The Hobbit film leaves fans with an unexpected sickness

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wonder if there will be movies that vary the framerate. 48 fps in pans, then drop to 24 for non-panned scenes.

All I know is I wanted to try a 48fps movie after that one pan in Brave almost broke my eyes. Then I was taken to a 3D movie this summer, and they did a pan, almost had to look away.
 
GrizzNKev said:
Sounds silly to me. Like really silly. These must be the same kinds of people who get motion sickness from playing video games.

I can sit with my face in the screen at 60 FPS and it's pure joy.
Click to expand...
Have you ever actually tried that? I think the size of the screen makes a big difference. I once set up my tv like a pc screen and started to feel sick after playing COD for a while.
 
Btw, this article sort of reminded me of the same stuff that was written when Avatar came out.

Mega 3-D hit 'Avatar' gets great reviews, but gives some viewers motion sickness


The 3-D movie "Avatar" will transport you to another world - but you might get a headache on your way.

Moviegoers are giving the sci-fi story rave reviews, but many said they needed some aspirin with their popcorn.

"It started hurting my head after a while," said Raheem Jones, 37, of Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, as he left a noon showing at the AMC Times Square theater yesterday.

"I had to move down to empty seats to lay down for a while. And one time I took off the glasses and covered my eyes for a while."

...

But the effect was just too much for Andrew Chiodo, 19, of Harlem.

"I had to take a nap," he said. "My head hurt, so I watched the entire movie without my [3-D] glasses."
Click to expand...

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-01-12/entertainment/17944577_1_avatar-eye-strain-film
 
Why is there almost no decent 48/60 fps footage? All I've seen so far is the rocks- and the ball-footage.

Is there no indie-movie on Vimeo you can download or something like that?
 
Reiko said:
Not using interpolation.

You're not converting the video correctly.
Click to expand...

Do you understand it's not possible.

There is no information there for the even fields at frame X, you HAVE TO USE INTERPOLATION. You can not just simply combine the even fields from the frame before or after.

It's that simple. If you have a frame X that is an odd field, there is no even field information for that exact frame ANYWHERE. You have to interpolate that information, you simply can not take the even field from before or after that frame and smack it together, The lines would be off and you'd get an image like I posted above.
 
I'll probably just stick with a regular 2D showing. I've really never enjoyed anything in 3D.

edit: sounds like this won't be at a lot of theatres anyways. Though I do commend them for trying to do something new, even if it's not perfected at this point in time.
 
Shin Johnpv said:
Do you understand it's not possible.

There is no information there for the even fields at frame X, you HAVE TO USE INTERPOLATION. You can not just simply combine the even fields from the frame before or after.

It's that simple. If you have a frame X that is an odd field, there is no even field information for that exact frame ANYWHERE. You have to interpolate that information, you simply can not take the even field from before or after that frame and smack it together, The lines would be off and you'd get an image like I posted above.
Click to expand...

I'm not using interpolation.

You need to properly combine both fields.

Use this method in MEGUI

http://servspy.free.fr/encoding/index.htm

But if you want me to give you an actual interpolated example I will in a bit.
 
Just like suddenly EVERYONE had the eye problems that meant they couldn't see 3D (seemed like every second person talking after Avatar was blind in one eye or had some terrible eye condition that prevented them from putting glasses on), suddenly everyone will suffer from crippling motion sickness.

Give me a break.
 
Ugh why does all this have to be so complicated nowadays, i just wanna watch the movie, now i have to worry about 3D or 2D, 24fps or 48 fps, getting sick or not getting sick :(
 
Reiko said:
60i (2 30i fields combined forming 60fps motion. What you generally see on TV)

http://hubblesource.stsci.edu/sources/video/clips/details/images/centaur_2.mpg
Click to expand...

Wrong. This video is 30fps, or NTSC standard def of 29.97fps. Open it up in any program that can tell you the frame rate and you'll see this is still 30fps.

as for this video


60fps (Progressive)

http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363417730/centaur_2.mp4.html
Click to expand...


