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 38
    More: Interesting, frame rate, James Cameron, The Hobbit, Jean-Luc Godard, Roger Penrose, old quantum theory, Jack MeHoff, mr cameron  
•       •       •

7674 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-15 03:36:10 PM
5 votes:

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 03:50:39 PM
3 votes:
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 03:29:20 PM
3 votes:

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 08:15:09 PM
2 votes:
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 05:20:19 PM
2 votes:

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 04:28:47 PM
2 votes:
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 04:07:09 PM
2 votes:
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 03:37:01 PM
2 votes:
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?
2012-12-16 10:04:00 PM
1 votes:

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 04:01:58 PM
1 votes:

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 02:39:25 AM
1 votes:
It applies to human visual perception.
2012-12-15 11:56:57 PM
1 votes:

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?
2012-12-15 11:11:57 PM
1 votes:

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 11:06:58 PM
1 votes:
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 10:40:58 PM
1 votes:

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 08:43:54 PM
1 votes:

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 07:21:36 PM
1 votes:
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 07:13:47 PM
1 votes:

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 06:19:34 PM
1 votes:
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 05:19:56 PM
1 votes:

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 05:08:12 PM
1 votes:
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 04:54:44 PM
1 votes:

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 04:33:01 PM
1 votes:
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 04:26:32 PM
1 votes:

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 04:22:55 PM
1 votes:
Time for people to start talking about how they prefer the "warmth" of 24fps.
2012-12-15 04:17:04 PM
1 votes:
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 04:12:05 PM
1 votes:

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 04:08:34 PM
1 votes:

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 04:05:23 PM
1 votes:
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 04:00:00 PM
1 votes:

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 03:57:52 PM
1 votes:

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 03:49:26 PM
1 votes:
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 03:48:48 PM
1 votes:
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 03:45:46 PM
1 votes:
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 03:44:47 PM
1 votes:
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 03:37:15 PM
1 votes:
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 03:36:51 PM
1 votes:
I'm probably seeing this monday. during the day. in 2d.
2012-12-15 03:24:50 PM
1 votes:
Omg, real life is infinite frames per second. That's why everything looks like shiat.
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report