Omg, real life is infinite frames per second. That's why everything looks like shiat.

I have a bad cough or else I would have gone to see The Hobbit just to see how the HFR worked. I wasn't a fan of IMAX 3D.

assjuice: Omg, real life is infinite frames per second. That's why everything looks like shiat.

Real life is a damn hipster. It prefers analog.

dahmers love zombie: HD camcorder

This is the entire complaint people have with high frame rates.

They have been trained to think that shiatty camcorders and TV shows are the only cameras with high frame rates, and therefor always say it sucks.

They piss and moan at missing out on the authentic experience of having images flash at you just fast enough to prevent an grand mal epileptic seizure.

Higher framerates are better. Period, but people are too dumb to realize otherwise.

24 FPS was not chosen in movie projectors because it was the best. It was chosen because it allowed persistence of motion without destroying sprockets on the print or making the feed mechanism more unreliable then it already was.

I'm probably seeing this monday. during the day. in 2d.

Why am I suddenly reminded of complaints about HDTV from several years ago, and how the pixels are too small for your eyes to even differentiate when you're sitting at a reasonable distance from the TV?

Douglas Trumbull developed SHOWSCAN (65mm film projected at 60fps) after doing lots of testing.
I managed to see a demo of it at his company headquarters by accident. I was in town to visit someone in summer 1987 and looked it up on a lark and simply showed up to see about "the demo".
Turns out there was a PRIVATE demonstration that day for a dozen people and they thought I was one of them.

It was really amazing to watch, but it was less than 10 minutes long and has really only been used for interactive rides. Trumbull envisioned it being used for feature length films as well, perhaps we can tolerate it for a short time, but over 2 hours it gets annoying?

So is this why the consoles tend to only render at sub 30 FPS but PCs consistently display at 60 or higher?

fluffy2097:
24 FPS was not chosen in movie projectors because it was the best. It was chosen because it allowed persistence of motion without destroying sprockets on the print or making the feed mechanism more unreliable then it already was.

...and 48 fps was chosen because it's a 2x multiple of that, which gives you high enough frame rates to be "real" while making a simple downconversion to 24 fps for normal film and digital theaters.

I saw it this morning. It was awesome. In 24FPS it would have been a blurry mess.

I understand that some people like the stately feel of 24FPS. You'll get over it.

oh boy, a system to make 3D "better" and fleece me out of more money with its bullcrap failed 1960's technology.

So what your saying, is an eminent professor of psychology doesn't know shiat, but you as a feeble brained viewer is right?

The fact is he's damn right... Cinema is ALL ABOUT The willing suspension of disbelief....for me 3D farks that, and so does HFR by the sounds of it (and judging on the clips i've seen on the hobbit)

But scientists and researchers in the field of consciousness perception say that the human brain perceives reality at a rate somewhere between 24 fps and 48 fps - 40 conscious moments per second, to be more exact - and exceeding the limit of the brain's speed of cognition beyond the sweet spot that connotes realism is where Jackson & Co. get into trouble.

How can you possibly corrupt a system by giving it information at a rate that is slightly less degraded than its natural operating environment? Photons don't have a "frame rate".

Oh one more thing to add, good cinema is about a decent narrative, it's not about how far you can see up Cameron Diaz's nose from the back of the cinema.

The sooner the film studios realise that, the sooner they'll have to stop all this REBOOT bollocks.

moel: it's not about how far you can see up Cameron Diaz's nose from the back of the cinema.

I just added a keyboard to my Amazon wish list. Please feel free to inspect it.

moel: Oh one more thing to add, good cinema is about a decent narrative, it's not about how far you can see up Cameron Diaz's nose from the back of the cinema.

The sooner the film studios realise that, the sooner they'll have to stop all this REBOOT bollocks.

If by decent narrative you mean down her shirt, I agree.

BumpInTheNight: So is this why the consoles tend to only render at sub 30 FPS but PCs consistently display at 60 or higher?

Actually, 60 FPS is a standard of serious racing games. Without it, objects in the scenery will start to "stutter" as you pass by at a virtual 200 MPH. Unfortunately, none of the current consoles can achieve 60 FPS without sacrificing visual quality to some degree, since the car models are now insanely detailed.

Forza 4 has the highest average FPS, and is consistently close to 60, but they pull a few tricks to do it, and they don't have variable time of day.

GT5 has the lowest average frame rate, but suffers from screen tearing and other problems. They do have variable time of day, but everything else, such as AI, suffers at the expense of it.

All the Codemasters and NFS games run at 30 FPS. 

All that said, I'd be curious if the people who enjoy 48 FPS are gamers or otherwise tech-savvy and if the people who find it bad are otherwise.

The Skeptical Chemist: assjuice: Omg, real life is infinite frames per second. That's why everything looks like shiat.

Real life is a damn hipster. It prefers analog.

Yeah, but our perception is digitised. At the lowest level of encoding, a neuron either fires or it doesn't, there's no in between states.

