48fps: The Ultimate Battle Of Art vs Tech

Discussion in 'Entertainment and Movie Talk' started by Vivek, Apr 28, 2012.

  1. Vivek

    Vivek Master Member Community Staff RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    3,181
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2012
  2. Jedi2016

    Jedi2016 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    I'm not having an opinion one way or another until I see some of this footage that everyone's going on and on about. There's no reason for them not to release said footage, so that people can actually make an informed decision instead of relying on a handful of websites who got the "sneak peek".
     
  3. Dung0beetle

    Dung0beetle Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    556
    Have you ever watched an action movie where the camera was zoomed in too close and the action was moving so fast, you couldn't really tell what was going on? Higher fps will give your brain more information to process the fast paced action. Unlike the hype, it doesn't make the images higher definition, it only appears that way because there are more frames of information for you to absorb. Computer animation is often produced at high fps, but when it gets to the big screen (or youtube) it loses a lot of the fluidity and often looks like bad CG. Other than that, 48 fps isn't all that impressive.
     
  4. clancampbell

    clancampbell Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,160
    On a standard 35mm projector, although the film moves through the gate at 24fps, the shutter shows you the same frame twice, resulting in a pseudo 48fps...persistence of vision helps us join it all together....

    ..that's the way it's been for a long, long time!

    Rich
     
  5. Solo4114

    Solo4114 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    4,470
    That's odd. I find CGI to be TOO fluid, usually, to the point of looking artificial.
     
  6. Jeyl

    Jeyl Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,670
    I'm willing to give it a shot!
     
  7. Darth Lars

    Darth Lars Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,661
    Films are 24 fps because of economics (cost of film stock) and inertia ("it has always been this way"). The frame rate was chosen because it was just above bearable.

    3D makes movies less watchable, more strenous to the eyes. Bumping the frame rate to 48 fps will only help make 3D movies somewhat more bearable to watch.
    I think that the idea would be 48 fps 2D ... but I am afraid that we will never see that. I'll keep taking my 2D glasses to the theatre.
     
  8. Mechinyun

    Mechinyun Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,241
    From the reviews I saw on AICN - 48fps gives the impression of "cheap video" or 70's era BBC soap opera TV footage - if its anywhere close to that or the 120hz HDTV "smooth motion" effect which I have seen....

    NO THANKS!!

    I see lots of people saying - "you will adjust to it" F that - it looks like garbage!!!!!
     
  9. JOATRASH FX

    JOATRASH FX Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,696
    I totally agree there. My flat screen was made before they started using all those enhancement features on the image, so film still looks like film, bur a friend of mine has one that can't be tweaked and even the most beautifully filmed celluloid movie looks like cheap video on it. Utterly awful and something I don't WANT to get used to! I'm certainly not against progress or new tech but if 48fps comes close to that then no thanks.


     
  10. cboath

    cboath Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    3,276
    It's a good thing most new technologies don't live or die by their first public/semi-public outings or we'd still be in the stone ages.

    Gotta at least let someone put out a final product before trashing it.
     
  11. Solo4114

    Solo4114 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    4,470
    Well, but at the same time, if you can't stand the heat, don't put your product out before it's "done."

    And I agree -- if the 48fps thing makes films look like motion-interpolated 120hz LCD crap, I'll pass. Again, that look actually looks MORE fake to me than standard film. Now, that's not to say I'm against progress or making film look more NATURAL. But that's been the problem with the motion-interpolation tech an CGI -- it looks so "perfect" as to be unnatural.
     
  12. Colin Droidmilk

    Colin Droidmilk Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,296
    Video is 50 fps. So isn't this just going to make films look like they were shot on video?? No thanks! A few years back my bro had this weird TV with this fancy gizmo that made movies look exactly like they'd been shot on vid. All film-like atmosphere was of course killed. I remember watching The Conversation - looked exactly like it was a BBC thing shot on videotape. You need that slight stepping with 24 fps, 48 fps is going to make the image too immediate, too un-exotic.
     
  13. JOATRASH FX

    JOATRASH FX Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,696
    To my eyes, motion-interpolation makes things look FAKE. More than just looking like video, it enhances the feeling that everything was filmed in a studio. The lighting looks unnatural for some reason, like someone had their camcorder out during a theatrical play.
     
  14. EyeofSauron

    EyeofSauron Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,671
    some are not grasping the concept here. im pretty sure 90% here wouldnt be able to tell the difference between undedited 24 and 48 fps. its what comes via vfx, color correction etc, that makes the movie feeling, also partly the Lenses on the cameras. im not saying im happy with the change, because some things just dont look right for me in 48 frames. its not allways good to get stuff too detailed. But for example, if you do a pan shot from the left to the right in a developing shot, in a fully finished scene on film, you probably wouldnt be able to tell if its 48 or 24 or anything else. Its not just the framerate that makes a video.
     
