Eight Diagram Bat Fighter
Banned
I'm in Utah, but I'll be in SF this weekend, then flying out to Tokyo next week. Oh man, I better do this soon hahah
The Hobbit 48fps first impressions
- Thread starter Edmond Dantès
- Start date
- Status
I'm in Utah, but I'll be in SF this weekend, then flying out to Tokyo next week. Oh man, I better do this soon hahah
I think this is being over thought a bit.
Like (good) 3D, while it may look a bit jarring at first, you acclimate to it quite quickly. After a few scenes you just accept it and enjoy. The same will be true for most people with regards to higher framerates.
Synth_floyd
Banned
I'm excited. I haven't seen the footage but from what I've heard it's a bit change, like going from black and white to color. Before color was prominent people thought that color was only for fantasy movies like "Wizard of Oz" and that black and white was more "realistic." I think that the reaction will be the same once people get used to this.
Is there a link to the footage?
Is there a link to the footage?
Oh wow, yeah that is cool.
Dude, I'm expecting the Hobbit release month to be insane. Wars will be fought over this.
Foliorum Viridum
Banned
Ignorance is bliss. I've started to ignore arguments about 30 vs 60 on gaming side because the people who side with 30 infuriate me so much. I'll do the same here!
You explained earlier that motion blur is a result of how long the shutter is kept open, not the frame rate itself. Stop mixing the two variables frame rate and shutter speed together, they are different. You can have a 1/48th of a second shutter speed when recording 24fps and 48fps film. When you compare an individual frame from both reels you have the same level of blur. When played back at full speed the 48 will look smooth, where as the 24 will look strobe like. And yes games can mimic blur well enough. There's been threads on Gaf about this. Some people don't like it, but the majority do prefer it, most games employ it. The way your eye perceives the frames of a game is exactly the same as that of a movie. Games look gamey for a whole host of reasons, but frame rate is not one of them. And again blur is different to frame rate.
Motion blur is not a major time part of Pixar's rendering pipeline. Maybe when Toy Story came out, but not now, not when games on $250 consoles are doing it reasonably well in real time.
Really? and yet you just claimed 60i sd is comparable to 48p at god knows what resolution in 3D.
I fucking lol'd at those rock videos.. in the 48fps shot, the hand just goes beserk. Bit on an unfair comparison really, but whatever.
A complete noob's opinion:
It's weird, but 24fps seemed more 'natural' than 48fps. The latter was undoubtedly clearer and smoother, but it looked kinda janky/sped up a tad.
Whatever. Bring on The Hobbit!
A complete noob's opinion:
It's weird, but 24fps seemed more 'natural' than 48fps. The latter was undoubtedly clearer and smoother, but it looked kinda janky/sped up a tad.
Whatever. Bring on The Hobbit!
In videogames, the lower framerate argument is even more nonsensical, since it negatively affects input responsiveness.
They have something to do with each other, man. You don't need to deny the correlation completely in order to downplay it.
Foliorum Viridum
Banned
What nonsense are you babbling? Games at 60fps are less cinematic. They look too fluid.
There's a reason those numptys infuriate me.
When the hell did I do that exactly? Don't put words in my mouth.
Isnt this what the ico/shadow of collossus creator said when asked why the HD collection on PS3 wasnt 60fps?What nonsense are you babbling? Games at 60fps are less cinematic. They look too fluid.
Foliorum Viridum
Banned
Dunno, it's what countless GAFers have spewed in various threads.
You're probably right. I can see that.
You're probably right. I can see that.
jediyoshi
Member
It was deliberately moving quickly to accentuate the difference. A still shot of rocks wouldn't exactly highlight the far end of the spectrum in terms of the effect.
Karma Kramer
Banned
So many people are judging faster frame rates in 2D.. when in reality we see in 3D and we see at faster frame rates than 24... so it will be the COMBO of the two that carries us into the next era of realism in films. I don't get why people are so opposed to the concept of bringing films closer to how we see the world around us.
Eight Diagram Bat Fighter
Banned
Hard to make blur with slow movement, which was the point of the vid.
Kinda like the zealots in the church of 24p?
It would be those who are completely reticent to try something new that would be comparable to the religious. Also, judge things on what you find their relative merits to be, don't let other people's opinions either way color your perception of the finished film.
THE-Pink-Dagger
Member
Ok, this is incredible. I've watched the 48 fps clip ten times in a row, and then the 24 2 or 3 times. And now, the 24 fps appears slowed down, when the 48 fps feels real and not nearly as fast as when I first watched it.
My brain was being fooled. Just incredible, not a placebo effect, it just feel so good compared to the 24 fps stuff.
