Support NeoGAF

[edible_candle]

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.

Your eyes will naturally blur fast movement on a screen as well, provided it is at a high enough framerate. Movement on the screen is still movement to our visual cortex, it is still "real life." People have simply been conditioned to expect low framerates throughout their life, so a high framerate throws you off.

In video games, artificial motion blur is generally used to improve the fluidity of movement as perceived by our eyes and/or to imitate cinema. As you increase the framerate, the need for artificial motion blur is reduced (our eyes will blur movement more effectively with more temporal information).

In cinema, blur comes from the length of exposure per frame. Higher framerates require less exposure time for frame (though this can be changed), and thus, less blur. At low framerates, motion blur is necessary, because otherwise it wouldn't look like fluid motion. The higher the framerate, the closer you become to imitating "real-life," and just as in games with high fps, your eyes will blur the frames together effectively.

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.

Of course higher framerates don't necessarily mean less motion blur, but they don't need shutter speeds as long as used in 24fps to produce an equivalent fluidity. With more frames/temporal information, our brain will merge the images into motion more effectively, even if there is less blur in each frame.

 

[Allard]

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

Not sure about color but for HD there were a ton of people that thought the picture was 'too' detailed that we would get fixated on all the imperfections and that everything would just feel 'off' compared to what we are normally used to seeing. Sure enough it didn't actually end up being a problem as most not only got used to it quickly, most couldn't go back and look at older stuff the same way. New enhancements are always met with skepticism, especially in an art form that has had more then a few shares of gimmicks. And in the case of 3D more then 1 transformation of it over the years. Until it 'clicks' for them personally most shun the new, even in the conceptual format of something they haven't actually gotten a chance to see.

The end result is 'gimmicks' or enhancement will only be accepted when it stops becoming a distraction and comes together naturally. To bring up another recent 'controversial subject of cinema' for many that has already happened for 3D but for others it continues to be a distraction and headache inducing due to the disadvantages of current tech. The higher frame rate change could very easily be a game changer in more ways then one as not only does frame rate change offer more unique experiences for creative directors and cinematographers but it also solves many inherent flaws in our current 3D technology, it could solve more then one 'gimmick' and make an actual enhancement for a majority of movies. But in the end people are going to need to spend time and experience it under less 'conventional' circumstances.

 

[PjotrStroganov]

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.

I welcome 48fps but it does raise a question. Do we perceive real life the same as a 2d moving image? Do our brains blur a fast moving object on screen the same way as they do a real object? I can imagine there being a difference. I do however have nothing to back it up.

And @ edible_candle: that could be true. But don't differences in screen sizes factor into how we perceive fast motion? Smaller screens mean less distance traveled by the same object in the same time, causing less blur (caused by our brains), right?

 

[Eight Diagram Bat Fighter]

I'm just gonna go ahead and color grade this video, because in the end, that's how it's gonna be when we see it. 48p is exporting right now, then I do the 24p version.

24 is at 1/48 (180°)

48 is at 1/64 (270°)

I sized it down to 1280x533 for the peasants instead of 1920x800 like in the previous vid.

Bit rate stays the same.

 

[Allard]

I'm just gonna go ahead and color grade this video, because in the end, that's how it's gonna be when we see it. 48p is exporting right now, then I do the 24p version.

24 is at 1/48 (180°)

48 is at 1/64 (270°)

I sized it down to 1280x533 for the peasants instead of 1920x800 like in the previous vid.

Bit rate stays the same.

You're awesome thank you

 

[Binabik15]

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

Yes.

I don't know the thread it was in, but someone on GAF argued that blu-ray transfers with their sharper image quality were making movies worse because of additional sharpness instead of the nice, fuzzy

Spoiler

,horrible mess

that is dvd content on big screens.

Seriously. This year. 2012.

Believe,

 

[LegendofJoe]

Some people will always resist and decry new technology. Even if the new tech both complements the standard tech being used AND leads to new experiences some people will still avoid it like the plague. The Wii is a prime example of this.

 

[Eight Diagram Bat Fighter]

Wow, 48 p looks pretty cool at the right shutter speed
1/270 makes it look too stop-animation like. 1/64 is smooth like hot butter on flaming baby skin.

 

[Flo_Evans]

I'm just gonna go ahead and color grade this video, because in the end, that's how it's gonna be when we see it. 48p is exporting right now, then I do the 24p version.

24 is at 1/48 (180°)

48 is at 1/64 (270°)

I sized it down to 1280x533 for the peasants instead of 1920x800 like in the previous vid.

Bit rate stays the same.

You are the man, man.

 

[edible_candle]

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.

I've heard plenty of apathy towards HD from personal experience, but not much in the way of outright "this sucks."

