It looks too fast though. It grows on you a bit but then when I go back to 24fps it feels better still.
The Hobbit 48fps first impressions
- Thread starter Edmond Dantès
- Start date
- Status
It looks too fast though. It grows on you a bit but then when I go back to 24fps it feels better still.
As long as I have my tin foil hat on, I should note that making a film look "cinematic" is getting cheaper and cheaper rather rapidly. Also getting some sort of wide distrobution is easier and easier as well.One could wonder if hollywood's sudden obsession with fixing a problem the audience doesn't have (3d, higher and higher resolution, 48p, and other such stuff) isn't partially motivated by keeping the machine relevant and keeping the rising indies in the ghetto.
I don't believe this to be true, but it always makes me raise my eyebrows when people get excited for stuff that doesn't actually make movies any better. It seems like it creates a lot of conversation about something that has less to do with the art of it than other discussions of film.
makingmusic476
Member
TrueMotion stuff can actually be pretty good on slower moving scenes. But most of the time the interpolated scenes are blurry or full of macroblocking, so it looks terrible.
Having that type of framerate with actual new detail in each frame will be incredible.
Edit: Ooooh there's video.
Having that type of framerate with actual new detail in each frame will be incredible.
Edit: Ooooh there's video.
Love it ... looks awesome.
Unfortunately I'm at work (LCD), so the telecine judder is hosing stuff up ... but looking past that I dig it. Really look forward to seeing the 360 degree comparison.
Unfortunately I'm at work (LCD), so the telecine judder is hosing stuff up ... but looking past that I dig it. Really look forward to seeing the 360 degree comparison.
There's going to be telecine judder with both framerate videos at either refresh rate (should be worse for 48p if you do 60Hz). I'd test both to see which looks better. In theory 72Hz would be the better choice, but it matters what cadence your video player is generating.
Thanks bluerei. Great examples.
Exactly my thoughts. I actually find the 48fps to be more "movie-like" than "television-like" but it still feels a little speed up at first. The panning does look a bit smoother.
Exactly my thoughts. I actually find the 48fps to be more "movie-like" than "television-like" but it still feels a little speed up at first. The panning does look a bit smoother.
The panning improvements will be even more obvious in the theater or on a 96Hz display. At that point, the telecine judder will be gone (which is likely worse when watching 48p at 60Hz than 24p at 60Hz) ... and you'll be able to concentrate entirely on the motion improvements.
Nappuccino
Member
Eh.... it doesn't look as bad as I thought it would. But outside of panning, I don't think it looked particularly good either. I watched 48p about 5 times and it never screamed at me "this is better than 24p." Even watching both back to back and seeing the "flaws" of 24p... they just seem like they have to very different purposes. But 48p really does lose that cinematic, dream-like feel there.
ZedIndyLil
Member
Wow, thanks, blurei, as well as everyone else who rehosted the vids. There are some really wild perceptual things going on in my brain here. 48p indeed feels more like a window into reality, but that also makes it feel more ordinary than the 24p version. I can't say I'm "used" to 48p yet. But it's also fascinating to see how much my brain accommodates the motion blur of 24p as a valid part of the shot, even though it's entirely a technical artifact.
48p feels like a significant addition to the language of cinema, and it'll be fascinating to see how filmmakers use it going forward.
48p feels like a significant addition to the language of cinema, and it'll be fascinating to see how filmmakers use it going forward.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Wow. That new 48fps video is much better. A lot smoother in general, and just kind of freaky to watch. It looks both faster and slower at the same time. Some points it almost looks like it is in slow motion (when you drop the basket), but it is buttery smooth.
3D like that is going to be crazy.
Thank you for making that new one. A definite improvement over the original one.
3D like that is going to be crazy.
Thank you for making that new one. A definite improvement over the original one.
I don't think 48fps looks bad.
It retains a film quality about it, and yet it is smoother.