All that's been done here is double of the frames. Frame 1 is now frame 1 and 2, frame 2 is now 3 and 4, frame 3 is now frame 5 and 6. Open this video up in any program that allows you to frame through the video and you'll clearly see all the double frames, Which is something you get from doing a 3:2 pull down or in this case a 1:2 pulldown.


It should also be noted that both of these videos are blurrier than the source video, which again shows it's using interpolation.
 
The source video is centaur 2. The 60fps progressive video looks exactly like centaur 2 without the interlacing artifacts.

Using the de-interlace bob method will reveal the missing fields.
 
It's probably just some old women that gets sick watching cars go past. It'll be fine for all of us, we grew up with video games.
 
I never experience these problems that people get when watching stuff. Like people who get motion sickness playing FPS, feel sick or dizzy when watching 3D, etc.

Also didn't know The Hobbit was going to be two movies. Cool.
 
I have friends that are sick with normal 3D movies or even the 3DS

I never had any problem with any (execpt the price diference on 3d movies =P) but I will try to see Hobbit in full glorious 48fps 3D since a MIRACLE got a movie theater playing this here in the middle of the last place you expected it to be playing
 
Reiko or Shin Johnpv or whoever either of you two are. I've read this exchange twice and I'm still not sure who is arguing what.

Anyway, the act of interlacing is fundamental to both resolution and frame rate. Otherwise it wouldn't be such a pain in the ass to deinterlace stuff.

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate uses "60i"
 
Tapiozona said:
You should probably just quit now. He doesn't understand and he never will. You're presenting fact with a level of understanding of concepts while he thinks he understands what software does for him.
Click to expand...

Or he's just being ignorant to video encoding.


Hitokage said:
Reiko or Shin Johnpv or whoever either of you two are:

The act of interlacing is fundamental to both resolution and frame rate. Otherwise it wouldn't be such a pain in the ass to deinterlace stuff.

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate uses "60i"
Click to expand...

Oh I know that.

The above example is just one of the ways to get 60fps.

1.) Shooting natively in 60fps
2.) Converting 60i footage to progressive 60fps video
3.) Interpolation
 
Htown said:
The "looks like a soap opera" argument is and always will be stupid as fuck.

Sorry to disappoint.
Click to expand...

I hope the reviewers do a better job at explaining their complaints in there reviews than they do in their tweets.

Mark Graham ‏@unclegrambo

MT @thehighsign: HOBBIT in 48fps looks bizarrely crappy.There's something about that super hi-def image that looks almost cheap,like old TV.
Click to expand...
 
Reiko said:
Oh I know that.

The above example is just one of the ways to get 60fps.

1.) Shooting natively in 60fps
2.) Converting 60i footage to progressive 60fps video
3.) Interpolation
Click to expand...
Strictly speaking they don't refer to it as a "frame" unless the entire viewing area is concerned. When talking about interlaced pictures "field" is used for the pictures shown using even or odd lines on the screen.

Video recorded as interlaced to begin with will show independent points in time in each field, effectively producing 60fps had they been full resolution. However, they aren't so it's only 60 fields per second, and trying to do shit like line doubling messes things up because those even pixels were never meant to show odd pixels and vice versa.
 
Htown said:
The "looks like a soap opera" argument is and always will be stupid as fuck.

Sorry to disappoint.
Click to expand...

Well no, not really. Technically 48fps sounds good on paper because of some rudimentary complains on blur and interlacing, but at the end of the day it looks really tacky to some people, including me.


I don't let blur ruin a movie for me, it's not just about the visuals all the time - and not every movie needs smoothvision.
 
Dega said:
Now, I haven't messed with this stuff in a long time and am no expert but in that link you posted to the method you used the script uses InterFrame. Pretty sure that is short for Interpolate Frame...?

Am I reading that right?
Click to expand...

Yes. That is Interpolation.

The other method which actually combines both fields isn't interpolation. It won't work if the video isn't in 60i or 50i.

Hitokage said:
Strictly speaking they don't refer to it as a "frame" unless the entire viewing area is concerned. When talking about interlaced pictures "field" is used for the pictures shown using even or odd lines on the screen.

