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.

(Movieline)   Neuro-scientists vs. Peter Jackson, James Cameron. HFR is not working for most people because our brains can't process 48 images a second   (movieline.com) divider line 162
    More: Interesting, frame rate, James Cameron, The Hobbit, Jean-Luc Godard, Roger Penrose, old quantum theory, Jack MeHoff, mr cameron  
•       •       •

7676 clicks; posted to Geek » on 15 Dec 2012 at 3:23 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-12-15 03:22:27 PM
Watched The Hobbit last night in 3-D HFR. Really didn't like it. I have a HD camcorder (seriously inexpensive one) that has a 720p 60fps mode, and that's what it looked like. For almost three damn hours. It felt like all of the "movie magic" I experienced during the LOTR trilogy was sucked right out of the experience.
 
2012-12-15 03:24:50 PM
Omg, real life is infinite frames per second. That's why everything looks like shiat.
 
2012-12-15 03:26:37 PM
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.
 
2012-12-15 03:29:20 PM

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.
 
2012-12-15 03:32:29 PM
most people can't keep their cars in the right lane, colour in the lines or understand basic politics either.

this is a buncha malarky too as showscan was 60 fps and no one complained about that.

ok, that fat couple from Tulsa....there was them there folks...but aside from them there folks...


/hillbillies should be in schoolz
 
2012-12-15 03:36:10 PM

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.
 
2012-12-15 03:36:51 PM
I'm probably seeing this monday. during the day. in 2d.
 
2012-12-15 03:37:01 PM
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?
 
2012-12-15 03:37:15 PM
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?
 
2012-12-15 03:44:18 PM
So is this why the consoles tend to only render at sub 30 FPS but PCs consistently display at 60 or higher?
 
2012-12-15 03:44:47 PM
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.
 
2012-12-15 03:45:46 PM
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.
 
2012-12-15 03:48:48 PM
oh boy, a system to make 3D "better" and fleece me out of more money with its bullcrap failed 1960's technology.
 
2012-12-15 03:49:11 PM
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)
 
2012-12-15 03:49:26 PM
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".
 
2012-12-15 03:50:39 PM
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.
 
2012-12-15 03:51:37 PM

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.
 
2012-12-15 03:51:55 PM

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.
 
2012-12-15 03:57:52 PM

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.
 
2012-12-15 04:00:00 PM

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.
 
2012-12-15 04:01:49 PM
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.
 
2012-12-15 04:03:34 PM

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.
 
2012-12-15 04:04:49 PM

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
 
2012-12-15 04:05:08 PM

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)
 
2012-12-15 04:05:23 PM
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.
 
2012-12-15 04:06:26 PM

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.
 
2012-12-15 04:07:09 PM
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.
 
2012-12-15 04:08:34 PM

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.
 
2012-12-15 04:10:48 PM

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.
 
2012-12-15 04:12:05 PM

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.
 
2012-12-15 04:13:24 PM
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.
 
2012-12-15 04:13:48 PM

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.
 
2012-12-15 04:13:52 PM

fluffy2097: Higher framerates are better. Period, but people are too dumb to realize otherwise.


If people watch it and generally don't prefer it, I guess it's not better in any meaningful way.

/may check it out sometime soon
//starting to suspect these ads are advertisements to get people to see what the fuss is about.
 
2012-12-15 04:17:04 PM
Completely farking ridiculous. Beyond stupid, actually. Anybody who has played competitive FPS is laughing at the concept.

Higher framerate is always better. Yes, even in video. If you prefer lower framerate, that's a personal preference based on your brain being trained. Someone who has spent their entire life seeing 100fps video will never prefer 24fps. It'll be jerky and disjointed.

Once the generations who grew up on dinosaur cinema die off,, 24fps will be considered a novelty and nothing more.
 
2012-12-15 04:17:34 PM
I know exactly what Marshall McLuhan would make of this.
 
2012-12-15 04:19:29 PM

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


You know nothing of my work!
 
2012-12-15 04:21:00 PM

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.


Never drive over 50mph. Your visual sensory organs and brain obviously cannot handle the strain.

/even 100fps is too slow to properly discern details when moving at over 160mph
//ask me how I know
 
2012-12-15 04:22:55 PM
Time for people to start talking about how they prefer the "warmth" of 24fps.
 
2012-12-15 04:23:11 PM

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


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-15 04:26:32 PM

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.
 
2012-12-15 04:28:47 PM
I went to watch a play at the local theatre but the hyper-realism caused by the framerate and 3D took me out of it.
 
2012-12-15 04:31:45 PM
I hold a doctorate in Gumbo, but as an undergrad I went to film school and majored in alcoholism.

I suggest reading Rudolph Arnheim's Art and Visual Perception, and then buying me a beer or three.
 
2012-12-15 04:33:01 PM
I have the same problem with high-refresh rate TV's. Everything just seems "off" as if it were shot on a hand-cam. Yes, it's more realistic but I think the motion blur is expected of the TV experience. Sort of an uncanny valley of frame rates if you will.

Get too real but not real enough -- since you're still looking at a bounded rectangular frame that pans -- and it starts to be creepy instead of immersive.
 
2012-12-15 04:35:13 PM

Kuroshin: Completely farking ridiculous. Beyond stupid, actually. Anybody who has played competitive FPS is laughing at the concept.

