Higher Frames Per Second = Bad

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
And all these years we've been thinking that higher FPS is better. ;)

"The Hobbit" is possibly one of the first movies to be filmed in 48fps, or double the framerate of tradition theatrical releases. According to a Facebook entry by its director Peter Jackson, the switch promises significantly higher clarity and smoothness, especially when it comes to fast movements and panning shots.
 
I knew this would happen. Everyone I know hates watching movies on my Samsung TV with smooth motion that makes everything seem more fluid, especially blurays. I on the other hand love it, Band of Brothers is amazing on bluray with the higher refresh rates. But it is very different from a cinematic perspective. Sometimes it makes movies seem more like sitcom's because it's not something you commonly see in theaters but you do on TV shows.
 
This happens every time something changes. I have friends that can't stand 120hz refresh on LCDs, but you get used to it.
 
There's so much stupid in that article's thread that I just about flipped out at work. Holy crap, I can't believe those people even know how to type considering the [lack of] logic being displayed.
 
There's so much stupid in that article's thread that I just about flipped out at work. Holy crap, I can't believe those people even know how to type considering the [lack of] logic being displayed.

The comments are just facepalm worthy. Guess they aren't tech savy :D
 
We will look back at 24fps and laugh, just like 1080p. I welcome 48fps and 4K. BRING IT!
But not too fast, cause I just bought a big ass 70". But have it reayd in about 4 years. MKPLZTHX
 
Yeah, that "smooth motion" stuff is kind of weird at first but I imagine you would get used to it. I don't see it as a bad thing necessarily, we are just used to 24/30 FPS and motion blur.
 
I hate color movies. It makes things too real. Movies should be black and white.
 
Yeah, that "smooth motion" stuff is kind of weird at first but I imagine you would get used to it. I don't see it as a bad thing necessarily, we are just used to 24/30 FPS and motion blur.

You get used to it real quick, these guys only saw 10 minutes so they were like "whoa, dude.." once you watch it you start to see how much more crisp and clear everything in the image is and how easily you can make out details while the camera is panning. I hope the critics stop bitching about it because we should definitely start making the move towards 48 FPS movies.
 
The only reason films were done at 24 FPS was to save on celluloid. Obviously we don't have that problem today.

If they had originally recorded movies at 15 FPS (the speed of old cell phone cameras), people would complain about 24.
 
Terrible article.

24 fps is horrible and unnatural. Why 48 though? 60Hz is a very common refresh rate nowadays…

Also, 60 fps porn.
 
Good to hear. We should have made the transition to higher framerates about 50 years ago though, but better late than never. Audiences will come around eventually. This is good news for 3D presentation, as the higher framerate will alleviate some of the problems that 3D viewers can be sensitive to.
 
Higher FPS ISN'T necessarily better. Do you like tearing in games? You can always do something that should be awesome in an absolutely awful manner.

I can tell you I don't like things filmed in 24fps played back at 120 or 240 with my TVs software. It can't put back information that was never recorded, and it makes (almost) everything seem like an east enders episode. However watching decently done 60fps progressive video doesn't look like east enders either, and the smoothmotion effect on my TV doesn't make it look nearly as bad. It's all situational, and largely depends on the material and how the whole process is done. 48fps 3d imax is pretty cool. But it doesn't look quite like traditional film, or like decently done video for TV, or like the weirdly over-smoothed motion of British television. For a movie in a darkened theater, every frame of whatever you are doing has to look at least as good as a single frame of 24fps film. 48fps 3d with shutter glasses comes pretty close as each eye gets something close to a 24fps experience.
 
I don't know, I can't seem to get used to 120Hz monitors and movies. Looks artificial which I know is just stupid cause real life doesn't move 24 fps. Still, I ain't ready for it yet. Maybe because I've been watching 24 fps for 40 years.
 
The comments are just facepalm worthy. Guess they aren't tech savy :D
There's so much stupid in that article's thread that I just about flipped out at work. Holy crap, I can't believe those people even know how to type considering the [lack of] logic being displayed.
SO much this.


