Support NeoGAF

[Raistlin]

There is nothing more "cinematic" about 24fps.

Sure there is. It's simply a convention. The term 'cinematic' is derived from cinema, and therefore incorporates the general look of film we're accustomed to. That's a combination of things and changes over time, but obviously one of the main relatively consistent components thus far is framerate ... and more specifically, the amount of motion blur inherent to 1/48sec captures.

That doesn't mean straying away from it is a bad thing. Moreover, that doesn't imply the general look can't be approximated via 48p.

I've come to hate panning shots in 24fps. I welcome the future.

.

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.

No it doesn't. Yes you remove telecine judder (irregular motion from 3:2 pulldown), but you can't do anything about the inherent frame judder. Even at a 'correct refresh rate', take a look at a slow pan.

You never know man, you never know...

BTW 2D movies are projected at 24 frames per second, there's no repetition.

For all practical purposes, that's not quite correct

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movie_projector#Shutter

I'm not a fan of the 48fps footage. Even after watching it 10 times it still looks strange.

Smooth, yes. But not in a good way. Too hectic.

It wasn't shuttered properly. He's making new comparisons.

I wish people would stop comparing it to fake processing on TVs. It is NOT the same. Something recorded natively at 48fps is going to have 48 individual frames. Something recorded or filmed at 24fps is 24fps. You can triple every frame, interpolate frames, or do anything else but it is still always going to be 24fps of information to begin with. Big difference.

While it's not exact, there are similarities regardless of the original content not being there. It's an approximation that uses vectors to extrapolate where the objects would be in the intermediate frames, the amount of blur, etc.

The problem is the algorithms vary wildly, and also many are configurable which impacts the end result (somewhat akin to changing shutter speeds).

I did scale it down to a smaller resolution. It's the bit rate that is the problem. \

Actually, it's you people's slow computers that is the problem. You peoples need to upgrade.

Regardless of computer performance, many people are going to have issues playing this back due to their video card and monitor. There's no 'good' way to display 48p at 60Hz which is what most people will be seeing on an LCD. As a matter of fact, it will likely introduce significantly more telecine judder than 24p content. You're at the mercy of your GPU and monitor combo.

The only way to truly view it properly is if you're using a CRT that supports 48Hz and your GPU will properly output to that (2:2 for 24p and 1:1 for 48p) ... or better yet, 96Hz (4:4. 2:2).

 

[jett]

Maybe it is just me (or my monitor) but it still seems super jerky compared to 24p.

It's not "jerky", what you're trying to say is that it's less blurry, which it is. The 24p video is pretty much swathed in motion blur in comparison.

 

[pottuvoi]

I'm just wondering if, assuming 48fps takes off, 24fps could still stick around for artistic reasons. Could we expect hybrid movies where action is shown at 48fps and character scenes are shown at 24 unique fps (through frame doubling)?

We have movies where different scenes are shot with different shutter speeds, so yes this is possible and is something that will most likely happen.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

Regardless of computers, many people are going to have issues playing this back due to their video card and monitor. There's no 'good' way to display 48p at 60Hz which is what most people will be seeing on an LCD. As a matter of fact, it will likely introduce significantly more telecine judder than 24p content. You're at the mercy of your GPU and monitor combo.

The only way to truly view it properly is if you're using a CRT that supports 48Hz and your GPU will properly output to that (2:2 for 24p and 1:1 for 48p) ... or better yet, 96Hz (4:4. 2:2).

Watching the compressed one that Jett made, I did see more jutter. It did look smoother playing back on the plasma than it did the LCD, but there was still a bit of jutter to it.

It is just odd looking after seeing everything at 24-30fps for so long. It will definitely take some time to adjust to it.

 

[jonremedy]

I'm quite certain that 270 degrees is 3/4 of 360, so with 48fps he's using 1/64 shutter.

A 180 degree shutter would be 1/96th of a second
A 360 degree shutter would be 1/48th of a second
270 degrees is halfway between them or 1/72 of a second

The way mcfrank did the math is how I was thinking too, but checking with Wikipedia, the formula for shutter angle gives 1/64th of a second... Hmm... Let's all agree that shutter angle is a kind of bullshit measurement when dealing with digital cinema.

