The Hobbit film leaves fans with an unexpected sickness
- Thread starter ComputerMKII
- Start date
- Status
Eight Diagram Bat Fighter
Banned
I own the camera used to shoot this film, I shoot for a living, the only way to get true 60fps is to shoot in 60fps. Other than that, you're just frame blending. And with the RED, the 3d footage isn't 2x24fps interlaced footage to get 48. Both parallaxes are being shot at 48.
You could do that in MPC. Welcome to field conversion.
BTW... The new frames via Interpolation look like shit when done frame by frame.
What you're saying is true. Frame blending is a hack method for making 60Hz video. But what counts is how it looks in motion.
So he's not just line doubling, but discarding odd fields? Wow.
Count of Monte Sawed-Off
un33dab@dpu$$y
Holy shit! Is it really that much? Fuck that.
That's not what the program does.
MPEG2Source("encode.d2v",cpu=0)
AssumeTFF()
yadifmod(mode=1, edeint=nnedi2(field=-2))
Crop(0,0,-0,-0)
*about AssumeTFF(): it could be AssumeBFF() instead, depending on your file (T for top frame first, B for bottom frame first)
we'll see about that later
Interpolation does that.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Easier to just simply double everything over the 24fps standard. And from what was read about Cameron showing off 48fps and 60fps footage, the jump between 48 and 60 was not as noticeable as 24 to 48.
MWS Natural
Member
Shin Johnpv
Member
He's not throwing out the odd fields, all that's happening to get the 60fps is showing each frame twice. Meaning in the original video Frame 1 is now frame 1 and 2 of the new video, and Frame 2 becomes frame 3 and 4 of the new video. So the odd fields are also being line doubled, it's just also showing each frame twice. Which is dumb, you don't really get anything out of doing that. You'd be better off interpolating each frame so that at least then there's movement on each frame.
Yadif is an interpolation filter.
When you line double 60 fields per second you'll get 60 frames, and each one should be different. That frames are repeating means he's repeating the even field where the odd should be, which can actually reduce artifacts at the expense of temporal resolution. Hence, throwing out odd fields.
100% increase versus 25% increase. The math makes it make sense.
BattleMonkey
Member
I already hate 3D and the extra cost, it has caused me to avoid many movies in the theater since I couldn't get to a non 3D showing when we wanted to go, so whatever, rentals. But if this also starts becoming more of the norm? Fuck going to the theater.
Do you have VLC media player?
Okay open up the centaur 2 mpg. Now select de-interlace. Now select Bob.
That is all the new video is doing without interlaced artifacts when you pause.
I usually use Interpolation (The one that creates new frames), but purists like that method for MPEG2 videos. Or so I'm told.
Shin Johnpv
Member
Ahh see he's line doubling 30fps footage, and frame doubling it to create 60fps footage.
TheKaeptain
Banned
No. Interlaced video has temporal resolution on each field, so you get 60fps just line doubling. Discarding odd fields and repeating even fields in their place is just sometimes done to remove the discrepancy in alignment, leaving you with consistent progressive video that has half spatial resolution and half temporal resolution.
Kyleripman
Member
Anyone else bummed that this movie itself is being almost overshadowed by the tech aspect of it? I'll be seeing in 24 fps but only because I don't like 3D. I'd happily try 48fps first otherwise.
There are several "near" me as well. Very surprised. I wonder if that list is legit.
48fps is only available for 3D?
Depends on your theater. I live in Queens so tickets are already $14. The theater near my parents doesn't charge extra (over 3d) for the HFR showing, so it's $18 for them.
Kyleripman
Member
Yes
And I totally agree with this, which is why it sucks that there's no HFR 2D option.
CrunchyFrog
Member
This is one thing I've been saying for a while. Focal point will remain the biggest standing issue with non volumetric 3D for the foreseeable future. Now, if we managed to combine plenoptic light field photography with some super advanced eye tracking tech we may be able to get around this. But a combination of technologies like this at acceptable resolutions and framerates is probably some 20 years away from prototype stage.
The Article said:
Quite possibly the most unscientific explanation and misunderstanding of vision I have ever seen. If there's "unparalleled" detail on the screen in this movie, then people must not be able to leave their homes most of the time without succumbing to motion sickness. While the exact resolution of the human eye is difficult to define (and even varies depending on lighting conditions), it is still far higher on average than that of a cinema screen at normal viewing distance and DEFINITELY higher than 48fps, leading one to perceive far more visual information per second in daily life than on a 48fps 3D screen. I'd love to conduct some kind of double-blind test to see how much of these motion sickness cases are purely psychological or placebo.
Shin Johnpv: Oh shit, I think I get why we're talking past each other. There's really no point to storing blank lines in digital form, so interlaced video is usually stored with even and odd lines occupying one frame. 60 fields per second basically becomes 30fps video, jagged edges and all.
