Paramount Is Urging Theaters to Show Ang Lee's New Sci-Fi Movie at 120 FPS

[termite]

The Hobbit was amazing at 48fps, I saw it in both 2d and 3d, and any movie that is still shown in 3D should be shot and shown in 48fps. Any movement if the camera was still crisp, it didn't look like a movie, it looked like you were watching something happen through a window, or you were watching it acted out on a stage.

It wouldn't work for all movies, but I would prefer it for any movie that has action or wide sweeping vistas and out door scenes.

24fps and "the movie feel" is an anachronism.

Then again, this is modern Hollywood we are talking about, they clearly need every crutch they can get.

 

[WBurchnall]

Didn't people get nauseous and physically ill (vomiting) when they watched The Hobbit at 48fps?

In my entire three screenings in theatres I saw, representing probably 200 to 300 people, I didn't witness anyone looking sick or queasy leaving the theatre.

Do any theater's equipment capable of doing 120hz?

Not many. This was the point of the letter. To plead to theatres to upgrade. This plead occurred about a decade ago when they were pushing for theaters to upgrade their equipment to support 3D and it eventually happened. It's a combination of the studios promising to support the format and make videos in it.

One of the main issues I see here though is you can charge more for 3d but will consumers pay more for higher fps? I doubt it.

You just needed enough blockbuster movies available in the format and theaters will typically follow. Avatar 2 and 3 might be the pushers or this Will Smith sci fi. Well see.

I dont even like my pr0n in 4k60fps.

Yeah too many wrinkles show up, right? And the jiggling is unnaturally smooth.

 

[M76]

Frankly any filmmaker who is against retiring 24 fps should be ashamed of themselves.

Scientifically traditions are an idiot thing - Rick

 

[M76]

24fps and "the movie feel" is an anachronism.

There were probably Luddites in the forties / fifties who said Black and White is the movie feel, and color makes me vomit!

Remember how every color movie was way over saturated back then? Like they were showing it off. We could have the same issue with HFR now, not using it correctly, but trying to emphasize it. It shouldn't be advertised as a feature. Just start doing it quietly.

 

[Snishsnoosh]

It looks like trash so audiences hate it, and the effort to make it not look like trash means Hollywood hates it. Good luck, maybe in 15 more years.

 

[Dodge245]

I would be happier if it was variable, 24fps for slow scenes, 120 for panning shots and action bits... And really anywhere in-between

 

[quiktake]

I'm all for this. I agree with most about the synthetic approach of t.v.'s, software, etc. for raising 24/30 to 120 but I also want naturally shot 60/120 movies. This b.s. over 24p is just that. It's nostalgic hyperbole rooted in the insecurities of filmmakers to tell themselves they're being artistic or true to the art at this point. Twenty or thirty years ago I would've felt different but we're way beyond the technical limitations of back then.

I thought a lot of this was about lighting. Filming at a higher speed means less light per exposure. This limits what film makers can do in terms of general lighting, depth of field, contrast, focus, etc.

 

[Meeho]

Never have I watched a movie and thought to myself "damn, I really wish it was filmed at higher FPS".

HFR failed for a reason, as did 3D.

 

[blackacidevil]

Apparently it was the 3D version....i thought it was just in general. my bad.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2241758/Hobbit-film-wizardy-left-feeling-sick--Cinema-goers-complain-camera-speeds-3D-effects-caused-headaches-queasiness.html

 

[Snowdog]

What turned me off when I saw the HFR version of The Hobbit was how much the hyper-realism took me out of the film. It was too easy to see all the flaws in the sets and costumes, things like sloppy paint brush marks on the walls, Phillips head screws holding planks together, fake fire in the fireplace, every blade of trampled grass, sole patterns in the dirt, loose stitching on costumes, peeling/smudged make-up, socks peeking out from under boots, etc.. It just all added up to make the whole thing look like a cheap kid's play in someone's backyard. And that's not even counting weird "sliding" effect moving objects had instead of the blur effect. It just looked goofy.

I am calling bullshit!

This argument really doesn't make any sense.

In low motion scenes, which are plentiful, you would still see all the set/makeup flaws at 24fps as well.

It is only in action scenes where you get motion blur/judder that HFR will make a difference in detail.

Movies are all being rendered digitally in 4K or higher these days, and that means they need all the set/makeup details nailed down regardless of frame rates.

This is about one thing only. Motion handling. Do you want juddery, jittery and blurry, or smooth and clear.

