If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Den Of Geek)   What does The Hobbit's 48fps technology actually mean for cinema?   (denofgeek.com) divider line 104
    More: Interesting, cultural war, 3D glasses, widescreen, TV movies, soap operas, Hollywood movie, Great Frame Rate Wars  
•       •       •

6844 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 08 May 2012 at 10:18 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



104 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-08 08:48:42 AM  
What does it mean? It means your movie looks more like a home video than an actual film.
 
2012-05-08 09:14:07 AM  
It means that I can watch a movie without being annoyed by the stuttering movement.
 
2012-05-08 09:57:56 AM  
A step forward. Even if its not perfect, its still a step forward.
 
2012-05-08 10:10:59 AM  
It means you get to experience in the theater what you already have at home with your $900 TV set, smooth motion and higher framerates (albeit currently interpolated).
 
2012-05-08 10:20:21 AM  
That tickets are going to get more expensive as theaters replace projectors?
 
2012-05-08 10:20:59 AM  

Carth: That tickets are going to get more expensive as theaters replace projectors?


I thought I had read that you don't actually need new projectors to do this.
 
2012-05-08 10:24:28 AM  
So this is better for 3D that's it. People are gonna wonder why everything looks there family reunion video circa 2007. This won't catch on.
 
2012-05-08 10:26:21 AM  

DamnYankees: Carth: That tickets are going to get more expensive as theaters replace projectors?

I thought I had read that you don't actually need new projectors to do this.


This article. Says it is a if the screen is digital 3D it can already play 48fps. If not it might need a software or hardware update.

"Out of North America's roughly 30,000 venues, more than 13,000 screens have already installed digital 3-D systems, according to National Association of Theater Owners exec Patrick Corcoran. "Some theaters might be ready right now, some might require software upgrade, some might require hardware upgrades," he says. "It depends on when the system was installed."

Barco Digital Cinema Vice President Wim Buyens notes that it's hard to generalize about the precise cost of doing fast-frame business "Because both the projector and the media server need to be capable of handling fast frame rate," he says, "it could range from zero to hundreds of dollars to complete replacement of [an existing] projector." Theaters that already have Barco Series 2 projectors, for example, can get a 48-fps upgrade free of charge, Buyens says."


If they are already charging us more for 3D i wouldn't be surprised if there is a "48fps premium"
 
2012-05-08 10:26:53 AM  

downstairs: What does it mean? It means your movie looks more like a home video than an actual film.


This.

All of these 120hz (and faster) TVs can suck it.

To me, that's an anti-feature.
 
2012-05-08 10:29:38 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-05-08 10:30:50 AM  
And we only get the judder because lazy camera operators aren't decreasing shutter speed on pans. Go watch a film from 20, 30, 40 years ago, shot on "old fashioned" 24 FPS film. No juddering on pans.
 
2012-05-08 10:34:41 AM  

Mr. Parker: So this is better for 3D that's it. People are gonna wonder why everything looks there family reunion video circa 2007. This won't catch on.


Even in 2D it gets rid of jutter and other motion artifacts. The movie does look much different at 48Hz, but once you get used to it, the overall experience is better.
 
2012-05-08 10:39:13 AM  
Oh god, if I wanted everything to look like a soap opera I'd turn my TV back to 120hz from 60 AND watch soap operas
 
2012-05-08 10:42:17 AM  
Must be fun to get paid by the word.
 
2012-05-08 10:44:56 AM  
Still the best version:

2.bp.blogspot.com

That's right, the LP record.
 
2012-05-08 10:46:30 AM  
Does anyone have a video side by side comparison to show us lay folk?
 
2012-05-08 10:46:44 AM  

Fish in a Barrel: The movie does look much different at 48Hz, but once you get used to it, the overall experience is better.


That's completely subjective. On a pure technical side you can probably say that. But as far as the artistic side of it goes it's really no different than saying a photograph is better than a painting because it looks "more real."
 
2012-05-08 10:52:11 AM  
Judder drives me juddery crazy.

Even a couple short pans in the Avengers this past weekend, it was stuttering like a witness being interrogated.
On the flip side though, is that 48fps looks like video, and not like film (like people have said above).

taliesinwi: And we only get the judder because lazy camera operators aren't decreasing shutter speed on pans. Go watch a film from 20, 30, 40 years ago, shot on "old fashioned" 24 FPS film. No juddering on pans.