Higher framerate is always better. Yes, even in video. If you prefer lower framerate, that's a personal preference based on your brain being trained. Someone who has spent their entire life seeing 100fps video will never prefer 24fps. It'll be jerky and disjointed.

Once the generations who grew up on dinosaur cinema die off,, 24fps will be considered a novelty and nothing more.


Just curious, what are your thoughts on 3D?
 
2012-12-15 04:44:53 PM

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.
 
2012-12-15 04:54:00 PM

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.
 
2012-12-15 04:54:44 PM

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.
 
2012-12-15 04:57:52 PM

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.
 
2012-12-15 04:59:44 PM

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.
 
2012-12-15 05:00:41 PM

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
 
2012-12-15 05:03:53 PM
Anyone know how many FPS Real Life is?
 
2012-12-15 05:06:14 PM

Yukon Cornelius: 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?


I don't know, is it because no one ever said that?

HD was a natural progression. The first time you see an HD signal, it's simply amazing. You can't believe you ever got along without it. This HFR isn't like that at all. It just makes film look like video. That's it. No big magic behind it.

Maybe it'll catch on, maybe not. Will people prefer movies that look like actual real life? Who knows.

/seeing it in 2D first, then HFR next weekend
 
2012-12-15 05:08:12 PM
Also, this article is retarded.

No one can tell the difference? Really?

...so why is there even a debate? Wouldn't it be a non-issue if people couldn't tell the difference? The debate wouldn't be "wait everyone, no one can tell the difference", it would be "Peter Jackson tried to use this 48fps thing, but it looks the same".

F*cking idiots.

/dnrtfa
 
2012-12-15 05:09:30 PM

Brick-House: Anyone know how many FPS Real Life is?


PiPifps No, really - just take a look for yourself.
 
2012-12-15 05:11:44 PM

Medic Zero: 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.


Dredd 3D was actually glorious in 3-D.
 
2012-12-15 05:17:15 PM

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


A solid 60 is like glass to me. 30 sucks and 45ish works.

/Will pwn you.
 
2012-12-15 05:19:56 PM

gwowen: 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.


It's not just that -- videogames are fundamentally different from movies here. In a videogame -- especially a fast-paced, competitive videogame like an FPS -- the player wants the game world to respond to controller inputs as quickly as possible. But the vast majority of videogame engines work by saying "Check controller inputs, move things around, draw a frame, check controller inputs, move things around, draw a frame, etc." That means that the player's control over the action is constrained by the framerate; if a game is only rendering at 20fps, then it's going to take a 20th of a second for your controller inputs to take effect. So someone who's playing a game at 60fps has a significantly different gameplay experience -- and a competitive advantage -- over someone playing the same game at 20fps.

Movies are very different; you're just watching an experience, not trying to line up a headshot.
 
2012-12-15 05:20:19 PM

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


No, it's because your console is a mid-range computer from 2005, and your PC is a [low-end/mid-range/high-end] computer from [year >2005]. Even the Black Friday refugee computers still have more processing power than the average console these days.
 
2012-12-15 05:35:27 PM
Bullshiat. Back when games ran anywhere between 30fps to 70fps, it looked awesome. My eyes never had a problem with 48fps and the Hobbit looks just fine.

Haters gonna hate I guess.
 
2012-12-15 05:38:03 PM
The whole "backlash" is a bunch of bullshiat. I saw it at 48fps and wouldn't have known there was anything unique about it if it hadn't been for all the HFR hype. It certainly didn't detract from the moviegoing experience. I never had the feeling that it was "too real". How could that even be a genuine complaint? Isn't that the whole point of a movie? To lose yourself in the story? "I liked it but it would have been better if the image jumped and jittered more."
 
2012-12-15 05:40:13 PM

Glitchwerks: 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.


48 FPS would be fine for a lot of stuff. The problem for PC is that most computer monitors want to display at 30 or 60, and tend to tear and stutter outside of those numbers. Even 55 is noticeably jerky compared to 60.
 
2012-12-15 05:46:37 PM
"Dr. Hameroff's theory has to do with the synchrony of the gamma waves in the brain - it's called gamma synchrony - the brain wave cycle of 40 hertz. There's a very strong theory that that is why we perceive 40 moments per second, but regardless of the reason, most researchers agree we perceive 40 conscious moments per second. In other words: our eyes see more than that but we're only aware of 40. So if a frame rate hits or exceeds 40 fps, it looks to us like reality. Whereas if it's significantly below that, like 24 fps or even 30 fps, there's a separation, there's a difference - and we know immediately that what we're watching is not real."

fark you, the Hobbit is real! Your FPS isn't tricking me to think otherwise.
 
2012-12-15 06:03:43 PM
This has nothing to do with the uncanny valley, and is not the only factor in motion blur. The shutter angle used when shooting most of Skyfall corresponds to an exposure time of 1/50 s, but nobody complained about reduced motion blur or looking "cheap".

If nobody had known about the change in frame rate most people would have noticed anything, whereas a rapid pan across a picket fence is always jarring at 24fps.
 
2012-12-15 06:12:17 PM
The Hobbit looked fine in HFR 3-D. The motion scenes were considerably less blurry than 24 FPS 3D. It did look a trifle too 'real' which took about five minutes to get over.

The tedious exposition, however - no frame rate will help that.
 
2012-12-15 06:19:28 PM

Lydia_C: 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.



I don't know who these people are, but they should probably see a doctor.

