Higher Frames Per Second = Bad

[LeninGHOLA]

I'm sure Peter Jackson will be using home video cameras for this. He wants to sell this as a gimmick, otherwise nobody would see his movies, right?

 

[Ur_Mom]

From what I've heard is that it looks TOO good, and that is the issue. Film has a grainy-ness and blur to it, and always has since the dawn of film. That's one of the qualities of film. Most filmmakers went to digital a while back, and they still use the film formats (24fps, etc.). There isn't anything wrong with film, it has a very long history. Changing it right now brings the same bitching as the huge change in Windows 8: "No sir, I don't like it.". There isn't anything wrong with the way it was before, nor is there anything wrong with it after. It's just a big difference.

I personally like it. Sharper images, more detail, able to see wtf is going on during action scenes (too many blur fests). In an action movie, it'd be nice to be able to have the 48fps vs. 24. But, for some movies, film is the way to go. Film is nostalgia. Video is clarity. Nothing wrong with either one, they are just different.

Some movies require 24fps to be awesome. That's just how they are, how they've been, how they were filmed, and how they are experienced. Others need the higher framerate. It really doesn't have anything to do with much, other than personal preference. Not all movies are suited for 48fps. The Hobbit isn't one that I'd use it with (LotR is a film that needs the 24fps filming method - it's that type of movie).

 

[Ur_Mom]

I'm sure Peter Jackson will be using home video cameras for this. He wants to sell this as a gimmick, otherwise nobody would see his movies, right?

No. I think LotR and The Hobbit isn't really a gimmick. Did I like the movie rendition? Not at first, but as a movie - it's excellent. A great demo piece. The series is definitely not a gimmick, and sells itself on it's own merits. The series truly is his best work. And, I'm not a fan, really. Great movie, just too.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxAEo3CWeq8


The Frighteners? Yea, gimmicky.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Thois whole conversation reminds me of how goofy that trailer for the supposed S.T.A.L.K.E.R TV series looked, probably because it was shot at above 24fps...

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Thois whole conversation reminds me of how goofy that trailer for the supposed S.T.A.L.K.E.R TV series looked, probably because it was shot at above 24fps...

Reminiscent of a Spanish language soap opera in film quality IMHO

 

[face2palm]

the thought of higher framerate for film is sickening.

the thought of color for film is sickening

 

[LeninGHOLA]

No. I think LotR and The Hobbit isn't really a gimmick. Did I like the movie rendition? Not at first, but as a movie - it's excellent. A great demo piece. The series is definitely not a gimmick, and sells itself on it's own merits. The series truly is his best work. And, I'm not a fan, really. Great movie, just too.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxAEo3CWeq8


The Frighteners? Yea, gimmicky.

I was making a sarcasm.

 

[Mr. K6]

I think a lot of FPS preference has to do with how well your brain fills in the gaps. It's different for everyone. I've never had a problem with low FPS, in fact I prefer it over higher since it ends up looking "too real" or "too gamey" (be it a movie or a game, respectively). Just by the comments in this thread, there are obviously people on the other end of the spectrum. I've seen higher FPS movies before and wasn't impressed, but I'll always give something new a shot.

 

[Trimlock]

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.

I would do the same with prior tv's I've had, its just a pain honestly. I still like other non-plasma panels enough but the good ones are out off my spending limit right now. My only complaint about plasma is the heat.

 

[Obi_Kwiet]

Thois whole conversation reminds me of how goofy that trailer for the supposed S.T.A.L.K.E.R TV series looked, probably because it was shot at above 24fps...

Or the cheap props and sets, terrible lighting, bad acting, or amateurish directing.

 

[txfeinbergs]

I wish they had had 48 fps on the Hunger Games. Good god it was horrible with all of the panning shots in that movie. Maybe I have gotten to used to my 240 Hz TV set and now think film is horribly jerky. Of course it didn't help on the Hunger Games that they were using the (jerk the camera around) method to simulate excitement.

Peter is right to hold the line on this, once you get used to it, there is no going back.

 

[Merc1138]

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.

So you use processing that adds artifacts and "oddities" to the video you're watching, and that's superior? LOL.