Foliorum Viridum
Banned
I hate 3D but I welcome our 48fps revolution. Fuck 24fps. Fuck it hard.
Count of Monte Sawed-Off
un33dab@dpu$$y
Mine will probably be less than $20 then. But still probably more than I'd be willing to pay. I'll stick with 2D 24fps.
You're right on the money with your posts:
Line doubling takes the lines of each interlaced field (consisting of only even or odd lines) and doubles them, filling the entire frame. This results in the video having a frame rate identical to the field rate, but each frame having half the vertical resolution, or resolution equal to that of each field that the frame was made from. Line doubling prevents combing artifacts but causes a noticeable reduction in picture quality since each frame displayed is doubled and really only at the original half field resolution. This is noticeable mostly on stationary objects since they appear to bob up and down. These techniques are also called bob deinterlacing and linear deinterlacing for this reason. Line doubling retains horizontal and temporal resolution at the expense of vertical resolution and bobbing artifacts on stationary and slower moving objects. A variant of this method discards one field out of each frame, halving temporal resolution.
Line doubling is sometimes confused with deinterlacing in general, or with interpolation (image scaling) which uses spatial filtering to generate extra lines and hence reduce the visibility of pixelation on any type of display.[3] The terminology 'line doubler' is used more frequently in high end consumer electronics, while 'deinterlacing' is used more frequently in the computer and digital video arena.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinterlacing
Agreed. Just hope the movie is a good watch the old fashioned way. I mean 48 FPS is sort of interesting, but I can't sit through anymore 3D.
3D makes me nauseous. And is uncomfortable to the point where I will drive out of my way to see this in 24fps at a 2D theater. Not because I am a hipster, but because that is the way I wish to see it.
Why would someone pretend to be nauseous? Either to you or to themselves? My nausea is QUITE distinct. It is DEFINITELY caused by watching 3D with glasses and is easily replicable.
Why would someone pretend to be nauseous? Either to you or to themselves? My nausea is QUITE distinct. It is DEFINITELY caused by watching 3D with glasses and is easily replicable.
And yet I'm not agreeing with you.
I know we're arguing semantics. But the videos are in 60Hz are they not?
Frame by Frame it's not comparable to natively shot 60fps video in clarity. But in motion they are similar which the average joe won't notice.
Yeah. I'm getting really tired of people throwing around "hipster" to describe people who want to watch it in 2D.
I'm a big believer in watching films the way they're intended by the director. That's why in most cases i dislike all this 3D stuff, as it's clearly a push by the publisher. But if Peter Jackson intended it to be watched this way, i'll give it a shot. But it won't be on my first night of watching it with friends. I don't want to risk out first viewing, on what could become a big distraction.
I'm a big believer in watching films the way they're intended by the director. That's why in most cases i dislike all this 3D stuff, as it's clearly a push by the publisher. But if Peter Jackson intended it to be watched this way, i'll give it a shot. But it won't be on my first night of watching it with friends. I don't want to risk out first viewing, on what could become a big distraction.
Always-honest
Banned
3d can die in a fire for all i care. Maybe when they find a better way i might like it
Ape Gone Insane
Member
Until James Cameron, who doesn't give a shit, releases the next Avatar at 60 fps.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
Placebo doesn't mean that there is no real nausea.
The budget would have skyrocketed.
TheKaeptain
Banned
I remember going over a study in one of my classes about how it isn't our eyes that can tell the difference in frame rate it is the way our brain receives it. 24-30fps were the frame rate that we best process information when looking at a screen. Anything higher and our brain knows it is fake; can't properly process it. Our eyes are more than capable of recording hfr's though. Although the guys that did the study were not sure if it is because we are not use to that high of a frame rate.
So maybe that's why people are getting headaches?
So maybe that's why people are getting headaches?
Considering 24fps being standard was a technical limitation, not a stylistic choice, I call bullshit.
TheKaeptain
Banned
Read the last sentence of the first paragraph. It would make perfect sense since we have been condition to viewing in those formats throughout our whole lives.
I think we can rule out people who play video games since we commonly expose ourselves to higher framerates for extended periods of time.
48fps in 3d means 96fps in total with 48fps for each eye or 48fps total with 24fps for each eye?
Or doesn't work like that and that is the computer 3d (like nvidia 3dvision and such)?
Sorry, Im lost in this new tech.
UltimaPooh
Member
Some people also dreamed in black and white when films hit the world.
Count Dookkake
Member
I have been lucky enough to be among those genetically capable of enjoying 3D.
Hopefully, my luck holds.
Hopefully, my luck holds.
TheKaeptain
Banned
But that would be different because we are engaging the video game as to just watching. You ever watch a video and notice frame drops that you didn't see when you were playing the same game on the same format?
- Status