If anything the HDR is easier to watch, and 3D is how you see life every day. Saw the Hobbit last night and if nobody had told me it was HDR I just would have been surprised how nice it looked and how I could finally see what's going on when the scene is dark in a 3D movie.
 
2012-12-15 06:19:34 PM
So this begs the question. If 48 frame rates is so inferior why do people go see plays? Where the "frame rate" is a full 66 per second and it's in 3D and the colors are true instead of RGB.
 
2012-12-15 06:28:02 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-15 06:34:00 PM

syrynxx: The Hobbit looked fine in HFR 3-D. The motion scenes were considerably less blurry than 24 FPS 3D. It did look a trifle too 'real' which took about five minutes to get over.

The tedious exposition, however - no frame rate will help that.


What about all the walking? Was there lots of motion-enhanced walking?
 
2012-12-15 06:48:29 PM

Brick-House: Anyone know how many FPS Real Life is?


approx 55 to 58 frames. this is disputed though.

your brain throws away a lot of the information it receives and makes most of the rest up.
kinda like deniers ..

( go look at some optical illusions...)

Chevello: syrynxx: The Hobbit looked fine in HFR 3-D. The motion scenes were considerably less blurry than 24 FPS 3D. It did look a trifle too 'real' which took about five minutes to get over.

The tedious exposition, however - no frame rate will help that.

What about all the walking? Was there lots of motion-enhanced walking?


it's the "Bilbo I love you!" / " Fili I love you!" hugging and suckling i look forward to.

sam....frodo....sam...frodo
 
2012-12-15 06:49:38 PM

Johnson: SHOWS


yeah i said that already....

prove that you were there.


sounds like a lot of malarkey
 
2012-12-15 06:51:45 PM

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....
 
2012-12-15 06:52:29 PM
This will become less of an issue as more of this shiat comes out. It's all about getting your brain/eyes used to it. I didn't even notice the effect after the prologue of the movie.

/Expected to not enjoy the movie
//Loved it
///Why didn't the eagles just pick them up at the shire and drop them off at Lonely Mountain?
 
2012-12-15 07:03:58 PM

TDBoedy: Medic Zero: 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.

Dredd 3D was actually glorious in 3-D.


True! For some reason I forgot about that. Quite good all around actually.
 
2012-12-15 07:13:21 PM

mongbiohazard: 3D is how you see life every day


Not me.

/Real life has a surprising amount of forced perspective tricks built into it.
 
2012-12-15 07:13:47 PM

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?


NSF Non-Nerds Warning
 
2012-12-15 07:13:58 PM
Cameron's considering 60fps for Avatar 2, 3.
 
2012-12-15 07:18:17 PM
I don't really care about fps, just don't force more 3d on me
 
2012-12-15 07:19:49 PM
James Cameron doesn't do what James Cameron does for James Cameron...James Cameron does what James Cameron does BECAUSE he's James Cameron.
 
2012-12-15 07:21:36 PM
i.imgur.com

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"
 
2012-12-15 07:22:16 PM
If they just drop the movie back to 24FPS, will it be half as long?
 
2012-12-15 07:25:47 PM

mrlewish: So this begs the question. If 48 frame rates is so inferior why do people go see plays? Where the "frame rate" is a full 66 per second and it's in 3D and the colors are true instead of RGB.


Live theatre has better blocking and physical acting than a lot of movies nowadays

If you filmed the godfather in 48, people would probably still love it... People not liking the hobbit probably says a lot about Peter Jackson's directing abilities :/
 
2012-12-15 07:41:49 PM

AdamK: People not liking the hobbit probably says a lot about Peter Jackson's directing abilities :/


2/3rds of the critics and 4/5ths of the audience on rottentomatoes.com liked it. I'm seeing it tomorrow, so I can't speak first-hand, but I don't think a minority of people not liking the movie says anything one way or another about Peter Jackson.
 
2012-12-15 07:57:51 PM
If anybody you know has a problem differentiating movies, video games or TV shows from reality you should keep an eye on that person; they're possibly dangerous to themselves or others.

If anything over 40fps is thrown out by your nervous system then anything over 40fps is just thrown out. There may well be other problems, such as odd depth of field, or the false 3D effect that are causing viewers problems.
 
2012-12-15 07:59:01 PM

mat catastrophe: If they just drop the movie back to 24FPS, will it be half as long?


No, twice. Duh.
 
2012-12-15 08:00:01 PM

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


No, it's not. Time is quantized.

/Reality is 5.39106(32)×10^44 FPS
//Maybe 
 
2012-12-15 08:04:17 PM

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.
 
2012-12-15 08:07:26 PM
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.
 
2012-12-15 08:15:09 PM
The problem isn't that people "can't handle" a higher frame rate.

The problem is that it aesthetically looks like ass.

It looks like someone shot video camera footage while on a set where a movie was being filmed. It removes the cinematic drama, and replaces it with soap-opera shallowness.

The whole point of movies is that they are exaggerated, cinematic experiences, NOT a boring replication of dreary real life.
 
2012-12-15 08:15:24 PM

Haliburton Cummings: approx 55 to 58 frames. this is disputed though.


I'll dispute it. It's Pi to the power of Pi frames per second. Really.
 
2012-12-15 08:21:09 PM

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

A solid 60 is like glass to me. 30 sucks and 45ish works.

/Will pwn you.