A more apt comparison might be the vinyl -> CD transition that another poster mentioned awhile back. People were simply used to the sound of vinyl, and the clarity/accuracy or "coldness" of the digital format was disliked by many (and this debate continues today). Objectively, CD will produce a more accurate sound 9 out of 10 times, but the sound produced by a vinyl on good equipment will frequently be preferred (subjective preference). We're used to 24fps, and I imagine many people will prefer it to 48fps, despite that it is a more accurate way of capturing movement (in attempting to imitate reality).

Preferring 30fps games is just silly though. SILLY I SAY

Wow, 48 p looks pretty cool at the right shutter speed
1/270 makes it look too stop-animation like. 1/64 is smooth like hot butter on flaming baby skin.

I demand you magically encode and upload it faster. My eyes demand it.

 

[mclaren777]

Wow, 48 p looks pretty cool at the right shutter speed
1/270 makes it look too stop-animation like. 1/64 is smooth like hot butter on flaming baby skin.

I'm still home so you have plenty of time.

Preferring 30fps games is just silly though.

No it's not. I'm a huge fan of the Uncharted series, but if U3 had looked like this, I would have been really upset.

 

[pottuvoi]

Wow, 48 p looks pretty cool at the right shutter speed
1/270 makes it look too stop-animation like. 1/64 is smooth like hot butter on flaming baby skin.

I cannot wait...
Thank you for doing the tests.

 

[dynamitejim]

Wow, 48 p looks pretty cool at the right shutter speed
1/270 makes it look too stop-animation like. 1/64 is smooth like hot butter on flaming baby skin.

Good to know. The original 48fps did look strange. This is actually a good example of why less motion blur is (or can be) a bad thing.

 

[Eight Diagram Bat Fighter]

Uploading right now. I have me kicking a ball against a wall, dropping a grate full of apples, a normal typical pan (not sliding pan and not fast), walking around. All that fun stuff.

 

[Genesis Knight]

but if U3 had looked like this

Oh, you mean that clip of Uncharted 3 that looks several times better than the actual retail game? Right.

And thanks for the continued effort, bluerei.

 

[jett]

I'm still home so you have plenty of time.




No it's not. I'm a huge fan of the Uncharted series, but if U3 had looked like this, I would have been really upset.

You crazy, my eyes would melt from the awesome.

 

[mclaren777]

Oh, you mean that clip of Uncharted 3 that looks several times better than the actual retail game?

It's obviously a matter of personal preference, but I strongly dislike the look of 60fps in non-racing games.

 

[Branduil]

It's actually supposed to be 1/72

Er, no, it's 1/64.

270 degrees is 3/4 of 360 degrees. 3/4 times 1/48 is 3/192=1/64.

 

[Raistlin]

I'm just gonna go ahead and color grade this video, because in the end, that's how it's gonna be when we see it. 48p is exporting right now, then I do the 24p version.

24 is at 1/48 (180°)

48 is at 1/64 (270°)

I sized it down to 1280x533 for the peasants instead of 1920x800 like in the previous vid.

Bit rate stays the same.

no 360°?

Spoiler

lol don't worry about it. Thanks for taking the time to do all of this for us.

 

[zoukka]

It's obviously a matter of personal preference, but I strongly dislike the look of 60fps in non-racing games.

You make no seeeenseeee

 

[Eight Diagram Bat Fighter]

no 360°?

Spoiler

lol don't worry about it. Thanks for taking the time to do all of this for us.

I'm gonna do that later this afternoon, I only had an hour for lunch to shoot, color, cut and export.

 

[Raistlin]

I'm gonna do that later this afternoon, I only had an hour for lunch to shoot, color, cut and export.

Wow ... you're a machine. Thanks!

 

[Eight Diagram Bat Fighter]

Here you go! http://ge.tt/7iOWTqG/v/0?c

 

[Flo_Evans]

I welcome 48fps but it does raise a question. Do we perceive real life the same as a 2d moving image? Do our brains blur a fast moving object on screen the same way as they do a real object? I can imagine there being a difference. I do however have nothing to back it up.

And @ edible_candle: that could be true. But don't differences in screen sizes factor into how we perceive fast motion? Smaller screens mean less distance traveled by the same object in the same time, causing less blur (caused by our brains), right?

No.

The brain plays a HUGE role in how we perceive "reality"

http://camelot.mssm.edu/~ygyu/constructingvisualimage.html

There are some good examples of what your brain does to interpret 2d form there. Of course motion adds a whole other layer of complexity to it.

Of course you will not be looking at it in 2d motion either... (unless you cheap out and don't see it in 3d)

 

[polyh3dron]

Here you go! http://ge.tt/7iOWTqG/v/0?c

linky no worky

 

[jett]

It's obviously a matter of personal preference, but I strongly dislike the look of 60fps in non-racing games.

Not sure what your reasoning is. The animation, especially the melee animation looks a lot better in that video than it does in the game thanks to the increased framerate.

