metaphor, HFR (high-frame rate) is like a photograph of a scene, where 24fps is more like a painting of a scene.
Here's the thing: We watch movies to be absorbed in the story - and the art of the story. We call it suspension of disbelief. The point of movies isn't to see temporal motion rendered in maximum accuracy. If it's a documentary about wagon wheels or jet engines, then perhaps more temporal resolution would be good. Otherwise, the 24hz frame rate is an element of the medium, along with lighting, color temperature, depth-of-field, motion-blur, and a host of other things that help give high-value film production its unique look.
SC
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006 Posts: 15909 Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
Link Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:48 pm Post subject: Re: 30fps soap opera look , NOT! |
|
|
nidi wrote: | 30 fps has no soap opera look.
I urge people to look at Oklahoma (1955) or Around The World in 80 Days (1956)
both 70mm versions of the movies have been filmed in Todd-AO (30 fps) (70 mm version)
and they definately don't look like a soap opera.
http://in70mm.com/news/2014/oklahoma/index.htm |
Agreed. 30fps isn't significantly different from 24fps, especially if there's some good shutter-induced motion blur. Most people would barely be able to tell the difference between 24fps and 30fps.
The whole "soap opera look" criticism was/is driven by TV's 60hz (59.94 actually). Old NTSC was 59.94 interlaced, and so are both 720p and 1080i.
SC
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
nidi
Joined: 17 Aug 2008 Posts: 299 Location: Switzerland
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006 Posts: 15909 Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
Link Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One other pet peeve... The whole "judder" term has been so misused as to be no longer useful in casual conversation. It originally referred to the uneven motion which resulted from 24fps sources being displayed on broadcast television at 29.97fps (59.94 fields per second) after the telecine process.
"3-2 pulldown" as it's called, was named so because of the "cadence" of the original film frames being displayed for different lengths of time, along with two different frames being mixed on-screen at regular intervals, resulting in subtle "pulsing" to the motion, called "judder".
Unfortunately, some people are ignorant of the more technical meaning of the term and just think that film displayed at 24fps has "judder", which isn't correct.
The issue confused so many people back in the old days when we were talking about displaying DVD on CRT at 48hz, 72hz, or 60hz, I even made a graphic so people could understand whey they saw judder.
SC
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
cmjohnson
Joined: 03 Apr 2006 Posts: 5180 Location: Buried under G90s
|
Link Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2016 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What I find to be annoying is not judder per se, but motion blur, or more specifically the lack of it, in scenes that have rapid movement or rapid pans that were apparently filmed with digital cameras and at 24 FPS. Scenes like that are hard for me to track.
If they were recorded (and displayed) at a higher frame rate, that effect would be less prominent and make it easier for me to appreciate the scene properly.
I find that playing games on the computer (or console, if I had one) is more pleasurable at higher frame rates. Movement starts to look really good around 30 FPS but if I can get a framerate of 60 or better, that's when it becomes smooth as silk and starts to feel a lot more real.
I'd rather see that in movies, too.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006 Posts: 15909 Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
Link Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2016 10:19 pm Post subject: Re: Douglas Trumbull Framerate Debate |
|
|
nidi wrote: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1aMD6dI-rc
great discussion about framerates with Douglas Trumbull , the effects wizard behind 2001 |
Yes, that whole talk is excellent to understand the whole context surrounding these issues. Later, in the second or third segment, Doug actually gets into the stuff I was talking about, and what CJ is getting at in his last post.
SC
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
kal Forum Administrator
Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 17850 Location: Ottawa, Canada
TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7
|
Link Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2016 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ecrabb wrote: | Count me in that group who actually likes 24fps. To use a metaphor, HFR (high-frame rate) is like a photograph of a scene, where 24fps is more like a painting of a scene.
Here's the thing: We watch movies to be absorbed in the story - and the art of the story. We call it suspension of disbelief. The point of movies isn't to see temporal motion rendered in maximum accuracy. If it's a documentary about wagon wheels or jet engines, then perhaps more temporal resolution would be good. Otherwise, the 24hz frame rate is an element of the medium, along with lighting, color temperature, depth-of-field, motion-blur, and a host of other things that help give high-value film production its unique look. |
Exactly.
I'm also a fan on 24 fps for most movie content.