Not sold on the "48fps looks bad because it's too real" theory, though. We've been trained to expect film to look like it's shot at 24fps, because that's what we've been watching our entire lives. If someone grows up with 48fps, then it will look normal to them, and they'd probably think our movies look static and jerky.

I wanted to see the HFR for the effect, but there is no way I am going to sit through a 3 hour movie about hobbits to do so.

fluffy2097: This is the entire complaint people have with high frame rates.

There is a language of film that we have learned early on. DOF contrast and frame rate are all parts of it. 24fps may not be the "perfect" frame rate, but it is what we expect. Much like the uncanny valley, if we do not get what we expect, things fall apart very quickly and we are taken out of the experience.

BumpInTheNight: So is this why the consoles tend to only render at sub 30 FPS but PCs consistently display at 60 or higher?

Not really, previous generation consoles used standard-definition NTSC video architecture, and those TVs displayed at 30. PC video card & monitor combinations have a different architecture.

Now that there are new "television monitors" that are for all intents and purposes the same as a "PC monitor" console developers could create games that run at whatever native FPS the display is capable of.

P.S. Consoles could always render at 30. Sub-30 fps is a failure on the developer's part.

Fish in a Barrel: I saw it this morning. It was awesome. In 24FPS it would have been a blurry mess.

I understand that some people like the stately feel of 24FPS. You'll get over it.

I went to a midnight showing on Thursday of 24FPS. It was not at all a "blurry mess." What it was was too damn long for the amount of storyline covered.

The main reason I chose not to see 48FPS is that fact that it is only showing as 3D, and I'd heard enough reports of people feeling motion sick to know that hyperrealism + 3D was liable to make me sick too. I'd be willing to at least try 48FPS if they got rid of the damned 3D.

/ last movie I saw in 3D was "Alan Quartermaine and the Lost City of Gold"
// you'll have a hard time convincing me that any movie in 3D is worth seeing

Glitchwerks: BumpInTheNight: So is this why the consoles tend to only render at sub 30 FPS but PCs consistently display at 60 or higher?

Actually, 60 FPS is a standard of serious racing games. Without it, objects in the scenery will start to "stutter" as you pass by at a virtual 200 MPH. Unfortunately, none of the current consoles can achieve 60 FPS without sacrificing visual quality to some degree, since the car models are now insanely detailed.

Forza 4 has the highest average FPS, and is consistently close to 60, but they pull a few tricks to do it, and they don't have variable time of day.

GT5 has the lowest average frame rate, but suffers from screen tearing and other problems. They do have variable time of day, but everything else, such as AI, suffers at the expense of it.

All the Codemasters and NFS games run at 30 FPS. 

All that said, I'd be curious if the people who enjoy 48 FPS are gamers or otherwise tech-savvy and if the people who find it bad are otherwise.

I was just taking a jab at the console plebs but yah that's pretty much how it works. :P I also think that anyone who's gamed is unlikely to be one of those who's ultimately distraught over the 48 FPS of movies. Its strange sure because we're used to this association of "movie/tv show = blurry/choppy, HD camcorder = crisp" but once a few more of these show up its going to pass and we're finally going to see hacks like michael bay get called out because they can't hide behind 'blurry action scene that was actually really lame', that part I'm very much looking forward to.

I think someone mentioned the uncanny valley in the earlier thread about the hobbit (how many of these do we need per day any ways?) and I think I agree that's what it sort of comes down to, it feels 'more real then we expected", but its just a matter of raising our expectations...not keeping them at the console level. (hah, take that plebs! :P)

My main problem with cinematic movies shown on 60pfs TVs is it makes all of the sets look like...sets. It really takes you out of the story. Makes it look like a 70's era BBC production.

assjuice: Omg, real life is infinite frames per second. That's why everything looks like shiat.

My life was like that, until I hired an experienced key grip.

Yeah, reality has an infinite frame rate, BUT your visual perception physiology does NOT.

With out the "blur" of movement, you end up with a rapid series of stop-frame images, where the action will look very non-fluid. Yes, when thrown, a football travels at over 60 feet per second, but if you image it perfectly at 60 fps, you would freeze it at each point in its travel. When you then show the series in real time, the football will appear to jump from one position of perfect focus, to the next position of perfect focus, and it would look unnatural, and very artificial.

Like it or not, your brain WANTS the image to imitate your normal continuous stream of data input, and that includes the inability of your visual system to focus clearly on BOTH the moving football and the stationary receiver. One of them will be blurred.

fluffy2097: It was chosen because it allowed persistence of motion without destroying sprockets

... and it works. You can't see the join. You're aware you're watching a film, but you don't perceive individual frames. It's entirely convincing on its own level - as long as the plot is interesting enough, you "forget" you're watching a film .

Listen to the 48fps backlash. As this article says, supersmooth motion with the artificiality of a screen (and, worse, artificial stereoscopy) makes our minds go "Woooaaaah! Something is wrong here!". It's the uncanny valley, the difficulty in processing the disjunction makes it impossible to "forget" you're watching a film, as its constantly reminding you of its own unreality.