The difference is that film is a constant frame rate, PC game frame rates are average rendered frame rate, so if you're seeing 30fps in an FPS, likely you're getting sub 24fps under heavy rendering, which is noticable. At 60fps, ypu're enough above average that you won't be seeing any choppyness
 
2012-12-15 08:28:51 PM
er, at 60fps your average is high enough...

/worded that poorly
 
2012-12-15 08:41:12 PM
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.
 
2012-12-15 08:43:54 PM

kingoomieiii: The problem for PC is that most computer monitors want to display at 30 or 60


That's not really true anymore. The actual LCD pixel refresh rate might be as low as maybe 30-some Hz on the low end and rarely is higher than 60 Hz on computer-oriented systems. Faster LCD displays exist but mostly are reserved for video-oriented systems (i.e. TVs) where they're trying to do frame rate matching with recorded content instead of with generated content.

/ Don't confuse the pixel refresh rate on the panel with the backlight flash rate; they are uncorrelated
// Also don't confuse the image refresh rate on the computer->monitor video link with the actual panel refresh rate
 
2012-12-15 08:44:47 PM

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.


Actually, doing a little more digging, it looks like most of the shows were shot with 24p digital cameras and then converted to 60p or 60i for broadcast. Recent seasons of Doctor Who, for example, have been using a Sony F35 (which does go up to 50 fps, but I'm betting they saved that mode for slo-mo scenes), so I'm betting they were probably shooting 24/25p.

Does anyone know for sure what they do for high-end TV productions? Now that I think about it, my Mad Men Blu-Rays are in 24p, so I'm betting it is probably pretty common to use that format natively and then convert.
 
2012-12-15 08:45:08 PM

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.
 
2012-12-15 08:45:59 PM

Johnson: 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?


still waiting on that address there Jon Lovitz..

wasn't able to Google it were you?


here's how i know you are makin this up:

"looked it up on a lark and simply showed up to see about "the demo".

and the dooooozie

"and has really only been used for interactive rides."

did you use the yellow pages?

also, the showscan technique was in development well before 87.

-so where did you "look it up"?
-where and when did you hear about the private and very proprietary Showscan system? In Starlog? years after it was already in use?
-what else was Showscan used for before it was used on rides?

i look forward to more of your posts.
 
2012-12-15 09:11:53 PM
that's what i thought
 
2012-12-15 09:22:16 PM
So all I need are 24 fps shutter glasses to make the world look magical? Anybody have some '3d' shutter glasses they care to modify and then give to me?
 
2012-12-15 10:23:46 PM

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.
 
2012-12-15 10:30:46 PM
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.
 
2012-12-15 10:31:34 PM

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)


You mean the clips that you probably saw on TV at a scaled 48->24->30fps? Because, yeah, that's the way to judge how 48fps really looks.

If the shutter used is fast enough, 48fps should have enough motion blur to make the viewer unable to tell the difference between that and reality. And that's the goal.
 
2012-12-15 10:36:37 PM

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.


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.
Seriously people should read tfa, they cover this.
 
2012-12-15 10:40:58 PM

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.


Now THIS is something that is worth discussing, IMO.
 
2012-12-15 10:43:28 PM

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.


Also, THIS.
 
2012-12-15 11:05:25 PM

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"


What you're watching on tv is 60 interlaced frames. It's certainly not 60 individual frames per second.

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.


Most shows and films are still shot at 24fps. Converting them for broadcast does not change the perception of their original frame rates.
 
2012-12-15 11:06:58 PM
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.
 
2012-12-15 11:11:57 PM

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.


This.

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.


This.
Some people seem to almost brag about not noticing the high FPS. If it's not learned behavior(and I don't think it is) and actually physiological limitations, people that are less perceptive won't notice it as much, if at all. There's a certain irony there that I find pleasing.

It's not a matter of conditioning one's self, or what we're used to. We're all enthralled by nice HD graphics because of the detail, that is the very edge of uncanny valley most people just don't realize it. We like HD images because they just tickle that sense(something much studied by artists, designers, at the demand of Ad agencies globally, that visual "pop"). Increasing frame rates pushes us further in that direction, and 3d is a jump off the cliff for many people.
 
2012-12-15 11:20:46 PM

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.


I think 48fps certainly has a place in cinema, but I don't want it to become the standard. After all, since when was realism the ultimate goal in filmmaking?

48fps will resolve more detail in the imagery, but in what other ways is it better?
 
2012-12-15 11:29:04 PM
I saw it last night in HFR 3D. There was a noticeable difference for me though not all the time, some of the scenes looked really nice, and some seemed to just look "wrong" and was not as enjoyable.

/enjoyable, but it should have been called "Lord of the Rings presents: The Hobbit"
 
2012-12-15 11:29:24 PM

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


Wat ?
 
2012-12-15 11:56:57 PM

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?
 
2012-12-16 12:09:53 AM

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.




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.

As for traveling faster than 50 mph or "beware of faster than 160", Not an issue, done faster.
But the point isn't whether you can gauge position and placement by following the extremely fast backgrounds and other vehicles as they blur by, but rather, at speed can you also correctly read the license plates or small signs that flash by... Not likely, unless you specifically focus on that task, and now put yourself in extreme danger by not following the road. Again the point is, physiology does not "see" in frame rates, it monitors an incoming image data stream, and can process specifics only by grabbing them and interrupting the incoming stream.

High frame rates matter, oh yes they do, but human physiology does have its limits irrespective of any individual's heroic viewing capacity/appreciation.
 
