Higher Frames Per Second = Bad

NickJames said:
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.
Click to expand...

It really depends on what you're watching. I love it for sports and fast motion action movies and the like. For most everything else it drives me nuts and looks bad IMHO.
 
I don't like framerate doublers, I can get use to it, much the same way you get use to DRM; It gets shoved up there and just sticks around.

My problem with the doubling, besides the non-life like look it gives, is that when done on home content not all frames can be doubled, leaving you to kind of jump forward - lurch back situation which is VERY annoying. If you ca just stay there then fine.

I haven't noticed the juddering they were speaking of in the comments but I can tell you that panning in 3D or digital projected items is an issue for me. I just can't seem to lock on to anything, everything seems to loose clarity, bt I figured that was just me.

I can't knock it though until I see it, and who knowsthis might be completely differnt than anything else displayed before. I do however wonder why they picked 48 instead of a round 50 or better yet a standard 60.

Anyone have any technical links on this? I'd like to know things like is this just digital or film, upgrades required to theaters, if it is film, what does this mean for audio?
 
I've watched several movies on my brother's LED TV with motion smoothing at maximum.

All computerized special effects look incredibly cheesy, i can't explain it any other way. It suddenly loses its cinematic feel. Im ok with regular non computer graphics portions of movies being in this "too smooth look".

So if this is anything how the 48fps is going to look, im very against it.
 
bigstusexy said:
I can't knock it though until I see it, and who knowsthis might be completely differnt than anything else displayed before. I do however wonder why they picked 48 instead of a round 50 or better yet a standard 60.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned before, I think it's because it's being filmed in 3D.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57320959-1/peter-jackson-reveals-3d-secrets-behind-hobbit/

The mounts, which allow one camera to be pointed straight at the subject while the other shoots the image reflected off a mirror, lets camera operators change the distance between the two camera lenses--called the interocular distance--easily. This keeps the lenses at a distance similar to our own eyes and should ensure that the 3D effect looks more believable and causes less fatigue.

The movie is also shot at 5K resolution--more than six times that of 1080p--at 48 frames per second,
Click to expand...

It's filmed with 2 stereoscopic cameras at 48 fps, so that when the framerate is halved you get a 24 fps 3D image. At least that was my understanding, I could be wrong about movie 3D.
 
This is dumb. Everybody knows the human eye can't see anymore than 24 frames per second. It's probably just a plot by the entertainment industry to sell twice as many rolls of film.
 
ZodaEX said:
This is dumb. Everybody knows the human eye can't see anymore than 24 frames per second. It's probably just a plot by the entertainment industry to sell twice as many rolls of film.
Click to expand...

Oh come on, there is a huge difference between picking out a detail at X fps, and noticing the difference between said frame rates.

People are just resistant to change. I gave "smooth" a chance on my TV for a couple weeks, and I when I tried to go back, I found that I preferred the faster framerate.
 
48 fps over 60 fps serves no purpose but to obsolete 60 Hz and 120 Hz TVs. Map that to 3D and even 240 Hz TVs get obsoleted.

But when the people who own TVs also own the movie industry and a regulations for sale government, I'm not horribly shocked.
 
ZodaEX said:
This is dumb. Everybody knows the human eye can't see anymore than 24 frames per second. It's probably just a plot by the entertainment industry to sell twice as many rolls of film.
Click to expand...

Sorry, the human eye and 24 FPS myth is just that. A myth.
 
What Crap!! Too real?? WTF . . . looks strange? sure you are used to looking at a crappy, blurry, jumpy, dim screen all your left of course it will look different!?!?!?

People like this tend to be just freaky over change . . ANY and all change. Different = bad . . . these tend to be also the people that similar views on other things . . like race, religion, sexual orientation etc . . .
Come on people get away from that crap . . life is change!
 
Spare-Flair said:
Sorry, the human eye and 24 FPS myth is just that. A myth.
Click to expand...

Lol I know i'm just making fun of all the people who always parrot the whole human eye can't see more than 60FPS line. XD I can personally tell the difference between 50 FPS and 85 FPS in a blind (you know what i mean) test too.
 
I personally like 24 FPS that analog tv and standard film deliver. Take the intro scene of reservoir dogs. It was shot in 12 FPS for a different effect. Tarantino didn't know if it would "work" or how it would turn out, but it was great. If you've seen that movie, i'm sure you already have the music for that scene in your head. No?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzMpH9jjo4w

Now go watch the movie :D

I couldn't find a video where Tarantino explained why he did it - its out there somewhere though.
 
Even though most films are now recorded on 30/60fps capable digital cameras, filmmakers still prefer to do 24fps and, as RooK metioned, specific scenes in 12/18fps not because they can't do higher fps but because of the desired effect. If some director wants 48fps he/she must have a reason to do so, don't underestimate their criteria (even if it's Michael Bay :D )
 
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
Click to expand...

Agreed. If someone doesn't like it, it's as simple as adding an option to the TVs for choosing refresh rate.
 
OMG! They are going to inject our children with violence and sex at twice the speed!!! SAVE OUR CHILDREN!!
 