Is that true?? Not sarcasm, this is something I could see happening. But I've never heard of it.
You'd think people being paid top dollar would produce top-quality.
 
2012-05-08 10:54:26 AM  
24-fps provides a warmth and immediacy that 48-fps cannot. The latter is too sterile.
 
2012-05-08 10:54:56 AM  
Interestingly, there's a big TV issue with 48fps that has yet to be resolved - the vast majority of HDTVs run at either 60Hz or 120Hz. Running a 48Hz signal through a TV not designed to accept it would result in either juddering, or frame interpolation, which results in very poor image quality. To watch these films without picture loss, you'd have to buy a whole new video format and a whole new televis...ah. I think we might have hit something

Aha. The TV market is starting to collapse as everyone who wants HDTV has bought one, so they have to come out with a new gimmick to get people to start buying new TV's again. You're going to need one in order to enjoy your new favorite movies at home.
 
2012-05-08 10:55:49 AM  
I can't believe people want 120hz in their TVs. I have a friend who has it, it looks god awful.
 
2012-05-08 10:58:13 AM  

bdub77: I can't believe people want 120hz in their TVs. I have a friend who has it, it looks god awful.


The only thing I use it for is videogaming. It's god awful for everything else
 
2012-05-08 10:58:19 AM  

Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: Fish in a Barrel: The movie does look much different at 48Hz, but once you get used to it, the overall experience is better.

That's completely subjective. On a pure technical side you can probably say that. But as far as the artistic side of it goes it's really no different than saying a photograph is better than a painting because it looks "more real."


You could say the same thing about black and white film. I'm sure there will always be the occasional "Coffee and Cigarettes" shot in 24Hz for the stately feel of it. For the vast majority of movies, though, I think 48Hz will be a better choice.
 
2012-05-08 10:59:57 AM  

cgraves67: Interestingly, there's a big TV issue with 48fps that has yet to be resolved - the vast majority of HDTVs run at either 60Hz or 120Hz. Running a 48Hz signal through a TV not designed to accept it would result in either juddering, or frame interpolation, which results in very poor image quality. To watch these films without picture loss, you'd have to buy a whole new video format and a whole new televis...ah. I think we might have hit something

Aha. The TV market is starting to collapse as everyone who wants HDTV has bought one, so they have to come out with a new gimmick to get people to start buying new TV's again. You're going to need one in order to enjoy your new favorite movies at home.


I believe though, that already there are issues, and this 48fps movie stuff will only add to it, not create it.
I believe this is what's happening (someone else can explain it better):

Right no w things are either filmed in: 24fps, 23.999fps, or 30fps. Plasmas and LCD's have a base refresh rate of like 60hz or something. To display the stuff correctly, it uses something called 3:2 pulldown. Where it displays one frame twice, the next thrice, the next twice, etc. So as it is right now, there is already a bunch of fragmentation.

But refresh rates aren't the same as fps are they? My plasma has 10 subfields each being driven at 60hz. Does this mean they can display any fps that it gets fed? Up to 60?

/asked more questions than I answered, sorry
 
2012-05-08 11:01:20 AM  
My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it.
 
2012-05-08 11:01:21 AM  
It's astonishing how luddites always jump out of the woodwork to tell us how much better the "old way" was whenever something new comes out.

downstairs: What does it mean? It means your movie looks more like a home video than an actual film.


You only think that because you're used to films looking a certain way. Hell, when color film was first taking off I'm sure there were plenty of people whining about how it didn't look as "cinematic" as black and white.

Higher framerates take about ten minutes to get used to, then your eyes adjust to it and it looks great. Anything involving lots of motion (fight scenes, for instance) will blow your mind in 48fps.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-05-08 11:01:40 AM  
Sounds like the LP-vs-CD debate of years past.
 
2012-05-08 11:03:13 AM  

ZAZ: Sounds like the LP-vs-CD debate of years past.


Except that this isn't a case of increased fidelity.
 