  15. JOATRASH FX

    JOATRASH FX Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,696
    Frame rate does have a lot to do with that "movie feeling". Yes, color, lighting and not least contrast and brightness levels have to do with it as well, but actual FPS can make a world of difference. Now, I can't have an opinion on the new 48fps format since I haven't seen it yet of course but the reports coming in are not promising. When I first started experimenting with film and video on computers, some 15 years ago, I discovered that a simple way to add at least a little "movie feeling" to video material was to force playback in full frames and not fields as is the standard for video (50 fields, or interlaced half-frames, for PAL ant 60 for NTSC).
     
  16. cboath

    cboath Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    3,276
    Video is 'i' as in interlaced. Technically it's just 30 or 25 frames per second (depending on your country), but it plays either the odd or even frames at a time. For each 'frame' you get on pass of odds and one pass of evens for a 50 or 60 fields per second rate. It's a large part of what creates that TV/Soap opera effect.

    1080p or 720p is progressive meaning it refreshed the whole image at one each frame. So you see 24, 25, or 30 different full frame refreshes per second.
     
  17. TheStig

    TheStig Active Member

    Trophy Points:
    341
    I'm waiting to see how it looks. With the right presentation, it could be amazing looking.
     
  18. micdavis

    micdavis Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    3,326
    Doug Trumball did all the "Brainstorm" shots in Brainstorm at 60fps. They looked phenomenally real in the proper theater. That was 25 some odd years ago too.

    Call him in, he'll fix it, if it's really broken.

    More that likely just media/fan/internet over-reaction as usual.
     
  19. robn1

    robn1 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    3,355
    That was the original intent for Brainstorm, but it didn't happen. Trumball couldn't get the theaters to upgrade, so he made those sequences in 65mm at standard 24fps. They had the extra clarity of 65mm but that's all.

    He did make a few short films in "Showscan" format, 65mm at 60fps, I saw some of them and they looked incredible. But for some reason it just didn't catch on. Too bad too, it was something to see. Motion looked real, and it had more apparent depth than "3D". It didn't look like video at all, it was like the action was happening live in front of you. 48fps may come close to that, but the extra resolution of 65mm played a part too. Resolution will have to be upped to make it worthwhile.

    I'm not sure I'd want to see every movie made that way though. It's great for the right type of film, but I kinda like the standard look. That's why so many video cameras have a 24fps mode, to make that "cinematic" look.
     
  20. barbatus

    barbatus Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    521
    "The Ultimate Battle of Art vs Tech?" - "What he means is Old Testament, real wrath of God type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!"

    Someone prophesies the end of movies ... never heard that one before. So it's not old standard vs new standard, it's art vs tech; not only is it a battle, but the ultimate battle. Seriously?

    Since you hope they improve the 48fps presentation, have you already seen it at its current state? I haven't and am looking forward to it.

    My Epson projector has three settings for frame interpolation, interpolating one frame (>48fps), two frames (>72fps) or four frames (>120fps). The only thing I like watching at 120fps is the BBC documentary Planet Earth, everything else I can't stand. For me even worse than the soap effect is the fact that it looks like movies are running faster (guess that's due to more visual input in the same time). The other two settings are way better and as a matter of fact, I never switch off the frame interpolation completely. But I guess that a movie like The Hobbit shot with 48fps will still look different, since interpolating a frame surely has its limitations.
     
  21. Solo4114

    Solo4114 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    4,470
    Wait. Is it frame interpolation, or is it actually capturing 48fps? I think the problem with interpolation is that the monitor is "guessing" where things are in the scene, and therefore displays what likely happened between frame A and B. It may not always get it right, and that's where it starts to look unnatural and "too smooth." Actually capturing 48fps, though, I'd figure would at least look better than the motion interpolation stuff you see on LCD TVs.
     
  22. Jeyl

    Jeyl Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,670
    Quote from Jackson...

    "We are indeed shooting at the higher frame rate. The key thing to understand is that this process requires both shooting and projecting at 48 frames/s, rather than the usual 24 frames/s (The great majority of films have been shot at 24 frames per second since the late 1920s)."

    Looks like they're genuinely shooting it at 48fps. No digital guess work involved.
     
  23. barbatus

    barbatus Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    521
    It's about capturing 48fps.
     