Why 48 though? 60Hz is a very common refresh rate nowadays…
I think Jackson is banking on 240 hz displays for the future (48*5). For 120hz displays, there's going to be a small amount of judder. Half as much and twice as fast, so it will barely be noticeable, but it will still be there.
 
I prefer the looks of 24fps in movies, it's not about realism but texture. It could be a subjective matter but many viewers agree with that. Happens the same at work when I show clients stuff filmed @24fps, they all agree it looks nicer.

Gaming is another matter, gimme the highest framerates because I'm fighting for my life! :D
...and no micro stuttering please :p
 
I agree with people disagreeing with 48FPS.

I go to a movie to disbelieve. Watching a movie on the same FPS as a soap opera would, well, suck. Yeah things are crisp and oh so smooth, but you also lose that surreal element. Actors are going to hate how unforgiving that format is going to be on both their acting, their action sequences, and even their appearance. I watched one of the spider man movies in Bluray and it was wonky to say the least.

So, frankly, I want surreal and 24fps gives that. 48 I'll probably get used to, but then it ups the ante on how movies will be produced and the quality needed to make them look good at that speed.
 
You get used to it real quick, these guys only saw 10 minutes so they were like "whoa, dude.." once you watch it you start to see how much more crisp and clear everything in the image is and how easily you can make out details while the camera is panning. I hope the critics stop bitching about it because we should definitely start making the move towards 48 FPS movies.

The bolded part is one of the most obnoxious things about TV and movies today, partially due to the new inclination to use "shaky cam" for everything. During fast sequences, like fights, you can't tell what the fuck is going on at all.
 
I knew this would happen. Everyone I know hates watching movies on my Samsung TV with smooth motion that makes everything seem more fluid, especially blurays. I on the other hand love it, Band of Brothers is amazing on bluray with the higher refresh rates. But it is very different from a cinematic perspective. Sometimes it makes movies seem more like sitcom's because it's not something you commonly see in theaters but you do on TV shows.

I hate watching movies on TVs with smooth motion enabled. It's distracting as hell and really kills the intended style of films. This is seriously a pet peeve of mine. I've refused to watch any movies at a friends place because the guy can't be convinced to turn that shit off.

It would be fine if it were 60fps films being played at 60fps. Content should be played back at whatever framerate it was filmed at (or as close as possible, i.e. ntsc or pal conversions). Keep the smooth motion bullshit for sports broadcasts.
 
What does a higher resolution version of spiderman have to do with 48 FPS?
 
Wouldn't 48 with some motion blur just end up looking just as un-crisp as 24 but without some of the annoying side effects of 24Hz?

Personally I've always hated fast movement in movies at cinemas, which is even worse with the shaky-cam style so many movies use these days.
 
I hate watching movies on TVs with smooth motion enabled. It's distracting as hell and really kills the intended style of films. This is seriously a pet peeve of mine. I've refused to watch any movies at a friends place because the guy can't be convinced to turn that shit off.

It would be fine if it were 60fps films being played at 60fps. Content should be played back at whatever framerate it was filmed at (or as close as possible, i.e. ntsc or pal conversions). Keep the smooth motion bullshit for sports broadcasts.

I'm sorry but Band of Brothers is by far better to be watched in smooth motion. The falling snowflakes, every movement, the gunfire, the dirt flying in the air, the explosions, it all looks so much better. If it was originally filmed in a higher shutter speed than it would be the sole example as to why movies should be filmed this way. There are some exceptions where 24 fps does feel "right" but in fast paced action movies I just find the higher refresh rates better.
 
Smooth motion is just frame interpolation, it's seldom very good at it and often just basically adds some sort of weird LCD ghosting-looking thing. It makes motion smudgy. 48fps adds additional frame content, it adds more information which is better.
 
Content should be played back at whatever framerate it was filmed at (or as close as possible, i.e. ntsc or pal conversions). Keep the smooth motion bullshit for sports broadcasts.

FYI, 24fps filmed content goes through a process called 3:2 pullup to comply with NTSC's 30fps interlaced. In short, it doesn't turn into 30fps content, only the frames are evenly distributed, so you get 24 discrete frames per second, as the filmmaker intended :)
 
You get used to it real quick, these guys only saw 10 minutes so they were like "whoa, dude.." once you watch it you start to see how much more crisp and clear everything in the image is and how easily you can make out details while the camera is panning. I hope the critics stop bitching about it because we should definitely start making the move towards 48 FPS movies.