My brain was being fooled. Just incredible, not a placebo effect, it just feel so good compared to the 24 fps stuff.
Synth_floyd
Banned
The 24fps rock video is blurry and jarring.
The 48fps rock video is smooth and realistic.
It's also creepy. Why? Because seeing a realistic, giant, disembodied hand going crazy right in front of you is pretty damn creepy.
The 48fps rock video is smooth and realistic.
It's also creepy. Why? Because seeing a realistic, giant, disembodied hand going crazy right in front of you is pretty damn creepy.
THE-Pink-Dagger
Member
WORD, it's just how it feels now, but I had to watch it again and again to get that feel. Definitely understand why the comments on the Hobbit said that it worked at its best when the scenes were long, and that when it kept cutting to another scene, it didnt feel as good.
Like 3D, this will take a couple of minutes to adjust, and then let's ride the fu cking rollercoaster!
Yeah, the "strangeness" definitely seems to vanish over a relatively short time.
Hopefully people will keep their tushes in those theatre seats long enough for it to happen to them before they demand a refund.
Well in other threads a lot of people were complaining about soap operas and all that which was annoying but in this thread the scale has tipped the other way and we have talk about this being like the transition from black and white to color which is just ugh...
Yeah I know, but it's more fun to complain. (´･ω･`)
Actually I may be one of the few people who likes a more "television" or realistic look. There is something very calming, very natural about that sort of look, it feels like there is less mainpulation involved. I would like it if we could have films at a variety of frame rates, whatever works for the director.
Eight Diagram Bat Fighter
Banned
Ok, this post made my day.
PumpkinPie
Banned
Are there any trailers out showing 48fps in action?
Sadly, no.
Games = 60 FPS is best. It makes for a smooth play. It feels more real as you're controlling the player.
Movies = 24 FPS (or whatever is standard) is best. I have never thought to my self "OMG this framerate is so low! I hate The Departed/Shawshank etc." I've only seen high FPS video clips in movie stores but man they look shitty.
Movies = 24 FPS (or whatever is standard) is best. I have never thought to my self "OMG this framerate is so low! I hate The Departed/Shawshank etc." I've only seen high FPS video clips in movie stores but man they look shitty.
THE-Pink-Dagger
Member
I think it's a completely fair comparison though. The leap is rather startling and it continues the progression of the medium towards more accurately representing our reality.
Film->+Sound->+Color->+3D->+Higher frame rates.
(´･ω･`)
Gamer @ Heart
Member
Maybe, but im pretty sure the main argument was that every animation was key framed at 30fps and it didnt look right at 60 or something like that.
Eight Diagram Bat Fighter
Banned
If you're talking about accurately representing reality, I would take 3d out of there.
In an ideal world.
What would be your preference with 3D movies, does 24fps still feel good?
For me 24fps 2D sometimes is not very nice due to the judder.
3D is a lot worse and some scenes are borderline unwatchable due to the lack of temporal information.
So hobbit being shot 48fps 3D is something I'm quite interested to see.
I have hated all 3D that I have seen in theaters, but at NAB this year I saw the Ridley Scott Produced Loom 3D projected with RED's new laser projector. It was 2k (though later in the show supposedly they had 4k working) to each eye and 24 FPS to each eye since it does not cycle on and off like normal 3D (shot 24FPS). It was by far the best looking, least headache causing 3D I had experienced. I still think 3D is a gimmick, but at least RED has it looking decent.
Hmm, why would you say so? Because the current tech isn't good enough, or because it's a forced depth perception? Or something else?
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
We already know that motion interpolation looks shitty.
It is definitely noticeable.
Karma Kramer
Banned
If anyone has seen the Hubble IMAX in 3D, they will know that faster frame rates + 3D = the future of film.
Eight Diagram Bat Fighter
Banned
Uggh, so jealous. Wish I could have gone just for that. I heard it was awesome. Jannard said he would be putting it on the web soon.
Eight Diagram Bat Fighter
Banned
Each inch of 3d from negative to positive space is displayed as a 2d plane still and isn't fluid from negative to positive. It doesn't give the depth your eyes actually perceive and it still looks like cut out 2d planes over the top of other planes.
At least it's actually captured with cameras analogous to your eyeballs, instead of figures being traced out and popped out with post conversion.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
That's funny, because my first experience with high-framerate film projection was first-person footage of a roller coaster. (Colossus at Magic Mountain) It was Showscan. (65mm at 60fps)
runningjoke
Member
When I had a CRT monitor, I couldn't stand 60Hz mode. It was just a constant flicker in my eyes. The monitor went up to 85Hz and that was perfectly smooth and stable. 72Hz is probably enough
- Status