2012-12-16 12:17:59 AM

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?


i like you
 
2012-12-16 12:38:04 AM

omeganuepsilon: and 3d is a jump off the cliff for many people.


They probably couldn't see the drop-off, because they took their glasses off.
 
2012-12-16 01:10:28 AM

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".


The article suggests that there's an "uncanny valley" frame rate and if you exceed it (as 48 fps probably does) then the brain tries to reject it - or more accurately, prevents you from suspending disbelief. Same thing you get when you have a CG character that isn't _quite_ there.
 
2012-12-16 01:17:59 AM

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?


btw, i didn't say showscan was used in features...

/i still like you
 
2012-12-16 01:37:17 AM

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?
 
2012-12-16 01:59:44 AM

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?


I saw some of those showscan rides.

They were a hell of a lot better then the movies playing.

/loved cosmic pinball, space race, and devils mine ride.
//None of that "it's to real, uncanny valley" bullshiat.
 
2012-12-16 02:04:24 AM

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".


It's not about photons or physical reality being constant(infinite frame-rate).

It's about how the human brain can process only so much at one time. The test is really simple using lights that go on an off instantly. You flip them on and off until people don't notice the flicker. That's our hard limit. In layman's terms anyhow.

Flicker Fusion Threshold

As for why people may not like high frame rates:

Same page, a specific section.

See also:
Link
Persistence of vision is the phenomenon of the eye by which an afterimage is thought to persist for approximately one twenty-fifth of a second on the retina.

What the camera captures as high frame rates may not correlate with how we would see the same thing in person. This goes doubly so for enhanced images. IE the tweaks to contrast and brightness and such, that make a still image pop, come off as unrealistic in some settings, especially video.

That persistence of vision alone justifies people's claims of being uncomfortable, but add to that how we perceive motion in person and how high-speed camera's differ from that...well, a lot of people in this thread look just as mentioned above.

Bears repeating again..

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.

 
2012-12-16 02:30:44 AM

omeganuepsilon: Flicker Fusion Threshold


Does this apply to modern digital cinema projectors?
 
2012-12-16 02:39:25 AM
It applies to human visual perception.
 
2012-12-16 02:58:07 AM
HFR? Meh, fructose isn't good for you anyway.
 
2012-12-16 03:11:43 AM

MrEricSir: omeganuepsilon: Flicker Fusion Threshold

Does 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.

If what we display does not match how a person would perceive the event, people will have complaints, as evident with 3d and high fps footage recent news.

If your theoretically vague equipment falls in line with that, then yes?

I mean, you can continue to be ignorant(of course, at this point it'd be considered willful), or troll, whatever you please, but the question was rather ..dull. Regardless as to what you learned in third grade last week, there is such a thing as a stupid question.
 
2012-12-16 03:27:21 AM

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?


Most TV's now create additional frames to make the rate 120 or 240 fps. The software manufactures one (or three) extra frames that it inserts.
 
2012-12-16 03:35:20 AM

omeganuepsilon: MrEricSir: omeganuepsilon: Flicker Fusion Threshold

Does 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.


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.)


If what we display does not match how a person would perceive the event, people will have complaints, as evident with 3d and high fps footage recent news.

Some people also complain wifi is giving them cancer. Complaints are not always evidence.
 
2012-12-16 03:40:12 AM
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
 
2012-12-16 03:44:52 AM

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


no.
 
2012-12-16 04:44:42 AM

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


Look... if someone is lying, and lying compulsively, then just ignore them. People do it for many reasons, including defence.

I went to school with a kid who had outrageous lies he couldn't back up. Though he was my friend, I never understood why he bothered with this stuff. Probably to make himself feel more important.
 
2012-12-16 04:56:58 AM

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.)


It doesn't occur in the display at all, it occurs in the brain, as was the point of my post, which you continually willfully ignore.

Your cherry picked argument aside.... My point was to provide a few links on to how it all goes together in the brain, in relation to the post I originally quoted.

If you want to be an irrelevant contrarian, you can do so on my ignore list.
 
2012-12-16 05:39:32 AM

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.


Wut?! You don't even understand what you've just written.
 
2012-12-16 05:57:21 AM

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?


The one moral you should take away from every Middle Earth story isn't that evil can survive, or that good can win, or that unexpected people can do amazing things... It's that the Eagles are kinda dicks.
 
2012-12-16 05:59:54 AM

omeganuepsilon: If you want to be an irrelevant contrarian, you can do so on my ignore list.


Always a great substitute for a rational argument! At any rate, the real contrarian here is Wikipedia since the article you posted on persistence of vision debunks your hypothesis. It's an interesting read.
 
2012-12-16 06:08:06 AM

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.


A few years back I had a once ludicrously expensive SGI monitor that could do a staggering range of framerates. Once on a lark, I played BZflag at a resolution of 240x160 or somesuch at 180fps. I scored rather poorly for fairly obvious reasons but I cannot forget how utterly, perfectly smooth the display was. No fake sequence of ghost images when I rapidly turned at all. In that one aspect it was indistinguishable from reality: just smooth motion blur, even though standard cgi frames epitomize the zero-shutter-speed limit.

The brain's front-end processing, for anything, can only quickly distinguish between about 4-5 analog values (You can immediately say which half, 3rd, 4th, maybe 5th of a line segment a dot lies on, but more takes a rapidly increasing amount of time), so once you get past about 96-120fps even at zero shutter speed it'll basically be seen as smooth in all "reasonable" circumstances.
 
