The Hobbit - starts filming March 21
- Thread starter nwjedidave
- Start date
Kit Rae
Sr Member
We have one with 240hz (can't be turned off) and another without. It's been a year now and we still prefer the standard tv. I suppose if we were forced to only watch 240hz, we would get used to it, but it's definitely not a preference.
However, HFR and 240hz do not have the same look at all IMO. I understand how some people can make the association because the mind will see any difference from the ingrained look of 24fps the same and try to reject it, but they are not the same a all.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
MooMooEgg
Sr Member
I agree. I don't know how anyone can stand it becaus it makes everything look so cheap and fake. I bought my parents a Samsung LED and even when I turned off the 240hz option, it wouldn't really turn off. It fluctuated randomly, going on occasionally and then off. I had to manually bring it down to zero and now the image is consistent and stable, but I fell like there's still something wonky about the picture.
I'm probably going to see the HFR version in the next few days, but I'm kind of scared since I hate 240hz so much...
Astrokid248
Well-Known Member
We should go ahead and rename this thread "People who hate HFR trying to convince people who like it to hate it too".
CTF
Sr Member
You're ****ting me, right?
I'll have to check on how I have the TV set, it's been ages since I messed with the settings. But in regards to the movie in HFR I just didn't find it to look like what I think if as "video" on TV. I thought it looked great.
MooCriket
Master Member
Jedi2016
Sr Member
My TV is old and busted (new hotness coming in a couple months), so it doesn't support any motion smoothing. However, I do have a software program on my PC that can do it. The plus side is that it has two different settings: the first is to double the framerate (so most videos will play at 48fps) and then where it will match whatever my monitor's refresh rate is (60fps in this case, it's a IPS monitor).
I was surprised to find that I could see a clear difference between them. By direct comparison, 48fps looked more natural. Kind of like the difference between 24fps and 30fps, except, you know... double.
Anyway, the sad thing is that my new TV probably won't have a direct 48fps option, it will simply take it up to whatever (I believe it's only 60fps, despite the whole "120Hz" thing). Most movies do look a bit odd that way, so I think in general I'll be sticking to "original" framerate. If it was shot normal 24fps, I'll stick with that.. if it was shot HFR, then I'll stick with that.
To be honest, The Hobbit actually looks "off" to me in 24fps.
I was surprised to find that I could see a clear difference between them. By direct comparison, 48fps looked more natural. Kind of like the difference between 24fps and 30fps, except, you know... double.
Anyway, the sad thing is that my new TV probably won't have a direct 48fps option, it will simply take it up to whatever (I believe it's only 60fps, despite the whole "120Hz" thing). Most movies do look a bit odd that way, so I think in general I'll be sticking to "original" framerate. If it was shot normal 24fps, I'll stick with that.. if it was shot HFR, then I'll stick with that.
To be honest, The Hobbit actually looks "off" to me in 24fps.
thumbsup someone gets it.
Just love blindness to nuance. :unsure Am I the ONLY one here who can see the good AND the bad?
But...but...but...it does! :lol The only way I can imagine that you could not notice a difference is if you've gotten so used to everything looking that way, because of your TV's settings, that you expect everything to look that way. Creepy soap look. It did look different to other movies, right? Not just in the good way?
It looks like a movie should IMO; but I found myself wondering if the projector wasn't focused correctly or was miscalibrated somehow. Huge difference on that front.
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
What is the goal? Is it to make something that looks like film, or looks real?
Why is 24fps the special number? Older movies where filmed at an even lower frame rate, 12 or 16 I think.
Maybe 24fps is just what some have become accustomed to, and they associate that look as being quality because it correlates to how most movies, including their favorites, have looked.
The HFR gives you more to look at. The effect for me is that it no longer looks like a film at all, and more closely recreates the view of what it looked like had you been there on the set when it was taking place.
To me it makes great looking things look even greater, and bad looking things worse.
I am not exactly sure how the technology works, but somehow newer TVs are able to create additional frames, giving the same look.
It has grown on me. Now when I turn that function off, it's like I am watching a Charlie Chaplin movie.
Why is 24fps the special number? Older movies where filmed at an even lower frame rate, 12 or 16 I think.
Maybe 24fps is just what some have become accustomed to, and they associate that look as being quality because it correlates to how most movies, including their favorites, have looked.
The HFR gives you more to look at. The effect for me is that it no longer looks like a film at all, and more closely recreates the view of what it looked like had you been there on the set when it was taking place.
To me it makes great looking things look even greater, and bad looking things worse.
I am not exactly sure how the technology works, but somehow newer TVs are able to create additional frames, giving the same look.
It has grown on me. Now when I turn that function off, it's like I am watching a Charlie Chaplin movie.
VortexRunner
Well-Known Member
In regards to the 'TV' smoothing look which people are talking about, my TV doesn't have this option and I saw the film in HFR and loved it. I guess it's a natural progression in the way we accept new things. I hated apple initially but after getting around the settings and stuff and learning the layout, I loved it!
Some people just hate or can't get used to change I suppose...TOUGH LUCK!
Some people just hate or can't get used to change I suppose...TOUGH LUCK!
Would you love the new, improved, hi-def version of the Mona Lisa? The shots that work are great - the ones that don't are an abomination. It's wildly inconsistent. How you can claim to get used to it is beyond me. Overall it's a pretty significant hit to the aesthetics of filmgoing.
I guess we're seeing that some folk just don't care as long as there's 'splosions? Sorry, but that's about the same level of remark as your jab.
I guess we're seeing that some folk just don't care as long as there's 'splosions? Sorry, but that's about the same level of remark as your jab.
Look, this is going to be completely subjective to the individual viewer. You perceive it one way, I perceive it another. Arguing that your perception is correct and mine is in error is Internet Forum Silliness. You have clearly, and repeatedly stated you opinion. We got it. You just need to accept others.
Sedulous Studios
Active Member
Why is "looks like film" the golden standard? Is film something that came down perfect straight from God's hand or something?
Or is it just what most people are used to, and change is bad?
I still like HFR. Saw The Hobbit for the third time, this time in 3D IMAX (no HFR) and while I'll say HFR is not perfect I think I did prefer that version. I loved seeing all the details that the filmmakers put in, and there are a lot of them in this movie.
Or is it just what most people are used to, and change is bad?
I still like HFR. Saw The Hobbit for the third time, this time in 3D IMAX (no HFR) and while I'll say HFR is not perfect I think I did prefer that version. I loved seeing all the details that the filmmakers put in, and there are a lot of them in this movie.