  24. Colin Droidmilk

    Colin Droidmilk Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,296
    It's the frame rate and ONLY the frame rate. Here's why: when I slow down video I've shot on my camcorder to half the frame rate it suddenly stops looking like video and LOOKS LIKE FILM - cheap film but nevertheless film - you don't need fancy lenses or VFX to obtain 'film'. It looks so much like film I slow every * thing I shoot to half frame-rate. A TV editor friend explained, yes, vid looks more boringly real than film cos it's giving you effectively more fps. To get that classy, distanced look of film you have to reduce the amount of frames.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2012
  25. JOATRASH FX

    JOATRASH FX Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,696
    Assuming they haven't done so already, they should release a LOTR teaser in 48fps so we can see what it looks like.
     
  26. Vivek

    Vivek Master Member Community Staff RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    3,181
    No, probably not seriously. More likely just a figure of speech.

    I haven't and I am looking forward to it as well. It's not just that article writer, many others at CinemaCon have witnessed that footage presentation and concluded that though the landscape shots looks great, the sets tend to look too real like a set. Whether that change in FPS is really vital for feature films needs to be seen. So yeah before it's entrusted upon theatres, IF it still needs improvement I do hope they take that into consideration. As witnessed with 3D films some still continue to suffer sometimes with blurry and too dark images.
     
  27. b00st

    b00st New Member

    Trophy Points:
    2
    its to hard to judge what its going to be like.
    the idea was to make it less strenuous on the eyes for 3D. a smoother transition. since the film isn't post production...film grain can be added to reduce "the overly clarified detail". its hard to say without seeing a post production snipet to know what's what. the idea behind it was sound...but what does that mean to us home theater people...new equipment. 4k projectors are just hitting with shelves with nothing natively produced in 4k. i'll reserve judgement for some post production viewing.
     
  28. wannab

    wannab Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,486
    I don't have a problem with this "experiment" as long as it can be backed down to 24fps without ill affects -- if necessary.




    Doug
     
  29. Jedi2016

    Jedi2016 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    We've already seen it. The trailer we saw in December was 24fps, taken from 48fps source. The only noticeable difference is less motion blur, and even then only when you're looking for it.
     
  30. wannab

    wannab Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,486
    Well, there ya go. If that's the case, all is well.

    PS
    I haven't seen the trailer yet.




    Doug
     
  31. rodneyfaile

    rodneyfaile Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,980
    I bought a new TV this weekend. It has a 240hz refresh rate. After hooking it up I headed straight to an HD channel to check it out. Inception was playing on HBO.

    WEIRD LOOKING!

    It had a soap opera look to it, and call me crazy, but its like someone turned on the bad acting button. They just looked weird.

    I switched it to a lower setting and it looked normal.

    I went back and forth, looking at different channels and just couldnt get used to it.

    Action scenes looked less real. With no motion blur, it was like someone with a home video camera recorded his friends doing some stunts. The snowmobile scenes in Inception for instance were just less intense, kinda like they were in slow motion.

    I couldn't understand what people meant by looking "too good" until I saw it for myself.

    I usually like everything. I love 3D! But is this what I can expect the Hobbit to look like in the theatre? It will take me a while to get used to it.
     
  32. rodneyfaile

    rodneyfaile Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,980
    I made this post about 4 months ago. Since then I actually prefer the high fram rate. I especially enhances old classic movies.

    If I had not gotten used to it before seeing the Hobbit, I'm sure my reaction would be mixed as well.

    I think 3D and HFR are here to stay. Anything that looks better will stay. If they put Blade Runner 3D HFR in a theatre, I would buy 10 tickets.
     
  33. niennumb1

    niennumb1 Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,891
    They're only here to stay because they know they can gouge an extra few bucks to the ticket price out of you.
     
  34. Solo4114

    Solo4114 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    4,470
    I still have yet to see a HFR film, but I've watched plenty of 24fps stuff displayed on TVs running high motion interpolation.

    It SUCKS to look at.

    It doesn't look filmic, and if anything, it really takes me out of the immersive experience of a film because I've gone too deep into the "uncanny valley."


    That said, I'm also reading some interesting stuff about 48fps, 3D, and fast action sequences, as well as lighting.


    I think part of what we're seeing is that the technology is not yet at a point where it's effectively married to filmmaking techniques, with the end result looking like a stage play. In essence, this destroys one of the most effective aspects of film: the illusion that what you're watching is "real."


    We've seen this issue come up frequently in discussions about CGI. Too much CGI looks "fake." This is often not because CGI itself is inherently crappy. Certainly Jurassic Park is a testament to the contrary. But the problem is that CGI WHEN DONE POORLY looks like crap. My bet is the same is true of 48fps.



