A bit late for this. That tech already is in use
I like you
The Hobbit 48fps first impressions
- Thread starter Edmond Dantès
- Start date
- Status
Shouldn't the 48fps be?
•1/64 shutter speed (270 degrees?)
Thus having only slightly less motion blur than the 24fps with 1/48 shuter.
---
Just going movies trough frame by frame and 24fps has some cases where motion blur is very long and in 48fps video it is pretty evident that motionblur is nonexistent..
I'm quite sure that 48fps video is indeed shot with 1/270 shutter and thus has less than 1/5th of the motion blur of the 24fps 180 degree video.
•48FPS
•1/270 shutter speed (64 degree?) (shutter open 0.178th of a frame)
Genesis Knight
Member
Holy crap, that looks weird.
We need better image compression. Get on it tech-wizards!
Soap Thing is the movie-worlds. "Angular graphics"
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
We could invent a new image format that uses your PC's hardware to interpolate frames. So you compress the 48fps GIF by deleting every second frame, then use interpolation to recreate them on the fly. Half the bandwidth!
I'm quite sure that he miss shot it.
The motion blur is not 3/4 of frame time in the 48fps video, things literally jump around in the video.
I thought one of the reasons for going with 48 was that it was compatible with existing digital projectors.
I think you know the answer to part of this, they'll use anything as an excuse to charge more money. I'm not sure about whether their existing digital tech can display this or not.
What a hack, doesn't Jackson realize that the human eye can only see 24 frames per second?
Aren't movies already projected at 48 fps in every movie theatre outside of maybe North Korea to reduce eye stress and improve image clarity? So using 48 real frames instead of 2*24 would be the same for the projector and no upgrade needed.
Personally I would've wanted 60, just because I'm justed to it from gaming and I wouldn't need a new 48/240 Hertz tv.
Aren't movies already projected at 48 fps in every movie theatre outside of maybe North Korea to reduce eye stress and improve image clarity? So using 48 real frames instead of 2*24 would be the same for the projector and no upgrade needed.
Personally I would've wanted 60, just because I'm justed to it from gaming and I wouldn't need a new 48/240 Hertz tv.
I think there's going to be a major backlash if they try it again. Technicolor wasn't a surcharge, it was seen as an incentive to get people to the theater instead of watching TV. That's how these new advancements should be treated.
I was making some 48fps gifs for comparisons' sake only to realize that both videos are actually different. :lol
I'm definitely not bashing it because I'm not used to it. It's because I don't like it. Period.
I think we have a technical vs visual battle here. I don't mind 24 and I believe it's still better visually. Sure panning is a bit jarring but I don't really care, it's all up to the director/producer. Red camera or not, I still think the motion of the 48 to be too smooth.
That's not fair to say, I don't like it either and it isn't because I'm not used to it; It's bad, period.
That's not fair to say, I don't like it either and it isn't because I'm not used to it; It's bad, period.
And you don't like it because you're not used to it.
Eight Diagram Bat Fighter
Banned
Yep, I guess I shot it wrong then. I didn't read that article and only read someone's post that it should be 1/270, when actually it was supposed to be 270 degrees (1/64). Uggh, someone ban that dude. I'll see what I can toss up during lunch.
1/64 is gonna make for smoother motion.
1/64 is gonna make for smoother motion.
Something a bit more exciting than fingering rocks please.
See if you can go to a busy street and have cars come into and out of the picture, that could work.
If you had been watching 48fps your entire life and were just now seeing 24fps as the next step, I wonder if you would feel the same way.
I was making some 48fps gifs for comparisons' sake only to realize that both videos are actually different. :lol
You know that the "not being able to see past 24 fps" part was a joke, right? To make fun of the people who actually claim such things in movie and gaming threads? Thus the part where I talk about what I framerate I actually wanted in for this jump...or am I misinterpreting your reactions?
PjotrStroganov
Member
I've come to hate panning shots in 24fps. I welcome the future.
drugstore_cowboy
Member
I wonder how many people who complain about 24p are watching movies at the correct refresh rate outside of a cinema.
23.976fps played back at the correct refresh rate (or a multiple of) looks fine, certainly not jittery.
23.976fps played back at the correct refresh rate (or a multiple of) looks fine, certainly not jittery.
Studios and theaters are all about fleecing the people who do still go to the movies these days instead of fighting to bring people back.
So yeah, I expect a surcharge.
You never know man, you never know...
BTW 2D movies are projected at 24 frames per second, there's no repetition. OTOH RealD 3D projections repeat each frame 3 times, for each eye, so it's technically 144 frames per second, to avoid flickering.
slow horizontal pan if you can (or as someone suggested, a road with cars going by slowly)
Not exactly. There is a shutter on the projector so that each frame is displayed twice (or more accurately blanked out for a brief period) IIRC.*
*not a movie theatre projectionist.
moniker
Member
Exactly. I'm not saying 24p is super smooth or anything, but playing it back without telecine judder makes a big difference.
Okay. Then why don't you like it? And "CUZ ITS BAD" isn't an answer.
Because it's not as cinematic? Because it looks like a soap opera? You make these associations because of what you've experienced. If all movies were 48fps and all soap operas were 24fps, do you think you'd still consider 24fps more cinematic?
At least with 3D, I can understand that the technology hasn't been perfected, that wearing glasses is annoying, that they darken the image, that even seeing the 3D image can cause some headaches and take some getting used to, that there have been a ton of poorly converted 3D movies that have seriously turned people off of the technology.
But higher framerates? There is no reasonable counter-argument. "IT'S DIFFERENT SO IT'S BAD!" is literally the only complaint that can be made.
Also editing your post to reply to a post after yours is fucking stupid. You can make another post. The board's not gonna run out of space.
Exactly, looked like they threw in behind the scenes footage during the gun fights.
Relax there buddy. I already described why I didn't like it, it's too smooth and feels unnatural.
What's next, are you gonna say paddle shifters are better than stick shift in older cars? Fuck no. It's a feeling.
AtomicShroom
Member
People thinking that a 48fps movie will look the same as a live TV broadcast or soap need to realize that a whole lot of expensive image post-processing is done to movies to make them look the way they do. You're basically comparing unaltered raw footage to footage that's spent weeks being post-processed. 48fps movies will definitely not look as cheap as 48fps soaps.
when they move to 48fps, does that mean they'll project 48fps of actual movie, or they'll project at 96fps and have black frames between as before?
It's actually supposed to be 1/72
Must be like the 4th time I'm correcting this on GAF, but Public Enemies IS NOT 48 fps. It's 24 fps with 1/24th of a second shutter. Stop bringing it up.
im downloading those 2 sample videos now but will this even be possible to watch on an lcd?
i mean, i know i'll be able to watch it, but it's gonna be converted to 60hz when i watch it right? can't really be an accurate representation of what a true 48hz refresh rate would look like
i mean, i know i'll be able to watch it, but it's gonna be converted to 60hz when i watch it right? can't really be an accurate representation of what a true 48hz refresh rate would look like
The 48p footage looks like stop motion because all of the motion blur is gone.
Since what the camera captures during stop motion animation isn't actually moving, there is no motion blur. And since the 48p footage is capturing images with so many frames per second, what each frame is capturing isn't moving fast enough to make motion blur.
It's a cool sensation, actually.
Since what the camera captures during stop motion animation isn't actually moving, there is no motion blur. And since the 48p footage is capturing images with so many frames per second, what each frame is capturing isn't moving fast enough to make motion blur.
It's a cool sensation, actually.
He already admitted to having the wrong shutter speed... Let's hope he brings back something with a little more motion blur.
- Status