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  
•       •       •

7680 clicks; posted to Geek » on 15 Dec 2012 at 3:23 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 12 of 162 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report