DogsofJune
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2008
- Messages
- 4,321
48 fps? Ok, cool, but how bad did ol Petey screw up a classic, again, is what I want to know.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Higher Frames Per Second = Bad
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
According to the article you will have the option to watch the movie at 24fps or 48fps and in 2D, 3D, and IMAX 3D. I bet each will be price accordingly. Example:
2D 24fps $8
3D 24fps $12
IMAX 3D 24fps $14
2D 48fps $12
3D 48fps $14
IMAX 3D 48fps $16
2D 24fps $8
3D 24fps $12
IMAX 3D 24fps $14
2D 48fps $12
3D 48fps $14
IMAX 3D 48fps $16
What I want to know is how we'll tell before going to the theater and sitting down? Prices vary all over the country and 48fps apparently wont be exclusive to IMAX or something, how are we going to get to choose? Are they going to label viewings with "24fps" or "48fps" at the end or something?
Chrisroman
Gawd
- Joined
- May 29, 2011
- Messages
- 692
Oh, no. Progress!I usually reserve the following image for most irrational of the anti-3D crowd. I can't believe I'm posting it in defense of a higher frame rate:
This kid has some personal hygiene issues. Finger nails are creeping me out
As a photographer the absolutely horribly over-done post processing is what really creeps me out about that image.
Hopefully they won't move away from the long standing film look altogether. If the future is 3D and 48FPS then there won't be any reason to go to a theater at all. Making films look like terrible Best Buy displays isn't progress, in much the same way all the motion enhanced LCDs haven't been progress.
Because a number of people that have had the opportunity to watch the Hobbit in 48FPS made exactly that comparison.
Brent_Justice
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2000
- Messages
- 17,755
I think he's right in regards to 48 FPS improving the 3D experience. To me, 24 FPS 3D movies are too slow, I can see the delay in frames. It will help smooth out 3D. I also think the glasses make the film too dark, IMO they should brighten the film x2 also in 3D.
However, I'm not an overall big fan of current 3D in movies. I'll have to see it in 2D to see how 48 FPS impacts that experience.
However, I'm not an overall big fan of current 3D in movies. I'll have to see it in 2D to see how 48 FPS impacts that experience.
I don't get this either. "smoothvision" on LCD TV's looks nasty. It's not adding any additional information, it's just doubling frames and partial frames and makes the existing video look smeared and nasty. Anyone who thinks that gimmick makes anything look better, needs to get an eye exam.
An actual framerate increase in both the recording and display of a movie adds information to the video. The people who can't understand this reminds me of the folks that think their 128kbps MP3s are high quality.
Stone Cold
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Messages
- 1,146
Some people complained when CDs came out, some people missed the warmth (the distortion) of vinyl. I like the image better on curved tube TVs than on flat screen TVs, the curved screen makes the show seem more real and less like actors on a set.
I'd like to see the FPS doubled again, bumped up to 96 or 100fps.
I'd like to see the FPS doubled again, bumped up to 96 or 100fps.
ViperGrendal
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 403
Being a person that can sit in a theater and literally watch the frames tick by, I welcome a move to any faster framerate. I agree though that there's the right way and the wrong way to do such things. I'm sure if it becomes standard practice they'll re-release all the Star Wars movies again in 48fps
Being a person that can sit in a theater and literally watch the frames tick by, I welcome a move to any faster framerate. I agree though that there's the right way and the wrong way to do such things. I'm sure if it becomes standard practice they'll re-release all the Star Wars movies again in 48fps
Nahh, it won't be the entire starwars trilogy, just the extra 100 CG fighters in all of the space sequences that Lucas will add in 48fps. But that won't happen until after we get the first 3 starwars movies in 3d(2017 or so?) and Lucas has decided where else he needs to dub in "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO".
Ashbringer
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 5,522
Just an interesting bit of related news, Elijah Wood is actually voicing in Season 10 of Red vs Blue. Just thought that was a bit of interesting Geek news there.
I think it is a normal human reaction to distrust change, you see it all the time.
But I think 48fps vs 24fps will be a decision that directors make depending on whether the movie suits 48fps. Hence I don't think we will get many chick flicks or comedy movies in 48fps. Just like how a lot of movies are still 2D only.
Even Peter Jackson said that directors might even mix 24 and 48 in the same movie depending on the scene.
wonderfield
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 7,396
Frame rate is primarily a stylistic choice, not a measure of technical superiority. We've been able to shoot at 48 fps (and higher) for many, many years.
I prefer to watch movies on how the director intended them to be watched, smoothvision is not apart of that there for it is useless as it detracts from what the director intended. Plus it looks like crap.
If this 48FPS proves to make it better then I am all for higher FPS but I'm not up for paying higher for tickets, they are already high enough as it is.
3D right now in movies sucks, as pointed out the eye glasses takes away from a lot of the experience, it also cuts down on the brightness level TOO much to be enjoyable. Until they fix 3D I will also stay away from it.