 

[Eight Diagram Bat Fighter]

The way mcfrank did the math is how I was thinking too, but checking with Wikipedia, the formula for shutter angle gives 1/64th of a second... Hmm... Let's all agree that shutter angle is a kind of bullshit measurement when dealing with digital cinema.

It's 1/64.

 

[jett]

I also wanted to make a comparison of fast motion between the clips, of blurei slapping his hand against the rocks over and over. Look how much more detail is retained in the 48fps clip:

At 24fps it's quite literally a blur.

 

[jonremedy]

It's 1/64.

Okay. Did you get a chance to reshoot at that shutter speed?

 

[mcfrank]

The way mcfrank did the math is how I was thinking too, but checking with Wikipedia, the formula for shutter angle gives 1/64th of a second... Hmm... Let's all agree that shutter angle is a kind of bullshit measurement when dealing with digital cinema.

Can you post that formula or the Wikipedia page on it. Thanks.

 

[Raistlin]

Watching the compressed one that Jett made, I did see more jutter. It did look smoother playing back on the plasma than it did the LCD, but there was still a bit of jutter to it.

It is just odd looking after seeing everything at 24-30fps for so long. It will definitely take some time to adjust to it.

Just remember he was using the wrong shutter speed which will only exasperate the issue.


That said, the amount of judder isn't something you need to get used to. It won't be there in the theater ... and once 48p is in homes, it will be for displays that support it.

 

[jonremedy]

Can you post that formula or the Wikipedia page on it. Thanks.

Yep, here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_speed#Cinematographic_shutter_formula

 

[mcfrank]

Yep, here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_speed#Cinematographic_shutter_formula

Thanks. I stand corrected and glad to learn that.

 

[Eight Diagram Bat Fighter]

Okay. Did you get a chance to reshoot at that shutter speed?

I'll be doing that around noon mountain time.

 

[pottuvoi]

Yep, here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_speed#Cinematographic_shutter_formula

After those posts I was worried about my math and went googling and found following page with angle calculator.
http://super8arena.com/shutter_speed.php

 

[Evlar]

So as I understand it, the result of filming 48p at 270° shutter angle should be significantly more blur per frame than what bluerei post previously at 48p and 64° shutter angle.

Interested in seeing the difference.

 

[Eight Diagram Bat Fighter]

So as I understand it, the result of filming 48p at 270° shutter angle should be significantly more blur per frame than what bluerei post previously at 48p and 64° shutter angle.

Interested in seeing the difference.

Yes.

 

[cgcg]

I also wanted to make a comparison of fast motion between the clips, of blurei slapping his hand against the rocks over and over. Look how much more detail is retained in the 48fps clip:





At 24fps it's quite literally a blur.

Honestly to me the 24fps clip looks closer to real life in terms of motion. Try it for yourself you'll see how your hand blurs out like the 24fps clip not the 48fps clip.

 

[Evlar]

Honestly to me the 24fps clip looks closer to real life in terms of motion. Try it for yourself you'll see how your hand blurs out like the 24fps clip not the 48fps clip.

Well yeah, but you aren't actually viewing a blurred hand to make that perception happen. In other words, the blurring happens in your visual cortex, not in the thing you're viewing.

 

[Plasmid]

If its like when you watch regular HD shows on 3D TVs I'll be upset. .

 

[captainnapalm]

This is kind of a gamble. The admission by Jackson that it takes 10 minutes to adjust to what you're seeing could be problematic in the sense that it probably takes most people about half that to decide whether they like a film or not.

Then again he must be confident that it works, I assume, so maybe the majority will roll with it fine.

 

[cgcg]

Well yeah, but you aren't actually viewing a blurred hand to make that perception happen. In other words, the blurring happens in your visual cortex, not in the thing you're viewing.

So you are saying the 24fps clip is closer to how we see the world

 

[C.Dark.DN]

This is kind of a gamble. The admission by Jackson that it takes 10 minutes to adjust to what you're seeing could be problematic in the sense that it probably takes most people about half that to decide whether they like a film or not.

Then again he must be confident that it works, I assume, so maybe the majority will roll with it fine.

It would be dumb and too easy not to show a 10 minute or however long short before the film.

 

[Sethos]

Upgrade your video card/cpu.