Is it true that the Hobbit footage wasn't graded? Because that would be the reason it looked bad.
Edit: I was going by a video of a cat I saw, which looked decent. But the footage of the ball seemed a bit strange...
It retains a film quality about it, and yet it is smoother.
Is it true that the Hobbit footage wasn't graded? Because that would be the reason it looked bad.
Edit: I was going by a video of a cat I saw, which looked decent. But the footage of the ball seemed a bit strange...
lazybones18
Banned
My thoughts exactly. Definitely will take some time getting used to it. I'm going to love seeing the end result during The Hobbit
Betta Lines
Member
In this thread... people form opinions on 48fps film watching samples on 60Hz monitors. Fantastic.
cutmeamango
Banned
Eight Diagram Bat Fighter
Banned
60hz honestly doesn't matter that much in this comparison. The frame rate difference between 24 and 48 is the main thing.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
As mentioned earlier, it's not that significant a difference for the purposes of the thread. Natural 48fps will look even better than this does, yes, but the overall impression is similar.
For myself, I'm intrigued. I don't really know what my opinion on the end result will be, but I'm interested to find out.
Betta Lines
Member
Yeah but... I've played enough games to know what doubling the fps does to image quality and smoothness. I don't need to see examples on a monitor that doesn't display what they're going for properly.
Only the cinema will show the true difference.
I guess those with 240Hz tvs get closer, but it's still not the same experience.
Only the cinema will show the true difference.
I guess those with 240Hz tvs get closer, but it's still not the same experience.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
While telecine judder is being introduced (and it's more irregular for the 48p capture) ... you can still make some judgments based on other characteristics.
It's not a perfect comparison, but still has some merit.
feels bad man.I watched all videos on my 240hz TV, feels good man.
You computer is performing pulldown to convert the content to 60p (well it may not be for the 24p content depending on your settings) which introduces telecine judder.
The TV is simply repeating each frame 4 times. Well unless you have interpolation turned on, then it's fucking with it more.
Forceatowulf
G***n S**n*bi
I had no issue with 48. Let the new era begin I say.
Pardon my ignorance, but when you enable the smooth feature that today's HDTV's offer, is that an actual increase in FPS or is it just an illusion?
Btw... Making movies at a higher FPS (48 or 60) would change how movies are made in terms of speed in scenes, right? Will they shoot the movie like they would normally do at 24 fps and then increase the FPS or would they adjust their direction to the speed that 48 FPS will display on screen?
Btw... Making movies at a higher FPS (48 or 60) would change how movies are made in terms of speed in scenes, right? Will they shoot the movie like they would normally do at 24 fps and then increase the FPS or would they adjust their direction to the speed that 48 FPS will display on screen?
Games are not an accurate comparison since this is using a non-standard shutter speed. A game would not show you that.
If you have a CRT, you could configure this to be an accurate comparison.
A 240Hz TV is no different than a 120Hz or 60Hz TV for this comparison.
Can you explain to me what's the difference between higher FPS and 120Hz? I understand the FPS aspect, what I'm not clear about is how Hz's work and how similar or completely different they are from FPS.
cutmeamango
Banned
So the 240hz profile on the AMD Vision meant nothing? Even with the deinterlacing and pull down options off?
Feels really bad now, total placebo mannn.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
120 Hz is just the refresh rate of the monitor. It's a spec that only pertains to the hardware, not the source video.
Ok thanks. Now, what does the smooth option that some TV's offer do? Why are there TV's that display the video smoother than others while playing the same content?
It's increasing the FPS, though it's via an algorithm to approximate the data. Basically the new frames are a simulation. Think of it like scaling. It's extrapolating what the missing data should be, and isn't perfect.
The algorithms and their settings vary quite a bit from TV to TV. Similarly, a director can vary the shutter speed and create vastly different results. So you really can't directly compare the two unless you actually know the specifics of the film and the specifics of what your TV's algorithm is doing.
