moel: 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)
profplump: MurphyMurphy: Great article, I've wondered what specifically it was that bothered me about it but I just couldn't put my finger on it. It definitely breaks that suspension of disbelief, the comfort zone.Which is a perfectly valid point, but that's about training not the actual limitations of perception/etc. Once you get used to the higher frame rate you can ignore the non-reality of it just like you did before.
tlchwi02: 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.
Lligeret: I don't care about FPS. I am not interested in a real or a fake experience when I got to the movies. SURPRISE I ALREADY KNOW IT IS FAKE.What they need to do is stop making stuff in 3D. It is irrelevant for 99% of the movie, and the 1% is forced stuff because hey it is 3D, where suddenly you are looking at it from a 1st person point of view when the rest of the movie is 3rd person. Here have one or two cool effects of something being thrown at the camera that completely disrupts the flow of the movie.At this point 3D is too much work to do well through a whole movie so it ends up detracting from the movie. The best movie I have seen 3D in? Harry Potter. I hate those farking movies. But Harry Potter did it right, they decided since they couldn't do 3D well through the whole movie, they would just make the final fight scene 3D, but do it well. As it turns out 2-5 minutes of well done 3D is vastly superior to 2+ hours of crappy 3D.It takes too much time and costs too much money to do 3D in a manner that it looks good through an entire movie though. I don't care if a movie feels fake or feels real, I would rather have a good story, good acting, good general shooting, and no farking 3D unless they take the time to do it. 24fps, 48fps, who cares you know how many of the really good movies I have seen that I thought "Man if only this was shot at a higher frame rate?" None.
JudgeItoBox: [i.imgur.com image 686x62]Most of it, anyway. Sports, documentaries, the news, every network's shiatty song-and-dance competition...Not sure who's more retarded; subby or TFA's "neuro-scientists"
Mad_Radhu: JudgeItoBox: [i.imgur.com image 686x62]YOU WATCH TV AT 60 FPS!Most of it, anyway. Sports, documentaries, the news, every network's shiatty song-and-dance competition...Not sure who's more retarded; subby or TFA's "neuro-scientists"Came here to say this. When I stream video from my Xbox to my HDTV it is at 60 Hz progressive scan, and shows with great cinematography like Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, Boardwalk Empire, and Mad Men look just as good as a theatrical feature film. They I no way look like a soap opera, despite Mad Men basically being a soap for middle aged men. I don't know if they film at 24p and then convert it to 60p or 60i for broadcast, and that's why it looks like it does, but I never get that unreal feeling from content that likely has been shot for 60p. Hell, even season 5 onwards of Doctor Who is starting to look like a feature film in terms of the cinematography with their new HD cameras.
MurphyMurphy: So much stupid in here it burns. It's like listening to a bunch of 3rd grade boys explain the intricacies of how women parts work.
MurphyMurphy: Well that's the real question. Is it learned behavior or not?These would suggest that there is scientific evidence that it may not be.
Prospero424: A lot of people biatched when movies started including sound; "talkies".A lot of people biatched when movies started being shot and played back in color.A lot of people biatched when we moved from film to digital.And eventually they ALL got over it.48fps or 60fps is, all subjective observations aside, objectively better in every way. It's just a matter of industry adoption and people getting used to it.
assjuice: Omg, real life is infinite frames per second. That's why everything looks like shiat.
Haliburton Cummings: this is a buncha malarky too as showscan was 60 fps and no one complained about that.
erik-k: bemused outsider: 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.Um, whether you see a sequence of frozen images or motion blur has nothing to do with framerate and everything to do with shutter speed. If the shutter is on 1/1000, anything less than 1000fps will give you a sequence of discontinuous images instead of proper blur./Bring on the high framerates//Only two movies should be 3D: Tron and Tron Legacy.
Skirl Hutsenreiter: Haliburton Cummings: this is a buncha malarky too as showscan was 60 fps and no one complained about that.And what feature films has showscan been used in?
omeganuepsilon: and 3d is a jump off the cliff for many people.
tricycleracer: 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".
Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: What you're watching on tv is 60 interlaced frames. It's certainly not 60 individual frames per second.
Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: Most shows and films are still shot at 24fps. Converting them for broadcast does not change the perception of their original frame rates.
tricycleracer: 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".
omeganuepsilon: Flicker Fusion Threshold
MrEricSir: omeganuepsilon: Flicker Fusion ThresholdDoes this apply to modern digital cinema projectors?The flicker fusion threshold (or flicker fusion rate) is a concept in the psychophysics of vision. It is defined as the frequency at which an intermittent light stimulus appears to be completely steady to the observer (this article centers on human observers). Flicker fusion threshold is related to persistence of vision.