Video recorded as interlaced to begin with will show independent points in time in each field, effectively producing 60fps had they been full resolution. However, they aren't so it's only 60 fields per second, and trying to do shit like line doubling messes things up because those even pixels were never meant to show odd pixels and vice versa.
Click to expand...
True. It's mostly known as 60 fields per second.

Part of the trick of getting it right is figuring out the right field order. There are other variables for some field orders that I could not get right.
 
Reiko said:
The source video is centaur 2. The 60fps progressive video looks exactly like centaur 2 without the interlacing artifacts.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Like I said load it up in quicktime or any program that allows you to frame by frame through video and you'll see all they did was double the frames. It is different. Just like the video you're claiming is 60i is NOT. It's 30 frames per second, and again load it up into ANY program that allows you to see that information and you'll see it's 29.97.

Using the de-interlace bob method will reveal the missing fields.
Click to expand...

This is interpolation. You can not strip back empty fields to reveal missing pixels. It does NOT work that way. They're using interpolation to create data that isn't there. If your image is 640x240 (which is what a 480i video would be) you can NOT magically reveal the missing 240 pixels and turn it into a 640 x 480 image. You can how ever create those missing 240 lines using interpolation.

Tapiozona said:
You should probably just quit now. He doesn't understand and he never will. You're presenting fact with a level of understanding of concepts while he thinks he understands what software does for him.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what's so hard about the concept that if the information isn't there it has to be interpolated from the given data some how.

Hitokage said:
Reiko or Shin Johnpv or whoever either of you two are. I've read this exchange twice and I'm still not sure who is arguing what.

Anyway, the act of interlacing is fundamental to both resolution and frame rate. Otherwise it wouldn't be such a pain in the ass to deinterlace stuff.

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate uses "60i"
Click to expand...

I'm arguing that one can not simply combine the fields of a 30fps interlaced video to get progressive 60fps. Because each frame is going to be different from the frame that came before and after it. Those frames only contain alternating fields of information, and no hocus pocus magic is going to reveal the missing lines of data. Just combining the odd fields from 1 frame to the even fields of the frame before or after it will not produce a proper full frame, it'll produce an image like the one I posted above. Plus that would still not get you 60 fps. Since you're doubling the amount of motion information going from 30fps to 60fps those doubled frames need to be created some how. Either by doubling the frames so that each frame of the original video is shown twice (which is what his 60fps video does) or using interpolation to create frames that aren't there.


Reiko said:
Or he's just being ignorant to video encoding.
Click to expand...

No, sorry but you're wrong here.
 
To actually be on topic: There's a significant difference between 2D and 3D display, because the focus on a 2D image is entirely flat and your eye can scan anywhere keeping the same perceived depth. This is pretty easy and makes the act of watching a movie highly passive if not relaxing. When it becomes 3D, though, the perceived focal depth becomes uneven and you must choose where on the image to focus. Rapidly moving images can easily overwhelm you as you try to keep up.

There is also a dissonance between the focal depth of each eye lens individually, and the orientation both eyes must use to look at the same object in space. Each eye is seeing a flat image on the theater screen, so that conflicts with what you have to do for the latter.

One thing I try to do is to remind myself to blink and give my eyes a rest on occasion.

Reiko said:
Part of the trick of getting it right is figuring out the right field order. There are other variables for some field orders that I could not get right.
Click to expand...
Interlacing is lossy. The omitted picture in an interlaced field is lost information. You cannot get that back without guessing, however educated or sophisticated.

The ONLY way to accurately convert 60 interlaced fields per second to 60 full frames per second is to rerecord it.
 
Shin Johnpv, give it up man.

I posted a combined field video and a interpolated video.

If you want to stay ignorant, be my guest. The combined field video technique is what professional video encoders are using. Or the ones I keep in contact with on another forum.


Hitokage said:
To actually be on topic: There's a significant difference between 2D and 3D display, because the focus on a 2D image is entirely flat and your eye can scan anywhere keeping the same perceived depth. This is pretty easy and makes the act of watching a movie highly passive if not relaxing. When it becomes 3D, though, the perceived focal depth becomes uneven and you must choose where on the image to focus. Rapidly moving images can easily overwhelm you as you try to keep up.