Yes, my 2600k at 4.5 and a GTX 580 isn't worthy of RED footage.

 

[jonremedy]

I'll be doing that around noon mountain time.

Cool.

 

[Raistlin]

This is kind of a gamble. The admission by Jackson that it takes 10 minutes to adjust to what you're seeing could be problematic in the sense that it probably takes most people about half that to decide whether they like a film or not.

Then again he must be confident that it works, I assume, so maybe the majority will roll with it fine.

Plenty of people thought Avatar 3D looked cool in theaters, and it takes as long or longer to adjust to.

 

[C.Dark.DN]

Yes, my 2600k at 4.5 and a GTX 580 isn't worthy of RED footage.

Um, if you seriously have those specs something is wrong like the version of the program you used or something else.

Because it ran fine on my i3 notebook with integrated graphics...

 

[mcfrank]

After those posts I was worried about my math and went googling and found following page with angle calculator.
http://super8arena.com/shutter_speed.php

Useful. Thanks.

 

[Raistlin]

Um, if you seriously have those specs something is wrong like the version of the program you used or something else.

Because it ran fine on my i3 notebook with integrated graphics...

See my last comment here: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=37275675&postcount=802

 

[drugstore_cowboy]

No it doesn't. Yes you remove telecine judder (irregular motion from 3:2 pulldown), but you can't do anything about the inherent frame judder. Even at a 'correct refresh rate', take a look at a slow pan.

I dunno, we watch 3-4 movies a week on a large screen and slow horizontal pans are rarely eye catching, there's a rough spot between a slow pan and a fast one where it can look bad (I think the intro to The Shooter was janky)

I guess that grey area is deliberately avoided when shooting a movie.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

Plenty of people thought Avatar 3D looked cool in theaters, and it takes as long or longer to adjust to.

One thing that helped with Avatar was what Cameron used for the opening scenes. The flying over Pandora part looked nice, but it wasn't until we got into the cryo tube with Sully and the floating water droplet that we were given a small thing for our eyes to adjust to.

Hopefully Peter Jackson starts the movie with something slower like a scenery shot to give us time to adjust.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Hopefully Peter Jackson starts the movie with something slower like a scenery shot to give us time to adjust.

I think I'd rather have a pre-movie/video than having to design the movie around it.

 

[Evlar]

Only problem with the short idea is that the Hobbit is likely to be pushing 3 hours already.

 

[Flo_Evans]

See my last comment here: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=37275675&postcount=802

That is true, we are still not going to see how it will really look until we are sat down in the theatre at the proper frame refresh on a proper size screen

 

[PhoncipleBone]

I think I'd rather have a pre-movie/video than having to design the movie around it.

Just have a nice long tracking shot of Hobbiton as the movie opens. Gives the eyes time to adjust to the framerate while also getting us back into Middle Earth with familiar territory.

 

[Eight Diagram Bat Fighter]

K, off to shoot. I dont have much time for lunch but I'll do what I can.

 

[Raistlin]

I dunno, we watch 3-4 movies a week on a large screen and slow horizontal pans are rarely eye catching, there's a rough spot between a slow pan and a fast one where it can look bad (I think the intro to The Shooter was janky)

I guess that grey area is deliberately avoided when shooting a movie.

Yes smart directors actually pick pan speeds based on the framerate.

That is true, we are still not going to see how it will really look until we are sat down in the theatre at the proper frame refresh on a proper size screen

Says the LCD plebe.

CRT master race ... REPRESENT

 

[FLEABttn]

I'm sure 48p will look fine. When I got my first TV that supported 24p, I thought it looked strange because of how used to 3:2 pulldown I was. Now 3:2 pulldown looks weird.

It's a mental hangup, same as thinking 60fps games look weird.

 

[jonremedy]

K, off to shoot. I dont have much time for lunch but I'll do what I can.

You're a champion.

 

[Marty Chinn]

I'm sure 48p will look fine. When I got my first TV that supported 24p, I thought it looked strange because of how used to 3:2 pulldown I was. Now 3:2 pulldown looks weird.

It's a mental hangup, same as thinking 60fps games look weird.

The problem with these two examples though is before TVs had home video, you were seeing true 24p in the theater. With games, this one seems odd to me, games were 60 fps since the beginning. Both were established conventions.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Says the LCD plebe.