 

[msv]

Here you go! http://ge.tt/7iOWTqG/v/0?c

traffic limit reached bro!?

 

[Digishine]

Here you go! http://ge.tt/7iOWTqG/v/0?c

wut Try again tomorrow
Daily traffic limit reached

 

[Eight Diagram Bat Fighter]

Crap, someone recommend me another place then

 

[mattp]

These files are not available until tomorrow, because the owner has reached the daily traffic limit.


why not use mediafire or one of those sites?
edit: how big is the file?

 

[mclaren777]

Crap, someone recommend me another place then

Upload to Dropbox, give out link, I will rehost.

 

[jett]

Here you go! http://ge.tt/7iOWTqG/v/0?c

dude, your daily traffic limit was reached last night.

I recommend mediafire.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Here you go! http://ge.tt/7iOWTqG/v/0?c

already dead lol

 

[mattp]

rapidshare should work, too

 

[jett]

rapidshare should work, too

rapidshare is awful, limited to 30kb/s.

 

[Digishine]

rapidshare should work, too

NO go cause they limited everything to 50kbps/sec too bad I can't download it else I rehosted it like the other one

 

[PjotrStroganov]

Does dropbox have a bandwith limit? Otherwise torrent.

No.

The brain plays a HUGE role in how we perceive "reality"

http://camelot.mssm.edu/~ygyu/constructingvisualimage.html

There are some good examples of what your brain does to interpret 2d form there. Of course motion adds a whole other layer of complexity to it.

Of course you will not be looking at it in 2d motion either... (unless you cheap out and don't see it in 3d)

Tnx, will read.

 

[ElFly]

Can you create a torrent?

 

[Eight Diagram Bat Fighter]

Ok, uploading to my website. Can anyone grab it and rehost it for me plz? Let me know when you do. Thanks.

Here is the link: http://www.aesonica.com/downlord/basement_red_fps.zip

 

[msv]

Crap, someone recommend me another place then

sendspace.com? Limited to 500mb tho. Maybe filedropper.com, says it has a 5GB limit. Or perhaps speedyshare.com. Havent used any of these myself though.

 

[Genesis Knight]

Ok, uploading to my website. Can anyone grab it and rehost it for me plz? Let me know when you do. Thanks.

Here is the link: http://www.aesonica.com/downlord/basement_red_fps.zip

Oh God your bandwidth is about to be raped.

 

[Digishine]

Ok, uploading to my website. Can anyone grab it and rehost it for me plz? Let me know when you do. Thanks.

Here is the link: http://www.aesonica.com/downlord/basement_red_fps.zip

your server isn't responding to me else would had mirrored it.

 

[mclaren777]

Can anyone grab it and rehost it for me plz?

Uploading now: 13 minutes remaining

 

[mattp]

i'm gonna rehost it on my dropbox, gimme a few min
it says 7min remaining on the download from your site

 

[ElFly]

Better PM a new link (remove that one) to Digishine.

e:someone else is rehosting. nice.

 

[Branduil]

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

That's not how math works, unfortunately.

1/72 would mean the total frames in a second add up to 48/72, or the shutter is open for a total of 2/3 of each second. Since we know the shutter is open for 3/4 of each second, that is obviously incorrect. It's not a linear scale.

Edit: oh, I see this was already corrected.

 

[wenis]

Ok, uploading to my website. Can anyone grab it and rehost it for me plz? Let me know when you do. Thanks.

Here is the link: http://www.aesonica.com/downlord/basement_red_fps.zip

I'll upload it to my premium mediafire account. no limits

 

[Digishine]

4min left uploading. will post link

 

[effzee]

I am sure in the end it will look amazing and I embrace new technology.

That being said what's with people picking on those who say it looks cheap or too much like a live broadcast? I mean yes our eyes and minds have been trained to accept 24p as "cinematic" but no one is arguing that. It will obviously take time and still people might not like it. Just because its new or more advanced might not translate as easily into better.

And while final judgement should not be passed on The Hobbit or the tech so far away from the actual release, when there are multiple eye witness negative impressions there is some merit to the look not being there yet or just not adding to the movie what it should. And don't even tell me its because the effects aren't done or its early footage. Then don't show it. It wasn't mandatory on the Hobbit team to showcase 10 minutes of footage. And these shows are supposed to be used as marketing tools to promote the product, so if what they showed doesn't live up to the hype its their fault not the fault of those with the poor impressions.

 

[cutmeamango]

No, 24.

Well, I found information on it being shot at 30fps on film, but it doesn't matter anyway! It was just a joke and Friends were the first 90's sitcom I remembered by name!

---

So the shutter angle was not really 270° then? Cool! It already looked good in my opinion, but maybe now corrected it will be even more pleasant and relatable to old style films.