TheRaider.net
 

Go Back   The Raven > Off Topic > Films
User Name
Password

View Poll Results: 24 frames per second or 48 frames per second?
24, I'm a luddite who enjoys the "film" look. 10 66.67%
48, get with the future folks. 1 6.67%
I'd have to see it to be a "true believer" 3 20.00%
Hell, why don't we up it to 100 frames per second. 1 6.67%
Voters: 15. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-25-2012, 06:38 PM   #1
Dr. Gonzo
IndyFan
 
Dr. Gonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,853
24 fps vs. 48 fps.

This will undoubtably be yet another dividing point in the film industry and with viewers themselves... even more so than 3D.

It's been known that Peter Jackson has been shooting the The Hobbit at 48 frames per second for a while now. The trailer they showed was the 24 fps industry standard... But the first glimpses of the actual footage at a convention already have people divided. "It looks like a soap opera". For those of you who don't know, when you up the frame rate it begins to look like home video... something shot on a camcorder as opposed to the film look we've all known since sound was introduced to films.

To understand more please read this article.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/55212

When I first heard this way back when Jackson was buying Red Epic cameras I knew this was going to be a point of contention. I am not a fan of the increased frame rate look... and I know that you would think, well if you increase the frame rate it should look better right? Wrong. (Well it's a matter of opinion) People are buying up those DSLR cameras for one reason... it shoots 24p and the resulting video looks like film. It just has that certain look. The "strobing" if you will. Essentially The Hobbit is going to look like something that was shot on a consumer video camera that you can buy at your nearest "best buy". Several years ago I bought a Panasonic HVX200 because at that time, it was the cheapest camera that achieved 24p at 1080p. A legitimate film look, and it wasn't cheap back then. This move effectively makes me (and people like me) shake their heads in disbelief and wonder... it was hard to achieve this look for us independents digitally, (well at least me, it was a chunk of change) and now that these types of cameras are becoming a little more affordable (now 3 grand for a DSLR?) THEY TURN AROUND AND FLIP THE SCRIPT ON US.

apologies for that rant towards the end

And James Cameron is all about an Industry conversion to 48 as well as a few others. Both Jackson and Cameron are fighting to make 48 frames the minimum standard. So for those who know what I'm talking about, (sorry, it's somewhat hard to explain, you really just have to see it) What do you think of this movement, and do you think it will succeed???
Dr. Gonzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2012, 11:42 PM   #2
teampunk
IndyFan
 
teampunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 155
i'm not sure i really understand the difference. when i first herd about the 48 frames a tried to search online for video comparisons, but could not find anything. is the hobbit trailer in 48 frames? how will i know the difference? what exactly does it look like?
teampunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2012, 12:44 AM   #3
Dr. Gonzo
IndyFan
 
Dr. Gonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,853
No the Hobbit trailer was presented in the normal 24fps. I guess the closest way for you to see something like that is if you have a tv with Tru-motion. Actually it's not really the same but the closest thing I can think of for you to see what kind of a difference. Tru-motion doubles the refresh rate, though I'm not a fan of Tru-motion either it's a least keeps a little bit of that cinematic feeling as opposed to 48 frames per second.

I don't know if that helped.
Dr. Gonzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2012, 03:45 AM   #4
Violet
Moderator Emeritus
 
Violet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Host City of the 2018 Commonwealth Games, Australia
Posts: 3,198
I'm a 24 fps fan.

I've seen the 48 fps- and admittedly it can look a bit 3dish however like you said, Gonz, it has the behind the scenes camera kind of look to movies, which I don't like mostly coz it makes the sets, makeup, etc really fake looking.

Kind hurts believability in my opinion. Sometimes, I feel the heavy weights of the biz, are just picking at anything to make the industry look like it's evolving and changing, trying give more reason for the consumer to come and see some kind of spectacle. Problem is then the TV companies need to keep up and evolve themselves to get their customers.

In any case, I thought industry standard in the States was 30 fps. Has it changed? Or was I taught wrong?
Violet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2012, 06:50 AM   #5
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,920
Naked eye can't make out the difference in image movement past 25... which is 23 wasted frames for a wildly different visual outlook which most people seem to be hating.