CRT master race ... REPRESENT

Still love my CRT, but does any CRT out there support 24hz let alone 48?

 

[Kayhan]

Its hard to really have an opinion on the matter before we see 48 fps porn.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Says the LCD plebe.

CRT master race ... REPRESENT

Well is it a 3D 100ft. wide CRT huh master race guy?

 

[Doc Holliday]

There should be blur in movies, we naturally blur things that move in real life. That's why smooth motion in games/movies look so weird.

 

[Zeliard]

Just watched the vids, and I'm lol'ing @ bluerei's random middle finger to the camera

 

[Digishine]

Lol 548,51 GB bandwidth used on less then one day. Yep only Gaf can be the cause of that


Edit: Oh I see someone posted it on Twitter also ;b np got TB's enough

 

[StudioTan]

It's seems like you are trying to force yourself to like it. A bit sad don't you think?

Personally, I found the video really unsettling to watch, although I do really appreciate the effort that went into it.

I disagree with this. When our brains are used to interpreting things a certain way then sometimes it does take some getting used to new ways of processing data. For example I recently purchased a set of 7.1 surround headphones. The first night I had them I was very disappointed because everything sounded really weird. I was getting some surround feeling but mostly I was hearing the phasing being produced by the Dolby surround algorithm. Everything sounded "off" and whooshy. The funny thing is that by the next night my brain had adapted to processing this way of listening to things and now it sounds amazing to me.

I don't notice the phasing anymore and I'm very impressed by how things sound like they are being played through speakers around me rather than right next to my ears, so much so that more than once I've taken off my headphones because I think I've accidentally left my speakers on as well.

 

[Loofy]

I disagree with this. When our brains are used to interpreting things a certain way then sometimes it does take some getting used to new ways of processing data. For example I recently purchased a set of 7.1 surround headphones. The first night I had them I was very disappointed because everything sounded really weird. I was getting some surround feeling but mostly I was hearing the phasing being produced by the Dolby surround algorithm. Everything sounded "off" and whooshy. The funny thing is that by the next night my brain had adapted to processing this way of listening to things and now it sounds amazing to me.

I don't notice the phasing anymore and I'm very impressed by how things sound like they are being played through speakers around me rather than right next to my ears, so much so that more than once I've taken off my headphones because I think I've accidentally left my speakers on as well.

Its like when they first came out with color tv and HD video people were all like 'man this looks like shit, but eventually we'll get used to it.'

 

[Marty Chinn]

Its like when they first came out with color tv and HD video people were all like 'man this looks like shit, but eventually we'll get used to it.'

Did this ever really happen? People keep saying it like it's true.

 

[dynamitejim]

At 24fps it's quite literally a blur.

Motion blur is product of shutter speed not frame rate. Film is normally shot at 1/48s shutter speed. You could should 24fps film at 1/96s shutter speed and get less motion blur. You could technically shoot 48fps at that shutter speed, but it looks like The Hobbit is going to be shot at 1/64s which should result in slightly less motion blur.

Watch this video: https://vimeo.com/19603537

Or fast forward to 1:10 in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZi7sUhtAVY

To be honest, I don't understand why people want blur free action sequences. Our eyes/brain don't actually perceive action without blur. Just look at the fan in the video shot at 1/400s. It looks nothing like the way you see a fan in person. It's very janky and digital looking. It's also why proponents of higher frame rate filming aren't necessarily correct when they say action in 48/60fps movies will be less blurry. A 60fps movie shot at 1/60s will still be pretty blurry in action sequences. More frames will mean more information for your eyes/brain to work with and less strobe effect during camera pans and quick camera movements though.

 

[Raistlin]

Still love my CRT, but does any CRT out there support 24hz let alone 48?

24Hz, not that I know of.

48Hz is common though, so as long as your video software will output native 48p or 2:2 24p over VGA you're golden. The issue with 48Hz though is flicker. Higher end monitors can do 96Hz depending on the resolution, so that's actually more optimal.

Well is it a 3D 100ft. wide CRT huh master race guy?

lol no, just trolling. Referring to a monitor.

That said, there are a number of projectors that support 96Hz. So I'd imagine future revs will do 2:2 with 48p content once the spec is finalized.