There is also a dissonance between the focal depth of each eye lens individually, and the orientation both eyes must use to look at the same object in space. Each eye is seeing a flat image on the theater screen, so that conflicts with what you have to do for the latter.

Interlacing is lossy. The omitted picture in an interlaced field is lost information. You cannot get that back without guessing, however educated or sophisticated.

The ONLY way to accurately convert 60 interlaced fields per second to 60 full frames per second is to rerecord it.
Click to expand...

For the rock video I didn't guess. The field order was B (Bottom). The program works like watching a interlaced video in VLC PLayer and deinterlacing it with Bob.

Without deinterlacing the video will read 29.97
Bob the video and you get 59.94
 
I think a good chunk of the motion sickness is caused when some individual's brains think they are "in" the movie vs watching it on a 2d plane. The inner ear doesn't match up with the camera motions which then causes the nausea. The higher framerate and 3d makes it easier for the viewers' POV to get sucked into the movie.
 
Reiko said:
For the rock video I didn't guess. The field order was B (Bottom). The program works like watching a interlaced video in VLC PLayer and deinterlacing it with Bob.

Without deinterlacing the video will read 29.97
Bob the video and you get 59.97
Click to expand...
LOL

You're just line doubling, which is the assumption (read: GUESS) that even lines will be the same as the adjacent odd lines when they go blank for the next field. The effect of doing this is that effective resolution is halved, and you also get motion artifacts from even/odd information being in the wrong spot at the wrong time.
 
Reiko said:
Shin Johnpv, give it up man.

I posted a combined field video and a interpolated video.

If you want to stay ignorant, be my guest. The combined field video technique is what professional video encoders are using.
Click to expand...


Open up your centaur_2.mp4 (which you said is not interpolated and using your magical combining fields charm) in quicktime, then using the arrow keys frame by frame through it. Oh HOLY FUCKING SHIT what's that, frame 1 and 2 are exactly the same. It's just showing each frame for 2 frames!

Open up the centaur_2(interpolated).mp4 in quicktime, then using the arrow keys frame by frame through it. OH HOLY FUCKING SHIT what's that, frame 1 and 2 are different.

You mean you CAN'T magically create double the frames by combining the odd fields of 1 interlaced image with the even fields of another image, and that you need interpolation.

WOAH!

If you refuse to even load up your own files into quicktime and look at them, then fine that's your choice, but any one can do it and see what I'm saying is correct.

Go on, load those files up into quicktime and frame by frame through them. I dare you to do it.
 
Javaman said:
I think a good chunk of the motion sickness is caused when some individual's brains think they are "in" the movie vs watching it on a 2d plane. The inner ear doesn't match up with the camera motions which then causes the nausea. The higher framerate and 3d makes it easier for the viewers' POV to get sucked into the movie.
Click to expand...

This and VR, this decade is gonna be the decade of barf bags
 
Hitokage said:
LOL

You're just line doubling, which is the assumption (read: GUESS) that even frames will be the same as the adjacent odd frames when they go blank for the next field. The effect of doing this is that effective resolution is halved, and you also get motion artifacts from even/odd information being in the wrong spot at the wrong time.
Click to expand...

Yes. That depends if the field order is of varying degrees. (And that's when the problems you've described occurs)

Normally if the field order is plainly TOP or BOTTOM you can get a 1:1 conversion.

There is a team of encoders that have done this for about 200 videos on a website.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The first ever documented Spider-Man fan film
2
303
kunonabi replied
Major fight between Rams and Texans fans. Woman ends up with an incredibly bloody face
25
379
Lunarorbit replied
Pick 3 Film Directors
2
87
1K
jason10mm replied
Major and notable theatrical film releases for 2025, 2026 and 2027
7
273
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt replied
No Other Choice - A new film from Park Chan-wook (Oldboy / The Handmaiden)
16
184
Dr.Morris79 replied
Top Bottom