48fps: The Ultimate Battle Of Art vs Tech

[Vivek]

48fps: The Ultimate Battle Of Art vs Tech| Badass Digest
If the 48fps presentation trend continues I do hope they improve it further before it becomes a norm.

Devin: "Shocked at the # of people who think 48fps is a new innovation. Movies could have been 48fps in 1940 if they wanted it."

 

[Jedi2016]

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".

 

[Dung0beetle]

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.

 

[clancampbell]

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

 

[Solo4114]

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.

That's odd. I find CGI to be TOO fluid, usually, to the point of looking artificial.

 

[Jeyl]

I'm willing to give it a shot!

 

[Darth Lars]

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.

 

[Mechinyun]

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!!!!!

 

[JOATRASH FX]

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.

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!!!!!

 

[cboath]

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.

 

[Solo4114]

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.

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

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.

 

[JOATRASH FX]

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.

 

[EyeofSauron]

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.

 

[JOATRASH FX]

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,

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).

 

[cboath]

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.

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.

 

[TheStig]

I'm waiting to see how it looks. With the right presentation, it could be amazing looking.

 

[micdavis]

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.

 

[robn1]

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.

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.

 

[barbatus]

"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?

If the 48fps presentation trend continues I do hope they improve it further before it becomes a norm.

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.