I dunno "smooth motion" with my Samsung while they claim 120hz, is more like a stop gap measure for fast events to stop any "blur". For me I hate it because things seem to move kind of like catching something out of the corner of your eye.
 
You get used to it real quick, these guys only saw 10 minutes so they were like "whoa, dude.." once you watch it you start to see how much more crisp and clear everything in the image is and how easily you can make out details while the camera is panning. I hope the critics stop bitching about it because we should definitely start making the move towards 48 FPS movies.

The thing I hate most about it is make the movie sets look like a set and not a movie.
 
The issue is not with fast refresh rates with with frame interpolation algorithms which look noticeably flat.

It is the artificial processing which causes the problem, not the base frame rate.
For example, there is plenty of programming at 60fps which doesn't look artificially flat... but run it through frame-interpolation and the result is nauseating.
 
We will look back at 24fps and laugh, just like 1080p. I welcome 48fps and 4K. BRING IT!
But not too fast, cause I just bought a big ass 70". But have it reayd in about 4 years. MKPLZTHX

Nobody is going to look back at it like 1080p. Higher resolution is one thing, but changing the way the film is presented to you is breaking an iconic style and tradition. Film has, for its entire history, been known for the actual film effect; the flickering, the piecing together of frames to create just enough framerate to display motion while clearly keeping separate the boundary between what is real and what is film. We have always had high resolution moving pictures, even higher than 1080p in fact. Theater films have never had to deal with the same resolution limitations that a DVD or TV has. What will piss people off is the indistinguishability between our film content and simply looking out / into a window. People don't want to feel like they are looking through a window; they want to watch a movie.
 
Nobody is going to look back at it like 1080p. Higher resolution is one thing, but changing the way the film is presented to you is breaking an iconic style and tradition. Film has, for its entire history, been known for the actual film effect; the flickering, the piecing together of frames to create just enough framerate to display motion while clearly keeping separate the boundary between what is real and what is film. We have always had high resolution moving pictures, even higher than 1080p in fact. Theater films have never had to deal with the same resolution limitations that a DVD or TV has. What will piss people off is the indistinguishability between our film content and simply looking out / into a window. People don't want to feel like they are looking through a window; they want to watch a movie.

No.

Film is intended to be viewed as the director produced it. In the same frame rates, with near reference picture. Plenty of things "made for TV" are in higher framerates and they look fine.
Note the difference between preference and reference

If Jackson makes The Hobbit intentionally to be viewed at 48 I'm sure it will be stunning... the annoying part is that you'll need a specialized set or a 240Hz set to view it at home without pulldown.
 
So I guess when they start using 48 FPS+ they are going to have to compress more to fit it on a Blu-Ray?
 
Nobody is going to look back at it like 1080p. Higher resolution is one thing, but changing the way the film is presented to you is breaking an iconic style and tradition. Film has, for its entire history, been known for the actual film effect; the flickering, the piecing together of frames to create just enough framerate to display motion while clearly keeping separate the boundary between what is real and what is film. We have always had high resolution moving pictures, even higher than 1080p in fact. Theater films have never had to deal with the same resolution limitations that a DVD or TV has. What will piss people off is the indistinguishability between our film content and simply looking out / into a window. People don't want to feel like they are looking through a window; they want to watch a movie.

Thank you for actually knowing what you're talking about.
 
Smooth motion is just frame interpolation, it's seldom very good at it and often just basically adds some sort of weird LCD ghosting-looking thing. It makes motion smudgy. 48fps adds additional frame content, it adds more information which is better.
Yeah, people shouldn't judge higher framerate video by their experience with frame interpolation.

It's like saying open heart surgery is worthless because you already tried band-aids.
 