2012-05-08 11:04:14 AM  

taliesinwi: And we only get the judder because lazy camera operators aren't decreasing shutter speed on pans. Go watch a film from 20, 30, 40 years ago, shot on "old fashioned" 24 FPS film. No juddering on pans.


Not true. On film shot at 24 fps, the slowest shutter speed you can have is 1/48 seconds, or a 180 degree shutter. That's also the standard shutter speed for shooting at 24 fps most of the time. If you go with a faster shutter speed, say 1/250 or 1/500, you get a look similar to Saving Private Ryan, with less motion blur and a more stuttery motion.

Only video cameras can shoot with a shutter speed lower than 1/48, and doing so gives the moving images more of a "video" look.
 
2012-05-08 11:08:02 AM  

Mr.Tangent: My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it.


Is your car my ex wife?
 
2012-05-08 11:08:11 AM  
All you film buffs that think faster frame rates look somehow worse can suck my nut.

Are you telling me that real life somehow looks worse because it runs at a higher frame rate than 30 FPS?

Wellon Dowd: The latter is too sterile.


Too sterile?? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

You're all dumb. Go back to your zoopraxiscope.
 
2012-05-08 11:09:07 AM  
I wonder if there were similar comments back when people first stopped using technicolor?
 
2012-05-08 11:17:03 AM  
i1208.photobucket.com
 
2012-05-08 11:17:22 AM  

Gunther: Higher framerates take about ten minutes to get used to, then your eyes adjust to it and it looks great. Anything involving lots of motion (fight scenes, for instance) will blow your mind in 48fps.


I disagree about the ten minutes part. Whenever I've watched higher frame rate material it has never gone away. It's hard to ignore what has been a cinematic standard for 100 years or so that easily.

I do think 48fps material has its uses, but I just don't see it becoming the industry wide standard.


Fish in a Barrel:
You could say the same thing about black and white film. I'm sure there will always be the occasional "Coffee and Cigarettes" shot in 24Hz for the stately feel of it. For the vast majority of movies, though, I think 48Hz will be a better choice.


I'm sure there were plenty of arguments about the use of color film, much like there were during the transition from silent to "talkies." However one thing has been a constant throughout the majority of cinema's history and that has been the frame rate. Think about how filmmaking has evolved over the years and that has never really changed. This change directly affects the motion side of things. And when the medium itself is commonly referred to as a "motion picture" I think the argument can be made that it's a more important/dramatic shift than color or sound.
 
2012-05-08 11:18:49 AM  

Gunther: It's astonishing how luddites always jump out of the woodwork to tell us how much better the "old way" was whenever something new comes out.

downstairs: What does it mean? It means your movie looks more like a home video than an actual film.

You only think that because you're used to films looking a certain way. Hell, when color film was first taking off I'm sure there were plenty of people whining about how it didn't look as "cinematic" as black and white.

Higher framerates take about ten minutes to get used to, then your eyes adjust to it and it looks great. Anything involving lots of motion (fight scenes, for instance) will blow your mind in 48fps.


My eyes are already used to it. I've seen soap operas.
 
2012-05-08 11:18:59 AM  
As someone who works in feature animation, I'm getting a big kick out of how this is going to double our render times. . . Again.
 
2012-05-08 11:19:08 AM  

SmellsLikePoo: Wellon Dowd: The latter is too sterile.

Too sterile?? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?


It's exactly like how people used to whine about CDs not sounding "warm" like records did.
 
2012-05-08 11:21:17 AM  
When the 120hz television came out, I was amazed. Things looked more realistic. After the immediate novelty wore off, I was disappointed. I was watching a clip of a jet fighter flying across the screen and I saw a stuttering image. I found out how the television was interpolating image data and displaying its best guess as to what the image would look like in between the data points it was given. This leads to the stuttering. It looks like crap during action shots and it looks like really expensive home video during the rest.

I still have my 58" Panasonic plasma tv from 2009(it was CNET's editor's choice). I have a home theater with no lights to reflect on the screen, so the shiny glass screen is a non-factor. I imagine I still have a few years left on the tv. I have slight strabismus, so 3-D is pretty lame and annoying to me. I was hoping to not buy a tv for years and if movies start looking like home videos, I will not have to worry about it as I will just stop watching them.
 