Mad_Radhu: Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: What you're watching on tv is 60 interlaced frames. It's certainly not 60 individual frames per second.That is only for a NTSC signal or 1080i signal being viewed on obsolete CRT hardware. LCD TV technology used in most HDTVs doesn't natively support interlacing, so the TV hardware deinterlaces the fields before the image is displayed on screen (although you aren't getting any effective added frame rate), not to mention that 480p/60 DVD, 1080p/60 Blu-Ray, and 720p broadcast content is 60 individual frames.Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: Most shows and films are still shot at 24fps. Converting them for broadcast does not change the perception of their original frame rates.You do have a point with that. As I mentioned in my post above, when I think about it more, I'm betting a lot of those shows probably shoot on digital cameras designed for film that probably are optimized for 24p. Does anyone know if there are any shows that use 60p cameras that aren't soaps?
omeganuepsilon: MrEricSir: omeganuepsilon: Flicker Fusion ThresholdDoes this apply to modern digital cinema projectors?The flicker fusion threshold (or flicker fusion rate) is a concept in the psychophysics of vision. It is defined as the frequency at which an intermittent light stimulus appears to be completely steady to the observer (this article centers on human observers). Flicker fusion threshold is related to persistence of vision.If you'd read the wiki you'd have seen that, it's the first few sentences.
WHERE DID JOHNSON GO?I WANTED TO HEAR MOAR ABUT HIS SNEEK PEAKZ !!!!!
Haliburton Cummings: WHERE DID JOHNSON GO?I WANTED TO HEAR MOAR ABUT HIS SNEEK PEAKZ !!!!!LOL/bwahahahahh//this must happen at parties alot"there i was at the Skywalker Ranch in 1977, a ten year old, watching the explosion of the Death Star...John Dykstra signed my hat...of course I didn't keep it...etc etc etc etc "i love the BS on fark
MrEricSir: If you'd bothered to research beyond the almighty Wikipedia, you'd know that this phenomenon only occurs in displays that have a perceptible flicker (hence its name.)
Teufelaffe: Let me guess, another person who thinks that because our neurological system can only recognize ~60 individual images per second, that means we can't "see" or process higher frame rates, while completely ignoring that our brain is really, really good at filling in smoothing visual movement thus making the number of individual images we can process per second a meaningless number in regard to artificially created moving images?*reads the article*Yup.
R Kelly's Doo Doo Butter: ///Why didn't the eagles just pick them up at the shire and drop them off at Lonely Mountain?
omeganuepsilon: If you want to be an irrelevant contrarian, you can do so on my ignore list.
bemused outsider: I should have added the shutter speed deets, but hey, you got the point of using an appropriate shutter speed for frame rate.I did some game testing on the gamer PC for a programmer, and he had an adjustable frame rate in there at one point, including a "fastest frame rate possible for the given scene" which got into the 300 fps #'s at times. The video card was fine, but the monitor was limited to 120, so obviously I never saw it faster than the 120. After 90 fps it didn't much change anything. The processing load was overheating the video card though.
MurphyMurphy: So much stupid in here it burns. It's like listening to a bunch of 3rd grade boys explain the intricacies of how women parts work. You folks have so much technical knowledge it's like someone combined an Apple Store Geniustm with a BestBuy sales associate.There is so much science to perception, but have no fear the neckbeards are here to help!!! See, they can turn their vsync on and off on their video card, they study frame rates when playing WoW and also have a high def lcd TV so... they obviously know wtf is up.Great article, I've wondered what specifically it was that bothered me about it but I just couldn't put my finger on it. It definitely breaks that suspension of disbelief, the comfort zone.Looks great for the Olympics, sports, news, anything that is supposed to be real. But just looks oddly asinine for something that is supposed to be fantastic and abstract.JudgeItoBox: [i.imgur.com image 686x62]Most of it, anyway. Sports, documentaries, the news, every network's shiatty song-and-dance competition...Not sure who's more retarded; subby or TFA's "neuro-scientists"You didn't read the article.
Haliburton Cummings: that's what i thought
Haliburton Cummings: Johnson: 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".hmmm. fark quote button broken...tell me where the "showscan company headquarters" was and I'll tell ya if you are a liar or not.one does not simply walk in in on a Trumbull client showing....
Haliburton Cummings: -so where did you "look it up"?
Kaiser Blade: Last I checked movies weren't meant to be simulations.
Haliburton Cummings: tell me where the "showscan company headquarters" was and I'll tell ya if you are a liar or not.
Johnson: hey, I don't care if you think I'm lying or not.
LordOfThePings: Johnson: hey, I don't care if you think I'm lying or not.Hah, so why the four replies?
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.
Johnson: LordOfThePings: Johnson: whhhaaarrggbblllee
If you like these links, you'll love
$5 a month since 19 aught diddly.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Nov 25 2017 05:10:25
Runtime: 0.528 sec (527 ms)