I'll take smooth and clear.

IMO the Hobbit had bad motion, because it had crappy CGI, not because of it's frame rate.

They should have used a live action movie, without CGI, for the first showcase of HFR, so people couldn't blame HFR for the Hobbits poor CGI.

 

[WBurchnall]

I would be happier if it was variable, 24fps for slow scenes, 120 for panning shots and action bits... And really anywhere in-between

Why? Superior frame rate produces better quality results. Why would you want slower FPS for some scenes except for the sole purpose of saving bandwidth or smaller file sizes or legacy of being "used" to dialogue being slow.

 

[WBurchnall]

I would be happier if it was variable, 24fps for slow scenes, 120 for panning shots and action bits... And really anywhere in-between

I think that might be more jarring for people to go from slower to fast to slower. It's akin to how one can 'sense' when FPS drops in a video game or see/sense micro-stuttering. It might make more people sick or disrupt the disbelief what you are watching is real and pull you out of the film when you go from 120 to 24 fps too suddenly or vice-versa.

Plus it might give people queues something is about to happen. Ohh, jump scare is about to occur in this horror movie, the frame rate picked up for a pan....

 

[Dodge245]

I think that might be more jarring for people to go from slower to fast to slower. It's akin to how one can 'sense' when FPS drops in a video game or see/sense micro-stuttering. It might make more people sick or disrupt the disbelief what you are watching is real and pull you out of the film when you go from 120 to 24 fps too suddenly or vice-versa.

Plus it might give people queues something is about to happen. Ohh, jump scare is about to occur in this horror movie, the frame rate picked up for a pan....

Thing is i can see the stutter in panning shots already, i think variable would be best option the average joe isn't going to notice the fps jump.. and Although i get your point about going from 120 to 24 to quickly it would have to be up to the film producer how to handle that transition if you plan it in slowly it'd be fine. Personnally 120 is too high a target, they should aim for 24-60, then work upwards

 

[Snowdog]

Thing is i can see the stutter in panning shots already, i think variable would be best option the average joe isn't going to notice the fps jump.. and Although i get your point about going from 120 to 24 to quickly it would have to be up to the film producer how to handle that transition if you plan it in slowly it'd be fine. Personnally 120 is too high a target, they should aim for 24-60, then work upwards

This is pointless. Why introduce the grief of changing the frame rate? What do you gain from it? Nothing that I can tell.

 

[sfsuphysics]

Translation : Movie theater owners need to buy more expensive equipment to further keep ticket prices high with "add on" pricing. I mean how long ago was Avatar? Haven't theaters paid for that equipment 100x over by now with those $3 up charges to see a movie in 3d?

 

[Dodge245]

This is pointless. Why introduce the grief of changing the frame rate? What do you gain from it? Nothing that I can tell.

A smooth experience, films are really choppy and as resolution upscaling has come along its even more noticable.

 

[Snowdog]

A smooth experience, films are really choppy and as resolution upscaling has come along its even more noticable.

I fail to see any logic in that post.

It's going to be smoother running at a constant HFR, than changing frame rates. Films are choppy because of low frame rates, and upscaling has nothing to do with any of this.

 

[Shmee]

I get that since most people watch movies at 24FPS, watching them in other frame rates feels weird, but artist needs to be able to push boundaries, and he wants his movie to look hyper real, I am okay with that.

 

[viscountalpha]

I hope they have barf bags ready.

NSFW- SWEARING.

They tried HFR already. It wasn't very popular.

 

[Kdawg]

you can't see more than 24 fps anyway. We all walk and move in 24 fps in real life

 

[Revdarian]

nysmo gave the only real explanation of the issue with high frame rate.

That said there are movies that really work with the high frame rate exactly because of their reliance on cgi, I particularly _love_ watching my pacific rim blueray with a nice pass of "smooth video project"... The kaiju action at 60fps is just what my inner child desires.

 

[cthulhuiscool]

you can't see more than 24 fps anyway. We all walk and move in 24 fps in real life

This is objectively false.
Everyone knows the peak fps the human eye can see at is 30fps :^)

 

[Zulgrib]

you can't see more than 24 fps anyway. We all walk and move in 24 fps in real life

Forgot sarcasm tag ?

 

[Zulgrib]

I thought a lot of this was about lighting. Filming at a higher speed means less light per exposure. This limits what film makers can do in terms of general lighting, depth of field, contrast, focus, etc.