If this 48FPS proves to make it better then I am all for higher FPS but I'm not up for paying higher for tickets, they are already high enough as it is.
3D right now in movies sucks, as pointed out the eye glasses takes away from a lot of the experience, it also cuts down on the brightness level TOO much to be enjoyable. Until they fix 3D I will also stay away from it.
Godmachine
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2003
- Messages
- 10,472
You won't be able to. Theaters would have a nightmarish time trying to make it "dumbed" down enough for people who don't know about the frame rate change.
Instead we will be the ones posting on which theaters will be offering what.
bucket
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2004
- Messages
- 1,070
I don't want movies to look "more lifelike", life sucks.
And I'm curious as to what shutter speed Jackson is using at 48 frames per second. following the 180 degree rule I'd assume it's 96, but who knows, it being the "future" and all.
And I'm curious as to what shutter speed Jackson is using at 48 frames per second. following the 180 degree rule I'd assume it's 96, but who knows, it being the "future" and all.
InternationalHat
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2004
- Messages
- 1,481
If you don't like higher fps with film you're crazy and Amish. There is no acceptable opposing viewpoint that isn't rooted in nostalgia.
It's not the same thing at all.
Your TV fakes 120Hz by making best guesses from the (60Hz) information at hand. I hate the herky-jerky "smoothness" it creates. (Moving Items seem to be standing still, then rush up to full speed. It's very unnaturual.)
He's talking about capturing double the framerate, which I see as a good thing. I've always disliked the effect the low 24-Hz framerate on dramatic full-screen pans.
And if you think about it, what else would people compare it to? There's not a lot out there that a lot of people have seen that has a high frame rate.
And people have complained about just about every improvement in cinema. Stadium seating, more diverse foods, Digital, 2k cameras, 4k cameras, 3D, and on and on. One of the biggest complaints I heard about 3D was that the polarization made them sick. In reality, they were likely reacting to the triple flashing of frames for each eye (144fps, 24fps per eye) This is why 3D seems blurrier, or like it's strobing to some people. Going to 48 would greatly reduce that effect because it would be double strobing (192fps, 96fps per eye).
What probably happened was that people expected the same old 3D blur fest, noticed it wasn't happening, and when trying to describe it compared it to a 120hz TV set which is in no way doing the same thing. Will some people hate it? of course but the majority probably won't really notice it except in fast scrolling scenes.
Well it's not technically the fault of the Panel the image being displayed on, it's the fault of the image processing that the vendor includes in the television. I used and LCD TV however every last bit of the image "enhancement" (ruining) tech is turned off.
Stone Cold
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Messages
- 1,146
Maybe there's a market that theaters have yet to tap: those wanting slide shows. "Not 48fps, not even 24fps, but 48spf!"
I disagree. A mild one that is well implemented can look good. It can improve motion WITHOUT sacrificing "film look" (pans still stutter, just twice less than without) and making things go "soapy". Go and watch a movie modern Sony TVs with motion interpolation set up mildly (Motionflow:Standard and Film mode: Auto 1) and then watch it again without it. Despite the few artifacts and oddities I personally cant go back, ever.
Hence I take these 48hz news happily and open arms. I expect it to look something like above, just more real (because it IS real, no guesstimate frames) and without artifacts. I cant believe that some people have issues with such obvious progress! 24hz is a limitation damnit, a slide show on fast motion!
Only downside I can think of is that it may introduce motion sickness for some people (like me) during close-up shaky cams. Actually scratch that, its not a downside. Shaky cams must die and this may help the process.
lilbabycat
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2011
- Messages
- 3,810
From what i've been told, the bigger problem is that you can tell how fake each scene is, and the separation between cgi and live action is huge.
Soooo until they step up their cgi game, hold back on the 48fps?
Soooo until they step up their cgi game, hold back on the 48fps?
Yoshiyuki Blade
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 2,881
Oh man that would be awful IMO. I prefer visual consistency. It's not as bad as "hybrid" video sometimes used in TV shows though. That was a mix of 24p source footage and 60i effects (usually used for credits for the smooth scrolling) telecined to NTSC standards.
dioxholster
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2010
- Messages
- 801
the thought of higher framerate for film is sickening.
![Zarathustra[H]](https://cdn.hardforum.com/data/avatars/m/9/9298.jpg?1677728934){kind=avatar}
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 36,038
Troll much?
When you go from 24fps to higher rates films simply lose their "movie magic". Everything looks as if it were shot on a home video camera, and looks and feels "silly", rather than "epic".
I'ts like when they do those "behind the scenes" TV shows where they first show the movie clip, and then show the behind the scenes recordings using the TV crews cameras.
The first looks epic and engaging. The Second looks, well, like a home video of a LARP.
I guess the benefit here is that if you don't like it, since it's 48fps, you could just skip every other frame, right?