2012-12-16 06:50:57 AM
To work out the framerate of reality, it`s 1/5.39106(32)*10−44 

A bit more than 48.
 
2012-12-16 07:23:45 AM

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.


Thx for this, especially this line: But just looks oddly asinine for something that is supposed to be fantastic and abstract.

Years ago I was watching a "making of" show about one of the Terminator movies and in one part they showed Arnold pounding on a car's hood from a fixed position documentary camera. It looked completely cheesy and fake, but the same scene when shown through the "movie" camera, looked as awesome as movies always do.
 
2012-12-16 07:28:25 AM

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"


But it was shot at 30fps.

Not sure why everyone here doesn't understand that.
 
2012-12-16 08:45:02 AM
 
2012-12-16 11:46:15 AM

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....


hey, I don't care if you think I'm lying or not. I would have come up with something better than that if I was making up shiat.
I am so very sorry I did not spend last night replying to you, but I had a little party to go to.
I'm not from LA, sorry I didn't keep my notes from that day of where I went. Oh yeah, I didn't take notes.

I worked in the film biz then and was using my week in LA to visit places I had either dealt with by renting stuff or talked to on the phone, or had only heard of and wanted to see how they operated. I was bored one day and went to see Spaceballs and then I looked up wherever Showscan was headquartered because I had brought my Los Angeles Production Bible (or whatever it was called, it was a thick reference book of ads and contacts for the entertainment industry.)
So I literally looked up Showscan and it was in there. I'm pretty sure I called from a payphone and asked if there was a showing today. I had no clue that it was not open to the public. The person who answered the phone told me "Yes" and gave me a time, so I just showed up on-time like I belonged there and walked in. I'm sure you could not do that today, but this was 1987.

The seats were theatre seats on a hydraulic ride platform. Trumbull came out, introduced himself and then asked everyone to introduce themselves to him. That's when I realized that I was not supposed to be there. When my turn came, I just smiled and said I was an AD from Chicago (I actually did Props). Trumbull just kind of looked at me for a moment, then said "well, hope you enjoy the show" or something like that. He didn't kick me out, what would be the point? I wasn't there to cause trouble.
The demo was only about 10-15 minutes long and began with Trumbull live in front of the screen talking, then a filmed version (at 60fps) took over on the screen, apparently for comparison. It looked pretty good, but not as great as I had been led to believe. Then there was POV rollercoaster footage and the seats would move. The moving seats made a huge difference in the experience.

After it was over, I just got up and left.
It was really not that big of a deal at the time.
I was used to walking onto sets and talking to famous actors and directors like human beings (which they are) , not like gods or something.
Did I mention that I worked in the biz? I'm not a fanboy living in his parent's basement.

There were a few other places on my list to visit while I was there. If you are in the film biz it is amazing how accommodating everyone is.
I also walked into ALLEFFECTS (or ALLFX, whatever Eric Allard's company was) and everyone was at lunch, so someone gave me a private tour of the facilities which -at the time- occupied several of those Industrial Park buildings, they just blew holes through the walls to connect the units.
Lots of Johnny Five stuff hanging on the walls, R/C Energizer bunnies, I took note of a Johnny Five "arm" that I later tried to rent from them for a commercial, they wanted $10K a DAY to rent it, PLUS First Class airfare for the operator. I ended up making one. (not as nice, but usable and within the budget).

I was there for a week, so I visited all the Prop Houses to see what they had. Modern Props was great, they had all the wonderful light-up hand gadgets from Ghostbusters just sitting on a shelf along with tons of other stuff. And I could rent anything. It was not very expensive either.
I had rented things from Special Effects Unlimited before so I went and visited them as well. Just walked in. Wandered around. Talked to the guys working and prepping stuff that was going out or coming back from rental. Got another red ball cap.
While in the Van Nuys area I went to see Matt Sweeney since I used to rent flying gear from him. He was working on a race car or something. Another really approachable and helpful person. Even though I didn't use his "Sweeney Gun" he told me where to get little hemispheres you could stuff with things to make dust hits or zirc hits (sparks when it hits something). So there was a trip to the Prop shop at UA or Paramount (I forget where, its been awhile). Not a bad week for a tourist.
 
2012-12-16 12:11:35 PM
I have seen pr0n videos in 60 fps and it made a difference. Not a huge one though, but still. Guess you only see the visual improvements if you really look for them.

Your argument is invalid.
 
2012-12-16 12:31:37 PM

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


Having actually worked in the film biz for over 25 years, now retired, I'm curious as to what your expertise is in matters such as this?
Is your life so bland that you cannot fathom how an olde fart like me could possibly have experienced something as mundane as walking in to a Showscan screening?
BTW- when I go to parties (like last night, when you were here trashing me for some reason), it is usually a mix of artists and crafts people that still work in the film biz. They have much better stories than I do.

OK - here is my one "fan boy" film experience that I will share with you:
While I was in film school, one of our instructors was Tony Buba. He taught Sound Production, but he also was close friends with George Romero and worked on a few of his films as well as appeared in them. He told us that Dawn of the Dead (yes, 1978...) was being screened at....I want to say the Ann Arbor Film Festival and Romero was going to be there. We all loved George Romero, so with no planning, a couple of us drove to the film festival and found out we could not find a hotel room, so we just hung out at the convention center, or whatever it was that was screening the film, found places to hide and sleep until the screening. Went to the screening, saw Tony, told him how excited we were, he was happy to see us, then introduced us to GEORGE ROMERO! Whoo Hoo! George was nice and said "lets all go get a drink!"
Oh Boy- Drinks with George Romero!
I had to run back to where I had stashed my backpack. By the time I returned, they were gone.
I had no idea where they went. I looked and looked, never found them.

oh well. I have my memories.
 