    Maybe the solution is something like adapting lighting and/or propmaking techniques. Maybe CGI animators are going to have to render less motion blur and render more detailed images to match with what's on screen. Maybe makeup and costume and set dressing all will need to be adjusted for the new technology.


    From the sound of it, 48fps CAN be used effectively in the right moments, with the right presentation. Lots of discussions of the 3D action sequences in the new Hobbit film seem to talk about how they looked much better than 3D action sequences in previous films. So, maybe the solution is not to shoot entire films in 48fps, but rather specific sequences.

    Of course, the real dilemma will be in how this is all marketed. 3D seems to be clinging on by its fingernails, but that's mostly because studios seem to have no other better options (like, say, "stop making so many s***y films and relying on marketing to save your * for a weekend."). So, i fully expect that we'll see a period of filmmakers shoving this down our throats, and it being rejected....because it's being done really poorly. Eventually, though, there will be some good examples of what can be done with 48fps.

    For everyone who's complained about crappy 3D, people DO talk about how films like Hugo and Avatar (and even some discussions here about Dredd) make very effective use of the technology. So, it strikes me that, much like CGI, rather than being a panacea for what ails the industry, HFR will become another tool in the toolbox for filmmakers. As long as it's done well and not used improperly, I expect folks will find it to be fine. Where it becomes a marketing tool or a one-size-fits-all solution is where it'll fail.
     
  35. rodneyfaile

    rodneyfaile Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,980
    I wonder if the Transformers movies would be better in HFR? maybe I would be able to distinguish one robot from another when they were fighting.
     
  36. airair

    airair Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,525
    lets not kid ourselves

    the new Hobbit movie looks crystal clear, but it doesn't look like what we have come to know as "filmic" or "cinematic".

    It was too sharp and lacked that special magic that a rolling film reel gives.

    Ive seen digital movies which are hard to tell from film because they have used great lenses, and some post grading, so you can't even tell.

    The main reason why The Hobbit and Avatar just don't look filmic enough, is because of the lenses they used.

    In particular when i watched Avatar in 3D, the 3D was kind of masking how poor the digital look was when you actually watch it in 2D.

    The Hobbit was better looking, but still gave off a cheap TV movie vibe.

    If thats your stylistic intention, then thats no problem. But trying to say that this "looks better" than film is frankly a joke.

    Nothing matches film perfectly yet.

    Its one of the reasons why Wally Pfister (probably the greatest cinematographer around today) still only uses film.
     
  37. alienscollection.com

    alienscollection.com Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    4,275
  38. Vivek

    Vivek Master Member Community Staff RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    3,181
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2013
  39. vaderdarth

    vaderdarth Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,741
    For me personally, it was the best 3D I've ever seen. I forgot I was wearing glasses. I truly enjoyed the experience. :)
     
  40. jcoffman99

    jcoffman99 Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,466
    Hated the 48fps. If the camera moved it looked like watching a DVD on 1xFF. As long as the camera was still it was fine. If this is the future of films...er....digital files...then I'm out.
     
  41. Kit Rae

    Kit Rae Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    866
    I felt the opposite. When the camera was still, I did not care for the HFR look. When it was moving, the image was fantastic.
     
  42. bmooncd

    bmooncd New Member

    Trophy Points:
    16
    I'm thinking that the problem is more with PJ doing away with miniatures in favor of CG. The miniatures and incredibly elaborate sets in LoTR really drew you into the story. The CG in The Hobbit really draws you into World of Warcraft. That is not a Good Thing. Add the Wile.E.Coyote action sequences coupled with pretty-boy dwarves (WTF?!) and I was hurting. Oh, and the main villain looked so fake as to be laughable.

    I did not hate the movie. In that I am a huge LoTR fan, perhaps disappointment is a more accrate assessment. Fwiw I saw it in both standard and HFR XD (Cinemark's IMAX-ish thing) and really preferred the 3D.
     
  43. jcoffman99

    jcoffman99 Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,466
  44. Jedi2016

    Jedi2016 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    I think it would have been much more accepted if it had been done to an animated film. I watched Brave in 3D a few days ago, and thought that it could have benefited from the HFR in several scenes where there was too much blur, or not enough, in cases where the image stuttered too much.

    Seeing The Hobbit in 24fps almost doesn't look right to me now. It looks more "normal", but it doesn't look like The Hobbit anymore.

    I'm pretty sure this is the way it's going. It's just going to take some time to get there.
     

Share This Page