Interesting that you mention documentaries as I watched most of the BBC Planet Earth documentaries with "clear motion drive" enabled on my JVC projector to make it it feel like 60fps. Very cool.
Kal
_________________
Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
cmjohnson
Joined: 03 Apr 2006 Posts: 5180 Location: Buried under G90s
|
Link Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2016 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But, 24 FPS was the chosen film standard for the simple reason that it was considered to be the minimum frame rate that looked good to the average person. It's the minimum frame rate that meets quality standards. After that it's all a matter of economics.
I don't consider the look of 24 FPS film to be particularly amazing. To me, that somewhat low frame rate sometimes gets in the way of presenting the visual experience that was the intent of the director to show to us. Especially in scenes with fast motion.
I've found that I track and resolve motion much better at higher frame rates. And in fact, any gamer knows this.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
kal Forum Administrator
Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 17850 Location: Ottawa, Canada
TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7
|
Link Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2016 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cmjohnson wrote: | But, 24 FPS was the chosen film standard for the simple reason that it was considered to be the minimum frame rate that looked good to the average person. It's the minimum frame rate that meets quality standards. After that it's all a matter of economics. |
Correct. It used to be 16, then upped to 24 to sync better when audio was added to movies.
Quote: | I don't consider the look of 24 FPS film to be particularly amazing. To me, that somewhat low frame rate sometimes gets in the way of presenting the visual experience that was the intent of the director to show to us. Especially in scenes with fast motion. |
24 fps can definitely get in the way of some things. Directors need to choose what works best for what they're trying to do, but pickup/acceptance of anything higher than 24 has been met with lots of pushback from the public so it's been difficult.
IMHO, there's no "one" right framerate. I wish it was easier for directors to choose what they want, no different than choosing an aspect ratio. Unfortunately it is not.
Quote: | I've found that I track and resolve motion much better at higher frame rates. And in fact, any gamer knows this. |
True. Faster is smoother. But again, it's not always what the director or audience wants in terms of movies. It's not really valid to compare with games which is completely different (a form of immersive reality). In games you usually want it to feel 'real' while a director may not. In a game you're in charge. Usually smooth is exactly what you want and 60 fps is the holy grail and what gamers and game developers hope to achieve.
Kal
_________________
Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
haireez
Joined: 14 Jun 2007 Posts: 207 Location: singapore
TV/Projector: Vidikron Vision 1 - Ultra
|
Link Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I really don't believed in 60fps until I tried it on my vision 1. Again I'm not sure how it's possible since it's shot on 24fps and how they convert it, but if you're able to see it for yourself, you will notice that the picture has much more details, punchier, better motion etc...(except some instances you will see double line on fast scene but the details it brings surpass this minor issue)
Some movies include Avatar, Guardian of the Galaxy, Everest, Elysium, Transformer 4 are available in 60fps.
_________________ 2 White Vision 1
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
kal Forum Administrator
Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 17850 Location: Ottawa, Canada
TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
haireez
Joined: 14 Jun 2007 Posts: 207 Location: singapore
TV/Projector: Vidikron Vision 1 - Ultra
|
Link Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2016 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Please pm your email
_________________ 2 White Vision 1
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
kal Forum Administrator
Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 17850 Location: Ottawa, Canada
TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
cmjohnson
Joined: 03 Apr 2006 Posts: 5180 Location: Buried under G90s
|
Link Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2016 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't disagree with any of this except to note that a lot of hardcore gamers want more than 60 FPS out of their games.
With monitors now readily available that support 144 Hz refresh rates, and video cards that can meet or beat that, they're
always trying to max out the framerate and if they could go past 144 Hz they'd do it.
I truly do NOT know what framerate is entirely equal to real life viewing of fast moving objects, but whatever it is, gamers want it.
Some people want to see different things out of a movie. Myself, I want to see it as if I was there watching events unfold with my own eyes. Because of that, things I find objectionable in movies are motion that doesn't look realistic (too much or not enough motion blur), messing with the color palette, and stupid camera angles and a shaky image from a hand-held camera.
Even when I was six years old the original Batman TV series drove me nuts with its wacky camera angles and comic book BAM! POW! graphics splattered across the screen every time somebody got punched or a chair got busted over his head.
I like a documentary style POV.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
|
Forum powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
|
|