Going from 24 to 48fps is absolutely nothing like image processing built into LCD panels, nothing. The LCD's built in smoothvisionmotioncinemavision, or whatever the manufacturer decides to call it cannot add information that was not there in the first place. It would be like pretending that a display could somehow magic up a way to display a standard definition video in 1080p without looking like garbage, it doesn't happen.

Again, if you think the image processing in any LCD panel improves things, you need to visit an optometrist.

 

[Dmitri]

I liken this to some film makers moving over to digital a few years back. When Michael Mann filmed Collaterial and Public enemies in digital, I felt like I was watching behind the scenes footage shot on a cheap digital cameras. It looks cheesy, like you're watching a low budget TV show in a third world country filmed on VHS. The motions are too fast and rough, the blacks were washed out. I can only imagine a film shot in 48fps featuring sets and staged costumes looking "fake" without that soft film look we've all grown accustomed to. Film looks better.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I wish they had had 48 fps on the Hunger Games. Good god it was horrible with all of the panning shots in that movie. Maybe I have gotten to used to my 240 Hz TV set and now think film is horribly jerky. Of course it didn't help on the Hunger Games that they were using the (jerk the camera around) method to simulate excitement.

Peter is right to hold the line on this, once you get used to it, there is no going back.

You are mixing apples and oranges.

Your 240hz set still uses 24hz (actually 23.98hz) content for film, and 30hz (actually 29.97hz) for non-cinematographic TV.

The 240hz is just how fast it refreshes locally. In fact, when watching films at 23.97hz you will have the best experience on a TV that natively supports that mode (or at least an even multiplier of it)

 

[Dallows]

I think we all just have to wait for the final product.

 

[wonderfield]

Going from 24 to 48fps is absolutely nothing like image processing built into LCD panels, nothing. The LCD's built in smoothvisionmotioncinemavision, or whatever the manufacturer decides to call it cannot add information that was not there in the first place.

Actually, interpolation does add information: just not information that was actually photographed.

 

[tesfaye]

Higher frame rates are fine. The issue with 120hz LCDs and the frame smoothing technology is that it introduces artifacts into the image. The artifacts present in HDTV and poor blu-ray content is bad enough as it is. The motion smoothing on LCDs really help in my opinion. Sure you can change the level of the effect in most sets be some on low don't even look that good. I don't get it, but to each his own. I'll take native 48+fps vs frame interpolated massaged crap any day.

Having said that, I'm sure the film will not feel the same at 48fps in 2D on the big screen. I'm curious to see how this pans out. If the movie is good, I don't I'll care too much about the frame rate at all and at least I won't have to see that annoying judder during camera pans.

 

[tesfaye]

"The motion smoothing on LCDs really help in my opinion" really DON'T help...

G'damn lack of edit!

 

[MaZa]

So you use processing that adds artifacts and "oddities" to the video you're watching, and that's superior? LOL.

Going from 24 to 48fps is absolutely nothing like image processing built into LCD panels, nothing. The LCD's built in smoothvisionmotioncinemavision, or whatever the manufacturer decides to call it cannot add information that was not there in the first place. It would be like pretending that a display could somehow magic up a way to display a standard definition video in 1080p without looking like garbage, it doesn't happen.

Again, if you think the image processing in any LCD panel improves things, you need to visit an optometrist.

Simply put, yes. In my opinion pros outweight the cons. I am not blind and I used to be a hater. I see really well what it does to the image, both good and bad and I'll gladly accept few artifacts in couple of scenes as trade off to overall superior motion through the movie.

I just want to bust the myth that motion interpolation immidietly means unnaturally fluid sped up soap opera motion/videogamey look which simply isnt necessarily the case depending on implementation.

Also you misunderstand my point when I compared 48hz to motion interpolation. I merely expect similar improvement to motion clarity with added benefit of being completely natural, something motion interpolation is not. But then again 24hz film motion is not exactly natural either (faaar from it) and well done interpolation can fix it somewhat, with a trade off as stated above.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Simply put, yes. In my opinion pros outweight the cons. I am not blind and I used to be a hater. I see really well what it does to the image, both good and bad and I'll gladly accept few artifacts in couple of scenes as trade off to overall superior motion through the movie.

I just want to bust the myth that motion interpolation immidietly means unnaturally fluid sped up soap opera motion/videogamey look which simply isnt necessarily the case depending on implementation.