They just want another way to charge a "premium feature" to increase their bottom line

The Hobbit - 48FPS +$3.50
The Hobbit - 3D +$3.50
The Hobbit - Imax +$5.50

Before you know it all the extras end up costing more than the damn movie!
 
The big problem as I see it is that cheap and shitty productions have been using high frame rates for a long time. It's like someone decides that the latest and greatest dinnerware is going to be made of plastic. Ok... That's great and all... but you're going to have a hell of a time convincing people that plastic fork is great and not some cheap nasty shit. Also, claiming higher frame rates creates "smoother" video is the biggest line of bullshit I've ever seen.

And yes there is a reason not to. The faster your frame rate, the faster your shutter speed. Faster =/= better.
 
capt_cope said:
The big problem as I see it is that cheap and shitty productions have been using high frame rates for a long time. It's like someone decides that the latest and greatest dinnerware is going to be made of plastic. Ok... That's great and all... but you're going to have a hell of a time convincing people that plastic fork is great and not some cheap nasty shit. Also, claiming higher frame rates creates "smoother" video is the biggest line of bullshit I've ever seen.

And yes there is a reason not to. The faster your frame rate, the faster your shutter speed. Faster =/= better.
Click to expand...

Well try not to forget it's possible to shoot movies digitally now, like how it was done with Star Wars Attack of the Clones. Since it's digital video there is no shutter speed right?
 
Theaters should offer playing the 48fps movie @ 24fps. The movie will last twice as long! :D
 
Taldren said:
OMG! They are going to inject our children with violence and sex at twice the speed!!! SAVE OUR CHILDREN!!
Click to expand...

^ that....

How many of you watched Fight Club and caught brad pitt in his 4 or 5 "flash" scenes before Tyler Durden came into the picture?

I took a girl on a date to see that movie, and I asked her 4 or 5 times, "Did you see that guy in red there?"

"No."

She thought I was crazy, i'm sure, and never heard from her again.

Now they can throw subliminal images at you twice at fast!!! :D:p:mad::p:D
 
Xyvotha said:
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
Click to expand...

same
i HATE digital projection more so on animated movies it just doesnt look the same
 
ZodaEX said:
This is dumb. Everybody knows the human eye can't see anymore than 24 frames per second. It's probably just a plot by the entertainment industry to sell twice as many rolls of film.
Click to expand...

People used to think VHS and audio Cassette tapes were just fine too but I'm glad we moved on. Just because people are making money off of something doesn't mean it has no advantages.

Everyone can see more than 24FPS, you are just so used to it that you don't notice how choppy it is. Try watching sports at 25/30FPS then at 50/60FPS and you'll see what I mean. I watch boxing and at 30FPS you really "miss" a lot of the fight because their movements are so fast that 30FPS just doesn't capture it properly.
 
It takes more than a higher frame rate to yield the soap opera effect, but a higher frame rate certainly doesn't help.

That said, I have an open mind here. The EPIC produces good-quality shit...might not be so bad.
 
wonderfield said:
Not on the EPIC, or on any decent pro DV camera I'm aware of. The shutter speed is independent of the frame rate.
Click to expand...

Explain to me how you're going to shoot at 48fps with a 1/24 shutter speed?

It may be independently adjustable, but it's still very much connected.
 
I'm tired of when fast paced action movies show a new camera perspective every three frames. You can't see anything but blur and things being thrown around and everything is zoomed in. It's a crappy way of filming action with a cheap budget.
 
There's a Sharp tv @ the frys nearby playing Tron over and over. The contrast ratio is great, but motion looks...odd. I don't think it's the movie, but honestly can't recall. Is that "TV" 120 or 240 hz? Or "smooth vision?" I have a 120 hz pc display, but that doesn't do anything funky to movies. Overall, I would say it makes the film look like a cheap made for tv movie.
 
Parmenides said:
I'm tired of when fast paced action movies show a new camera perspective every three frames. You can't see anything but blur and things being thrown around and everything is zoomed in. It's a crappy way of filming action with a cheap budget.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. I see 48fps as a catalyst for better special effects. Fuck the camera wobble that covers up poorly coreographed fight scenes. Old Kung Fu movies didn't need it!
 
shadyqwerty said:
There's a Sharp tv @ the frys nearby playing Tron over and over. The contrast ratio is great, but motion looks...odd. I don't think it's the movie, but honestly can't recall. Is that "TV" 120 or 240 hz? Or "smooth vision?" I have a 120 hz pc display, but that doesn't do anything funky to movies. Overall, I would say it makes the film look like a cheap made for tv movie.
Click to expand...

Probably a combination of high refresh with poor contrast and transients.
 
Sounds like a lot of whining about a money that isn't anywhere near finished.

Love how quick critics are to judge a movie that has 7+ months go before its finished.

Looking at 10 minutes of unfinished (highly unfinished as well) and judging new technology with such scorn shows that we're still all set in our ways.

Watch the Hobbit for its story not some flashy effects. If the technology/effects bother you that much by all means don't fucking see it.
 
I've always hated how choppy pans looked in movies, so I hope that this catches on.
 
Ok, serious post this time ...
The Transformer movies and their like are nothing but a blurry mess for me and I got headaches just trying to watch them. I'll take the higher FPS, thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top