I'm hardly what you'd call a luddite, on the opposite. But new tech has to have an actual practical purpose. This feels more like new tech for new tech's sake.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2012, 11:18 AM   #6
Pale Horse
Moderator
 
Pale Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 6,733
For me, on this entirely subjective field, if a film looks too much like real life, I removes me from the story. I'm not against advancement, I'll listen to a 320kbs .mp3 over a 128kbs, precisely for the audio quality. Yet I still love the sound of a vinyl record.

What I'd hope for, is the option on the new technology, to view it in the different forms (even if it has to be simulated). Maybe that's a pipe dream, but it's my wish.

I think the trouble with 48fps is that intentional lighting suffers. I don't know how KOTCS was filmed, but this shot shows the problem with unnatural lighting highlights.



For me, the master of the digital cinematic filming* (to date) is still Michael Mann. He doesn't compromise lighting situations.




_______
*no semantic arguments between cinematographer/director/camera operator etc, please
Pale Horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2012, 01:15 PM   #7
Dr. Gonzo
IndyFan
 
Dr. Gonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Violet
I've seen the 48 fps- and admittedly it can look a bit 3dish however like you said, Gonz, it has the behind the scenes camera kind of look to movies, which I don't like mostly coz it makes the sets, makeup, etc really fake looking.

Kind hurts believability in my opinion.

Yeah, in this format sets look, well, like sets. Some comments coming out of the Hobbit preview were... (paraphrasing) Really seemed as though the actors were on polystyrene sets. No believability. Looked like a bad soap opera.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pale Horse
For me, on this entirely subjective field, if a film looks too much like real life, I removes me from the story. I'm not against advancement, I'll listen to a 320kbs .mp3 over a 128kbs, precisely for the audio quality. Yet I still love the sound of a vinyl record.

What I'd hope for, is the option on the new technology, to view it in the different forms (even if it has to be simulated). Maybe that's a pipe dream, but it's my wish.

You know I do want to say that I think filmmakers and artists in general should be able to have whatever tools they deem necessary at their disposal. Black and white, 8mm film, Imax, digital... it is truly great to have options, but to make this 48 fps the "standard" seems like a stretch. So in that sense I'm happy about this experiment, but I personally (hope) don't believe the standard will be changed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pale Horse
What I'd hope for, is the option on the new technology, to view it in the different forms (even if it has to be simulated). Maybe that's a pipe dream, but it's my wish.

And yes Pale Horse, The Hobbit will be available in cinemas at the normal 24 fps... how they are able to do that is beyond me. (Maybe dropping every other frame? Seems like that could cause some problems if that's how.) Some folks commented that the 24 fps trailer looked a bit odd as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Violet
In any case, I thought industry standard in the States was 30 fps. Has it changed? Or was I taught wrong?

Well in terms of television I'm a bit fuzzy but I think I remember "60 interlaced" as being the minimum standard on television in USA and when transferring film to video it gets slightly slower at 23.97 (the missing .03 was for when the switch was made to color or something? You're making me want to pull out my old film books Violet ) In Europe and your part of the world I believe you're on a PAL system right? So I believe it increases to 25 fps.

So maybe your 30 number came from the 60i as going from interlaced to progressive would half it to 30?

But yeah in film, the standard here is 24 fps. Has been since the 20's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
Naked eye can't make out the difference in image movement past 25... which is 23 wasted frames for a wildly different visual outlook which most people seem to be hating.

It's interesting, back in the infant days of film, Edison wanted the standard to be 40 fps or something like that, he thought anything below that was bad for the eye to endure for prolonged periods. Of course the Studios weren't going for that... cheap bastards even back then. Only when sound came around did the standard of 24 fps come about, for syncing purposes I believe.

In any case conversions are being made globally at many cinemas to support The Hobbit's intended 48 frame rate.

So we'll see what happens.

Last edited by Dr. Gonzo : 04-26-2012 at 01:26 PM.
Dr. Gonzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2012, 02:54 PM   #8
Stoo
IndyFan
 
Stoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Neuchâtel, Switzerland (Canadian from Montreal)
Posts: 7,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo
This will undoubtably be yet another dividing point in the film industry and with viewers themselves... even more so than 3D.

*superfluous text omitted*

And James Cameron is all about an Industry conversion to 48 as well as a few others. Both Jackson and Cameron are fighting to make 48 frames the minimum standard. So for those who know what I'm talking about, (sorry, it's somewhat hard to explain, you really just have to see it) What do you think of this movement, and do you think it will succeed???
For the record, the 2nd person to vote was me and I voted for 24 fps. I'm against the change becoming a standard but understand why it can be useful. Whether it succeeds or not is anybody's guess!