With current hardware, doubt it's a big problem, we have acceptable result from phones already, why wouldn't professional gear get better result ?

 

[Sulphademus]

Doesn't increasing the framerate increase the number of frames the special effects crews need to render CGI for? (thinking of time and budget considerations here)

 

[Snowdog]

Doesn't increasing the framerate increase the number of frames the special effects crews need to render CGI for? (thinking of time and budget considerations here)

Human effort is in building the models, textures setting up animation paths. That remains the same. You just need more render farm time for HFR.

 

[fuzzylogik]

I'll try out a high-framrate movie properly done. It's... strange how the format stuck to 24fps from practically the beginning (the cost of physical film) and really now that it's not generally being used... still sticking with it because that's how it's always been done. Once a movie comes out that shows it done properly and amazes, things will change. But even then we need 4k Bluray or 1080p bluray movies (both physical and streaming) to be able to handle that. If you can't own the movie after it's in the theaters and watch it in that way (I.E., the Hobbit) people are going to forget about it - especially if you have to watch the movie in a more expensive theater that isn't the normal one that you go to see movies at.

 

[Sycraft]

Human effort is in building the models, textures setting up animation paths. That remains the same. You just need more render farm time for HFR.

Also it often is rendered high frame rate. Proper motion blur requires oversampling the frames and using an accumulation buffer. So if you want CGI to have realistic motion blur, you are going to need to render a whole lot more intermediate frames, then blend them together.

 

[Hashiriya415]

I haven't seen a single movie in my 30 year life that's 60fps. How many years do I have to wait to see 120fps movie?

 

[Todd Walter]

Forgot sarcasm tag ?

Depends on which area of the eye, and more.

http://accidentalscientist.com/2014/12/why-movies-look-weird-at-48fps-and-games-are-better-at-60fps-and-the-uncanny-valley.html

 

[Kajun614]

I am all for it. Move forward with tech dont stand still.

 

[raz-0]

I'm all for this. I agree with most about the synthetic approach of t.v.'s, software, etc. for raising 24/30 to 120 but I also want naturally shot 60/120 movies. This b.s. over 24p is just that. It's nostalgic hyperbole rooted in the insecurities of filmmakers to tell themselves they're being artistic or true to the art at this point. Twenty or thirty years ago I would've felt different but we're way beyond the technical limitations of back then.

Here's the problem.

In the real worl hold your hand in front of your face. Now wave it around. You get motion blur, not razor sharp snapshots of your hand. High FPS looks like shit because it looks less realistic than 24fps for that kind of motion. 24fps has shortcomings in depicting other kinds of motion. The problem is high FPS failures are in your face constantly. Anything faster than about picking up a glass and drinking form it has a fucked up lack of motion blur that looks unnatural. For 24fps thte things that look fucked up and unatural are big sweeping camera moves of certain types and speeds. One of these things happens a LOT more and is harder to avoid in shooting.

At 120 fps, your SLOWEST shutter speed is 120th of a second, and that's just going to make nice crisp images of a bunch of motion that the human eye does not when experiencing similar motion in real life.

So not only do production values need to step up to meet the level of detail required, but we also probably need to introduce some post processing we don't currently do to make it look more like human perception.

 

[sharknice]

Here's the problem.

In the real worl hold your hand in front of your face. Now wave it around. You get motion blur, not razor sharp snapshots of your hand. High FPS looks like shit because it looks less realistic than 24fps for that kind of motion. 24fps has shortcomings in depicting other kinds of motion. The problem is high FPS failures are in your face constantly. Anything faster than about picking up a glass and drinking form it has a fucked up lack of motion blur that looks unnatural. For 24fps thte things that look fucked up and unatural are big sweeping camera moves of certain types and speeds. One of these things happens a LOT more and is harder to avoid in shooting.

At 120 fps, your SLOWEST shutter speed is 120th of a second, and that's just going to make nice crisp images of a bunch of motion that the human eye does not when experiencing similar motion in real life.

So not only do production values need to step up to meet the level of detail required, but we also probably need to introduce some post processing we don't currently do to make it look more like human perception.

That isn't a problem.

The shutter speed just stays proportional to the frame rate and you get the correct amount of motion blur for that frame. With 120 fps you have 5x more frames than 24 fps so each frame will have 1/5th the blur captured at 1/5th the shutter speed.

The higher the frame rate the less blur is needed to be baked into the video and is instead created naturally by your brain just like looking at your wildly moving hand irl.