Not really
I don't know the specifics of what AMD Vision is doing.
The problem is you're hooking it up to a TV, which only inputs specific frequencies (60Hz, and I would assume 24Hz).
Awesome... Now I get it, thanks.
So there would be no adjustment whatsoever in how a director/editor directs & edits the scenes? So if a director wanted to make a fast movie with fast editing at 24fps, he would do the same while filming at 48fps? That would mean that higher FPS just improves smoothness rather than speed. Yes?
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Cameron hasn't had an interest in Digital Domain for a long time.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
Really? I thought a 240Hz TV would be the only one where no pull down was necessary for 48fps (just show each frame five times). I don't pretend to be an expert on this though.
Eight Diagram Bat Fighter
Banned
It's not just the fps, it's the shutter speed that makes a major difference too. Also motion blur in games is not the same as film. Bad comparison.
I guess it matters what you're referring to.
For example, sometimes tough action scenes are shot with a higher framerate and the actors purposely act out the scene slower ... then in editing they drop frames to bring it down to the normal framerate. If it's done correctly the speed ends up being what the director had intended (the action scene looks faster than it was performed).
For something like that, the same principal would apply ... they'd just have to use a framerate faster than 48 when capturing the scene.
In terms of general editing, CGI, stop motion, etc effects are certainly affected by higher framerates. You don't want a serious mismatch with how many frames are created for the effects vs the live footage, otherwise the effects will look obvious and your suspension of disbelief is broken.
An obvious example of this is movies that use stop motion mixed with live footage. Think of the end of the first Terminator when it's in the factory with no skin ... or the original Clash of the Titans ... etc.
That would be true if the TV's actually inputted 48p. They currently don't.
Also note, 240Hz wouldn't be the only refresh that would work. 96Hz and 480Hz, etc. would be fine since it would support both 24p and 48p without pulldown. Regardless the key is actually inputting 48p.
cutmeamango
Banned
The tv is a Sony HX925, it says it has a 960hz but it's only a true 240hz, but connected to the living room computer through hdmi, it recognizes as a tv panel, and it allows me to set its video profile at 1080p@240hz.
Quite a fall knowing it is not refreshing at this rate (connected to the computer only, I assume), and it shows how much of a placebo it was (to me), since I perceived a non existent difference.
Liquidsnake
Banned
I must be getting old.
Eight Diagram Bat Fighter
Banned
Nope. Nothing would change. All it means is more frames per second of film. More data, less blur.
Yeah, I figured that many scenes in movies where shot slower than what they ended up being when the movie was finished. I imagined that some adjustments would have to be made when filming at higher fps.
I'm still a bit confused. For example, I know that FPS on film are not the same as FPS on a flash animation, but when I do a flash animation with low FPS, I would normally need less layers to finish the animation. Now, if I do an animation at 60 FPS, I need to add more layers (more content) so I can end the animation at the correct time.
Now with movies, would they need to film more on a 20 second scene (for example) at 60 FPS than 24 FPS?
Btw.. These are genuine questions I have. I'm not trying to troll or anything.
I unfortunately can't find much info on AMD Vision profiles. If you find any links to info, I could take a look and explain what it appears they're doing.The tv is a Sony HX925, it says it has a 960hz but it's only a true 240hz, but connected to the living room computer through hdmi, it recognizes as a tv panel, and it allows me to set its video profile at 1080p@240hz.
Quite a fall knowing it is not refreshing at this rate (connected to the computer only, I assume), and it shows how much of a placebo it was (to me), since I perceived a non existent difference.
For those scenarios though, the principle would be the same.
They calculate what percentage faster the framerate needs to be based on how slow they plan to act it out. The percentage will be the same regardless of the framerate. For example, if they plan to act something out at half the speed they want it to appear in the movie, they will need to film it at double the movie's normal framerate ... regardless of what that original framerate is.
Exactly. That's what I thought would need to happen.
- Status