I knew this would happen. Everyone I know hates watching movies on my Samsung TV with smooth motion that makes everything seem more fluid, especially blurays. I on the other hand love it, Band of Brothers is amazing on bluray with the higher refresh rates. But it is very different from a cinematic perspective. Sometimes it makes movies seem more like sitcom's because it's not something you commonly see in theaters but you do on TV shows.

A lot of people hate it (including myself) because it strips the video of the look that the director originally intended. Because film is a communication medium, its intent is to convey a message.

The LCD frame rate bs usually includes a motion "smoothing" effect based on motion interpolation. Because LCD response times aren't fast enough to turn off the activated pixel, your eye sees the residual effect and it creates the "judder" that the original LCD TVs were known for. To make this go away, the motion smoothing effect basically reads the frame information and provides an estimation to insert before the next frame...making it "smoother" because the pixel gets time to catch up. The reason that it looks different is because the frame isn't recreated 100%. ...resulting in a "soap opera" look.

Switching from 24p to 48p might actually make a huge impact in home theaters where that extra frame would help LCDs a great deal.
 
Plenty of things "made for TV" are in higher framerates and they look fine.
Note the difference between preference and reference

Yes, they look "fine", but they also are very easily recognizable as TV content, and not movie content.
 
The bolded part is one of the most obnoxious things about TV and movies today, partially due to the new inclination to use "shaky cam" for everything. During fast sequences, like fights, you can't tell what the fuck is going on at all.

Woah, you mean Michael Bay movies will become watchable at this frame rate? Holy crap, now people will actually be able to see the suck clearly.
 
Nobody is going to look back at it like 1080p. Higher resolution is one thing, but changing the way the film is presented to you is breaking an iconic style and tradition. Film has, for its entire history, been known for the actual film effect; the flickering, the piecing together of frames to create just enough framerate to display motion while clearly keeping separate the boundary between what is real and what is film. We have always had high resolution moving pictures, even higher than 1080p in fact. Theater films have never had to deal with the same resolution limitations that a DVD or TV has. What will piss people off is the indistinguishability between our film content and simply looking out / into a window. People don't want to feel like they are looking through a window; they want to watch a movie.

Iconic style and tradition. Tradition will only take the viewer so far, and in some cases becomes an excuse to resist change. TRADITIONALLY movies were projected from celluloid onto a screen in black and white with no sound. TRADITIONALLY tv shows were broadcast in a standard definition.

Things change, technology changes, experiences change. If you go to an average movie-goer and ask them "Did you come here for the experience of watching frames displayed on a screen flickering by at 24 FPS?" and they will most definitely say 'no'. They come to the movies for a particular experience, yes. And that experience changes. Some things stay the same, but for the right reason. You're still in a large room in a seat with a bunch of people all watching a movie projected on a giant screen. Movies are often filmed in a higher resolution than they used to, so they can be properly projected into IMAX theaters, for example.

My point is, the experience of going to the movies isn't the framerate, it's a large quantity of things that culminate in a single experience, and I don't personally believe that the framerate will end up being the defining factor.
 
How can something be "possibly one of the first?" Journalistic writing is so BAD these days. Never mind having done the work and having the confidence to say something affirmative like "it is the first," they can't even commit to "possibly the first" or "one of the first" now.

Hell in ten years we aren't going to have headlines like "Senator Suchnsuch first woman elected President." It's going to be "Senator Suchnsuch may be a woman who might have been elected President."
 
Aren't they filming at 48 fps so that when they half the framerate for 3D it still ends up as 24?

I didn't realize they would just show the 48 fps film for 2D though, I'd like to see that. 120 Hz TVs do take some getting used to, but I think it ends up being a good change once you adjust.
 
i'd prefer it if film makers filmed everything at 1k fps and released it at all the current popular fps's
i am sick and tired of panning scenes looking like a quick slideshow
i am sick of watching a massive blur attack on my screen during action scenes
i am sick of stupid assumptions that high fps and realistic shit will be "too real" beacause really, why would i pay for a blu ray if i didn't want it to be more "realistic"?

i want 72 fps films right now, its closer to what almost everyone views at home anyways (60-75hz) and there is no reason to not film in higher fps, if people really DON'T like it they can still release it at 24fps, but you can't release a 24fps at 48 or 72
 
Back
Top