2012-05-08 11:22:00 AM  
Bwaaaaa, I hate it when I have to listen to the squeak voices of the actors. I want real thespians that know how to silent act.
 
2012-05-08 11:22:16 AM  

bhcompy: ZAZ: Sounds like the LP-vs-CD debate of years past.

Except that this isn't a case of increased fidelity.


Of course it is. Higher frame rates allow for an image that is truer to life with fewer motion artifacts. That's the very definition of fidelity.
 
2012-05-08 11:22:23 AM  

SmellsLikePoo: All you film buffs that think faster frame rates look somehow worse can suck my nut.

Are you telling me that real life somehow looks worse because it runs at a higher frame rate than 30 FPS?


Yeah, because if there's one thing I've always heard movie fans ask for, it's ultra-realism.
 
2012-05-08 11:22:26 AM  

Gunther: SmellsLikePoo: Wellon Dowd: The latter is too sterile.

Too sterile?? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

It's exactly like how people used to whine about CDs not sounding "warm" like records did.


"Used to"? Been in an audiophile thread lately?
 
2012-05-08 11:27:36 AM  

Fish in a Barrel: bhcompy: ZAZ: Sounds like the LP-vs-CD debate of years past.

Except that this isn't a case of increased fidelity.

Of course it is. Higher frame rates allow for an image that is truer to life with fewer motion artifacts. That's the very definition of fidelity.


The uncanny valley exists, and for non-animated products it's this. In the end, film is a series of still images and it takes advantage of our brains ability to fill in the gaps while looking completely real. We've already achieved the sweetspot in regards to this.
 
2012-05-08 11:33:37 AM  

Mr.Tangent: My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it.


How would you convert that to furlongs per fortnight?
 
2012-05-08 11:34:47 AM  

bhcompy: The uncanny valley exists, and for non-animated products it's this. In the end, film is a series of still images and it takes advantage of our brains ability to fill in the gaps while looking completely real. We've already achieved the sweetspot in regards to this.


People didn't decide on 24fps because they thought it looked better, they chose it because film is expensive, and getting away with as little as possible saved money. The reason people think 24fps looks cinematic because they're used to cinemas showing films in 24fps. There's nothing special about that particular number of frames per second.
 
2012-05-08 11:37:37 AM  

cgraves67: Interestingly, there's a big TV issue with 48fps that has yet to be resolved - the vast majority of HDTVs run at either 60Hz or 120Hz. Running a 48Hz signal through a TV not designed to accept it would result in either juddering, or frame interpolation, which results in very poor image quality.


There's no reason that a flat-panel TV capable of 120 Hz couldn't run at 48 or 96. CRTs had to be tuned to a specific rate because of the way that they sweep the electron beam across the screen, but for an LCD it would be trivial to put in an adjustable inter-frame delay. These days it could probably even be delivered in an Internet or USB-stick firmware update. Not that I actually expect the manufacturers to do this, of course... (just like my digital cable box refuses to let me hide the non-subscribed channels in the program guide, trivial to implement but some MBA asshole didn't want it to be possible).
 
2012-05-08 11:37:40 AM  
The problem I have is the SFX.

The glossed over nature of film makes digital SFX look more real, as they blend in better. Watch JURASSIC PARK in a theater vs. watching it on a TV, with everything crammed in your view, and you will see the difference.

I was brought out of this movie by seeing how fake this looked, with Sam being the obvious only thing real in the frame:

i87.photobucket.com

Granted, probably a crappy example above, but imagine an increased frame rate for the Minas Tireth battle in LOTR, I imaging it'd look fake as hell, even with a better generation of SFX rendering software
 
2012-05-08 11:38:28 AM  

Mr.Tangent: My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it.


Wow getting .002 mpg must suck with these gas prices. It is a good thing grampa simpson doesn't drive anymore
 
2012-05-08 11:38:45 AM  
120hz is like "Daytime Soap mode." You keep waiting for a director to yell "cut!" at the end of a scene.

For things like news, sports, reality type shows, or any other live action event, 120hz is great. For things like movies, not so much. For science fiction movies that are heavy on special effects, 120hz is almost comical.
 
2012-05-08 11:40:31 AM  
These guys are treating the number of the fps they use is like their penis size.
 
Displayed 50 of 104 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report