ManRay: My main problem with cinematic movies shown on 60pfs TVs is it makes all of the sets look like...sets. It really takes you out of the story. Makes it look like a 70's era BBC production.

Its all an evil conspiracy by the set designer's guild, they want higher wages and now that Joe Q public can see through shoddy sets its going to be contracts signed in gold to make sure everything looks better then ever. Same for the make-up artists, the special effects crews, elizabeth hurley's tit adjuster, etc etc etc.

Lydia_C: // you'll have a hard time convincing me that any movie in 3D is worth seeing

I saw Avatar in 3D. The best you could say about it was that the novelty of the effect took your mind off the plot, the dialogue and the acting. Only other "new" 3D I saw was the TinTin movie, because I wanted to know if it worked better for animation.

3D sucks because the brain is processes everything with respect to what the retina is focusing on in a near/far manner. So what the filmmaker/director may want to make 3D isn't what the eye or brain wants to focus on on the plane of the image. Two characters on screen talking would be where the film maker wants to focus; however, different people focus on different parts of the screen.

So it's unnatural to look at 10 feet tall faces having a conversation while the director is picking out certain features to 3D-ify. If the director wears glasses, this makes it even more difficult to follow.

Don't believe me? Look and focus on your computer screen from a distance of about 2 or more feet away, but describe the area behind the screen. Does that area behind your screen look blurry or have a slight double image? Now imagine how most cameras capture images like that.

Glitchwerks: BumpInTheNight: So is this why the consoles tend to only render at sub 30 FPS but PCs consistently display at 60 or higher?

Actually, 60 FPS is a standard of serious racing games. Without it, objects in the scenery will start to "stutter" as you pass by at a virtual 200 MPH. Unfortunately, none of the current consoles can achieve 60 FPS without sacrificing visual quality to some degree, since the car models are now insanely detailed.

Technically the screen updated 60 times a second, but each pass only filled every other line.

But yes, without that you wouldn't be able to play those game as well.

And IMO the newer consoles are far more capable, the developers just chose the bog down their processor with lots of computationally-expensive extras.

I know exactly what Marshall McLuhan would make of this.

Doc Batarang: I know exactly what Marshall McLuhan would make of this.

You know nothing of my work!

Time for people to start talking about how they prefer the "warmth" of 24fps.

BumpInTheNight: So is this why the consoles tend to only render at sub 30 FPS but PCs consistently display at 60 or higher?

Kuroshin: Anybody who has played competitive FPS is laughing at the concept.

But the only people who's brains process FPS input as if it were reality are psychopaths. All FPS look fundamentally unrealistic, so the brain doesn't give a flying freak about the disjunction between the smoothness of the motion, the artificiality of the perspective, and the fact that a everything is simultaneously in focus regardless (because there's no genuine depth, so no depth-of-field). So yes, FPS are different - they already look fake, so high frame rates don't make them look fake.

moel: Oh one more thing to add, good cinema is about a decent narrative, it's not about how far you can see up Cameron Diaz's nose from the back of the cinema.

Really no different than literature. A story can be centered around action or character development but it is the story that keeps you reading. Frame rate o is like arguing font on the best seller list.

StopLurkListen: Doc Batarang: I know exactly what Marshall McLuhan would make of this.

You know nothing of my work!

Boy...if life were only like this.

gwowen: Listen to the 48fps backlash. As this article says, supersmooth motion with the artificiality of a screen (and, worse, artificial stereoscopy) makes our minds go "Woooaaaah! Something is wrong here!". It's the uncanny valley, the difficulty in processing the disjunction makes it impossible to "forget" you're watching a film, as its constantly reminding you of its own unreality.

i also wonder if the use of this for something set in a fantasy universe may not be the best idea. If it was a movie about normal people living in a normal world, that might be something. but in a fantasy world with a lot of CGI, any imperfection is going to stand out even more. and lotr (on reflection) had a lot of dodgy cgi.

Lydia_C: Fish in a Barrel: I saw it this morning. It was awesome. In 24FPS it would have been a blurry mess.

I understand that some people like the stately feel of 24FPS. You'll get over it.

I went to a midnight showing on Thursday of 24FPS. It was not at all a "blurry mess." What it was was too damn long for the amount of storyline covered.

The main reason I chose not to see 48FPS is that fact that it is only showing as 3D, and I'd heard enough reports of people feeling motion sick to know that hyperrealism + 3D was liable to make me sick too. I'd be willing to at least try 48FPS if they got rid of the damned 3D.

/ last movie I saw in 3D was "Alan Quartermaine and the Lost City of Gold"
// you'll have a hard time convincing me that any movie in 3D is worth seeing

I enjoyed Prometheus in 3D, but it was IMAX too.

cretinbob: assjuice: Omg, real life is infinite frames per second. That's why everything looks like shiat.

No, it's 24fps.
When talking video games, the reference is to PC performance, not so much visual.
HFR is a stupid gimmick.

NotSureIfSerious.jpg