2012-12-16 12:46:56 PM

Haliburton Cummings:
-so where did you "look it up"?



ahh, it was not the Production Bible, it was the LA411 guide, which is still in production and....it is basically a "yellow pages" for the film biz.
I'll have to see if I somehow saved my 1986 or 1987 copy. I rather doubt it.

These were available for all the major film industry markets and had different names depending on the area.
I actually took out a display ad for my own area. What a waste of money. Never got any work from it, except for one little job that led to me meeting my wife.
She checked the local guide to see if I was legit. The early version of googling someone.
So I guess it was worth it for that.
 
2012-12-16 02:27:07 PM
To me the question is this: Do we really WANT an ultra-realistic window into another world?

Last I checked movies weren't meant to be simulations.
 
2012-12-16 03:12:29 PM
I saw it in 2d and hfr 3d and the higher frame rates really make the movie. It is incredibly apparent in many of the scenes in the 2d version that you aren't being fed enough frames. The only issue I had with hfr is it does require a higher level of special effects, and it wasn't perfect on this front. The same issues were present in 2d but they were harder to see. Hfr all the way!
 
2012-12-16 04:01:58 PM

Kaiser Blade: Last I checked movies weren't meant to be simulations.


Someone needs to write something on a piece of paper called "The Christopher Nolan Rules" and have it up on every wall of every production room on movies:-

1. No 3D
2. Film, preferably as large a format as you can make
3. Minimise CG, using other effects as much as possible
4. A good farking story with good characters that treats the viewer intelligently.
5. A cast of really good actors (note: not necessarily stars)
 
2012-12-16 04:16:32 PM

Haliburton Cummings:
tell me where the "showscan company headquarters" was and I'll tell ya if you are a liar or not.


oh look it is on the Googles, although not actually in "LA" proper, but Culver City CA (everything is LA to anyone else like me)

3939 Landmark to be exact. Been there since I was there.

Thanks for the trip down memory lane, I had forgotten many of the things I did on that trip.

Now it is your turn to show everyone your credentials for judging my motivations and my experiences. 

also- Fark ID 1986
so I win!
 
2012-12-16 04:47:32 PM

Johnson: hey, I don't care if you think I'm lying or not.


Hah, so why the four replies?

Seriously, I enjoyed your reminiscences. Don't let dumbasses get your goat.
 
2012-12-16 05:00:37 PM

LordOfThePings: Johnson: hey, I don't care if you think I'm lying or not.

Hah, so why the four replies?


Because I am a stubborn old coot?

Seriously, I enjoyed your reminiscences. Don't let dumbasses get your goat.

I actually enjoyed looking through some of my old stuff to see if I saved any old LA411 guides.
I also questioned my original memories and am now reasonably confident that I did experience them and they were not fantasies or something.
Looking up Showscan history was also fun.

also- remembering again how my wife found me. that was worth posting about (for me anyways) 

yeah, I know, get a blog....
 
2012-12-16 05:22:20 PM

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 we liked it that way goddammit
 
2012-12-16 06:12:48 PM
The truth of the matter is the higher frame rate better approximates reality. The problem is that if you take a good hard look at it, reality starts looking pretty shiatty.
 
2012-12-16 07:23:37 PM

Johnson: LordOfThePings: Johnson: whhhaaarrggbblllee


butthurt?


oh yeah? well i have more friends on myspace than you!! re: your "fark" number.

you do sound like a 25 year veteran of being a PA.

"this muffin is stale Johnson..."

I've worked in various facets of "showbiz" and you sound like a grunt.

i'm not posting my pedigree on fark...but without getting as 'name drop a nobody happy' as you, i can say, i've worked in and around the IMAX folks, and Trumbull, specifically in regards to show pavilions at world fairs...

you sound like Scameron.... 

and it's probably a good thing you "retired".

i will subscribe to your newsletter however and in the meantime,

you have a safe and happy holiday and thank you again for you timely reply.

big hugs....

Haliburton 


/John Dykstra did sign my hat.
//nerdrage
 
2012-12-16 07:38:01 PM
Just saw the movie, but not in 3D, so I didn't get to see the high frame rates. I DID see, however, places where I really wish it had high frame rates. A few times during the movie, they swing the camera around very rapidly and there is noticeable motion blur. Those scenes really would have benefited from 48 fps.
 
2012-12-16 08:52:37 PM

R Kelly's Doo Doo Butter: This will become less of an issue as more of this shiat comes out. It's all about getting your brain/eyes used to it. I didn't even notice the effect after the prologue of the movie.

/Expected to not enjoy the movie
//Loved it
///Why didn't the eagles just pick them up at the shire and drop them off at Lonely Mountain?


They need to level and get some loot.
 
2012-12-16 09:18:10 PM

Haliburton Cummings:
...my impulse to post nonsense overrides my common sense...


OK, that explains a lot.
 
2012-12-16 09:26:51 PM

jack21221: Just saw the movie, but not in 3D, so I didn't get to see the high frame rates. I DID see, however, places where I really wish it had high frame rates. A few times during the movie, they swing the camera around very rapidly and there is noticeable motion blur. Those scenes really would have benefited from 48 fps.