Also you misunderstand my point when I compared 48hz to motion interpolation. I merely expect similar improvement to motion clarity with added benefit of being completely natural, something motion interpolation is not. But then again 24hz film motion is not exactly natural either (faaar from it) and well done interpolation can fix it somewhat, with a trade off as stated above.

I agree with you that 120/240/whatever high refresh rates are going to be better at displaying interpolated 24hz content than a 60hz screen.

That being said, I feel rather strongly that if your TV and player both have a native 24hz mode, this is the best mode in which to play 24hz content, regardless of any high refresh rate interpolation wizardry.

 

[Silverghost]

The problem with those smooth motion TVs is people leave them on high. You end up with motion that looks like it's speeding up and slowing down.

 

[MaZa]

I agree with you that 120/240/whatever high refresh rates are going to be better at displaying interpolated 24hz content than a 60hz screen.

That being said, I feel rather strongly that if your TV and player both have a native 24hz mode, this is the best mode in which to play 24hz content, regardless of any high refresh rate interpolation wizardry.

Objectively yes, it shows what is on the disc without modification. Subjectively, it does so for good and bad cuz personally I hate low fps, its so glaring and I just cant stand it anymore.

The problem with those smooth motion TVs is people leave them on high. You end up with motion that looks like it's speeding up and slowing down.

Indeed. And in some models low setting is too uneven. My friends old Phillips is like that. Some parts it interpolates like crazy and others nothing at all depending what is going on in the screen. For few seconds film looks like an episode from Bold & Beauty and then back to original film mode for few seconds. Motion in that TV is a complete mess.

 

[roaf85]

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.

Smooth motion is amazing to me, but I echo the complaints. People arent used to it.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

TV motion smoothing was awful when first released- we can all agree on that.

However, I feel that the technology itself has matured, and that it has its uses. Cinephiles will probably leave it off, but I can see where it adds more than it takes away from a production, especially in action sequences.

Granted, the technology is probably just making up for the lack of skill of the production team, but it's still nice to have it.

 

[Makaveli@BETA]

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.

Agree with you here my 120hz Samsung has 3 modes for it.

High,Medium,Low

I left it set to low since day one and haven't had any issues with it or any reason to go up a level or turn it off.

 

[Mazgazine1]

low frame-rates is the reason I hate going to see 3D movies, I bet the Hobbit destroys Avatar in 3D clarity.
Every movie on the big screen that I've seen with any panning always gets ugly because its only 24fps.. Especially when the panning is at a speed at the frames can't fill in the spaces.

 

[Tudz]

low frame-rates is the reason I hate going to see 3D movies, I bet the Hobbit destroys Avatar in 3D clarity.
Every movie on the big screen that I've seen with any panning always gets ugly because its only 24fps.. Especially when the panning is at a speed at the frames can't fill in the spaces.

Not just panning but even the shaky cam style that so many movies use now, all I see is juddering separated by blurring images.

Personally I actually want to see some 48fps movies before I judge. I can't say I've seen a 48fps movie at a cinema to say whether or not it's good or bad... though I can say I massively notice the juddering on 24fps films so I'm down for seeing what 48fps looks like.

I figured the "soap opera" look has more to do with the cameras and lighting being used rather than anything else and if directors want a slightly softer more fuzzy look they should be able to create that with camera selection and editing regardless of 48fps.

 

[Merc1138]

Not just panning but even the shaky cam style that so many movies use now, all I see is juddering separated by blurring images.

Personally I actually want to see some 48fps movies before I judge. I can't say I've seen a 48fps movie at a cinema to say whether or not it's good or bad... though I can say I massively notice the juddering on 24fps films so I'm down for seeing what 48fps looks like.

I figured the "soap opera" look has more to do with the cameras and lighting being used rather than anything else and if directors want a slightly softer more fuzzy look they should be able to create that with camera selection and editing regardless of 48fps.

Correct. Soap opera lightning and camera work is exactly because of the cheap lighting and camera work. Well... cheap may not necessarily be the correct word to use, but it stems from the need to churn things out so quickly that they didn't have time to make adjustments or do any trickery later on in editing. These days it would be much easier with digital video, but you've got the issue of people expecting a soap opera to look like a soap opera.

 

[freethnker]

Preachers of hobbit...