I just saw it today in 3D IMAX HFR. So I did notice it was very crisp in spots. Almost too crisp, but nothing I couldn't get over. The one thing I though after coming out of it though was how great a "planet earth" documentary would look in this format. A couple of other observations:

1. It worked well when focused in on a character. You really could see how good of an actor Martin Freeman and Sir Ian were.
2. It worked really well on the action "set pieces". It was very easy to get sucked into the battle.
3. Where it didn't work as well? The big panoramic, distance shots. It looked almose like a diorama. The detail was too crisp, especially for distant objects.

All that being said, I think it has a place in cinema. I really think one of the best uses could actually smaller character movies with really good actor: you clearly be able to discern their mastery of their craft.

Oh: and porn. :-)
 
2012-12-16 10:04:00 PM

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?


1) The eagles are not a Middle Earth taxi service. In the book, Gandalf doesn't call the eagles for assistance; they notice the fire and investigate. Seeing the group in trouble, they help out.

2) No one knows what's up with Smaug...you know, the large flying dragon? For all they know, flying into Erebor is a good way to become dragon snacks.

3) Again, since no one knows what the situation is with the dragon, they want to make a surreptitious approach to Erebor. There's nothing sneaky about swooping in on the backs of giant eagles.
 
2012-12-16 11:07:35 PM

Teufelaffe: 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?

1) The eagles are not a Middle Earth taxi service. In the book, Gandalf doesn't call the eagles for assistance; they notice the fire and investigate. Seeing the group in trouble, they help out.

2) No one knows what's up with Smaug...you know, the large flying dragon? For all they know, flying into Erebor is a good way to become dragon snacks.

3) Again, since no one knows what the situation is with the dragon, they want to make a surreptitious approach to Erebor. There's nothing sneaky about swooping in on the backs of giant eagles.


Yeah, they're isolationistic dicks.
 
2012-12-17 12:16:32 PM
I felt fine watching the Hobbit, but I do remember some scenes with the camera panning where the entire picture appeared to blur or smear. I have no idea if that had anything to do with the 48 fps since the claim is that higher frame rates should reduce motion blur. Definitely I would say that during action scenes, the characters were crisp and clear as they quickly moved.

Though I think there are many things going on here. Another is that the human body can physically see at a resolution of about 40 images per second. Second is that each person is probably going to be slightly different. Maybe John sees at 39.37465 fps that varies at arbitrary intervals (one second, 39.98585 fps and another 38.99988 fps) and Mary sees at around 41 fps most times. The brain is analog, after all.

In more direct relation to The Hobbit at 48 fps, sure, the human vision systems sees at some average fps like 40 or so. But that is not ever going to be synchronized with a digitally mastered film that runs at practically exactly 48 fps. To illustrate what I'm thinking, let's say these octothorpes represent one moment in time when the human brain has captured one "frame", and the plus represents one movie frame (I can't switch to a constant width font, so use your imagination):

# # # # # # # # # # # + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In either case, sometimes human vision frame might miss frames, even if on average human vision is higher than the framerate. However, with 48 fps there are more missed frames. Maybe the dizziness and nausea comes from certain people's brains getting confused with too many missed frames. Not only that, but in real life, human brains create the "frames". With movies, the human frames are conflicting with the video frames.

Eh well there's my 2c.

*wanders off*
 
2012-12-17 12:24:15 PM
Ok so apparently Fark is sanitizing it's inputs based on rows of text containing #'s and +'s

Here's the diagram with underscores in place where I had spaces on my earlier message. The first row is maybe how the human vision frames work. The second row is 48 fps digital frames, and the third 24 fps digital frames.

#___#__#_#____#____#___#___#__#___#__#
+__+__+__+__+__+__+__+__+__+__+__+__+
+____+____+____+____+____+____+

In either case case, the human brain would miss frames, even at slower fps. But at higher fps, more frames are skipped. Possibly being a factor in the dizziness and nausea.

(I bet when the very first 24 fps films came out, people were getting dizzy and nauseous).
 
2012-12-17 02:49:37 PM

BumpInTheNight: 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)


Lighten up, Francis... If I didn't know better, I'd say you were a condescending jerk with a massive stick up your ass.
 
2012-12-17 05:00:57 PM

0z79: BumpInTheNight: Glitchwerks: BumpInTheNight: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)

Lighten up, Francis... If I didn't know better, I'd say you were a condescending jerk with a massive stick up your ass.


BumpInTheNight had some cool points. If I didn't know better, I'd say you were dumbass with no brain in your head.

I game and had no problems physically or morally with the 48 fps.
 
2012-12-17 05:37:13 PM

torusXL: 0z79: BumpInTheNight: Glitchwerks: BumpInTheNight: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)

Lighten up, Francis... If I didn't know better, I'd say you were a condescending jerk with a massive stick up your ass.

BumpInTheNight had some cool points. If I didn't know better, I'd say you were dumbass with no brain in your head.

I game and had no problems physically or morally with the 48 fps.


Oh, he had some pretty decent points, I just think he was a condescending prick about them.. which was unnecessary.

But you're right, I am a dumbass; coming onto a web forum and expecting people to be reasonable.

/for shame
 
2012-12-18 01:17:43 PM

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.


WTF am i reading? its funny though.
 
Displayed 162 of 162 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report