Actually, the sway for frame-rate conversion isn't new but its previous attempt failed. NOW, the desire is primarily BECAUSE of 3-D. (See below, Gonzo). Cameron & Jackson aren't the 1st ones to push the industry for this change. That 'honour' goes to visual effects genius, Douglas Trumbull ("2001: A Space Odyssey", "Close Encounters", "Blade Runner", etc.), who has been lobbying the idea for over 30 years!

In 2010, Trumbull was in Switzerland and spoke, at length, about his most recent projects. One of them was about increasing frame rate which was something he started to develop back in the late '70s with a process he named, ShowScan (60 fps). The film, "Brainstorm", in 1983 (does anyone else, besides me, remember that one?) was meant to be shot with ShowScan but things didn't work out. Years later, Trumbull used the process for the simulator ride at the Luxor hotel in Las Vegas. Eventually, ShowScan went bankrupt...HOWEVER he has new things in store.

Here's a photo I took of his frame-rate presentation (comparison samples were shown & I recorded some video):


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pale Horse
For me, on this entirely subjective field, if a film looks too much like real life, I removes me from the story. I'm not against advancement, I'll listen to a 320kbs .mp3 over a 128kbs, precisely for the audio quality. Yet I still love the sound of a vinyl record.
Pale Horse, it's good that you mentioned this! Supposedly, Trumbull had test audiences hooked up to monitor their pulse & perspiration. According to the 'results' of his tests; the higher the frame-rate, the higher the emotional response from the viewer! (Keep in mind, I don't consider his test results as valid. It's his own testimony.)

For the 'record', I prefer the sound of vinyl, too!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
Naked eye can't make out the difference in image movement past 25... which is 23 wasted frames for a wildly different visual outlook which most people seem to be hating.
According to Trumbull & his experiments, 72 fps is the limit for naked eye recognition. (Almost triple of 25!) WE, the present generation, may hate the look but (if it becomes standard) future audiences will become used to it and consider everything previous as ANCIENT. What percentage of kids, who you personally know today, will watch a b&w movie? Very few.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
I'm hardly what you'd call a luddite, on the opposite. But new tech has to have an actual practical purpose. This feels more like new tech for new tech's sake.
The "practical purpose" for Cameron's & Jackson's embracing of the conversion is because higher frame rates allow for better 3-D effects during fast, action shots. Cameron & Trumbull have been friends for years so one can guess where the idea originates from...

Before the point where everyone has a 3-D TV set in their home, this is an attempt to draw people back into the cinemas (just like CinemaScope, etc. in the 1950s). ULTIMATELY, it's 30-year-old-tech-dug-up-from-the-grave for the $ake of $elling ticket$. It didn't matter back then but it has potential now.

----
To the person who voted for 100 fps:
Trumbull said that his next film will be done with *120* fps! What the f*ck?!? I've even been told that the BBC have shot football/soccer games with *300* fps!
Stoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2012, 08:55 PM   #9
InexorableTash
IndyFan
 
InexorableTash's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 693
None of the voting options quite match my feelings.

My in-laws bought a new TV that up-samples incoming signals (broadcast TV, discs, etc) to some gawdawful high frame rate - something like 120fps. I was unaware of this, and when visiting their house one of my favorite wacky sitcoms (Psych) was on. For a few minutes I assumed the show was doing a soap opera parody... that wasn't funny. Then I asked my in-laws, who were clueless. Then I dug out the TV manual.

There's nothing natural about the 24fps (film) or 30/60fps (NTSC TV interlaced) number, though. So while it a higher frame rate looks unnatural to me, I don't have fundamental objections to a wholesale shift away from 24fps and pumping more bits to our eyeballs. I'll get used to it, and cinematographers will figure out how to make it work.

I feel the opposite about 3D, though. It is an entirely unpleasant experience - dim, eye-straining, and the effect seems to teeter between gimicky ("it's coming right at us!"), broken (when focus is lost), or absent (when you're engrossed by the story not the ViewMaster effect). Due to the natural variation of humans, 3D using glasses and a shared screen is fundamentally limited.

Primarily, the higher frame rate and 3D are a desperate attempt by TV manufacturers and content producers to get you to buy the latest gizmo and repurchase your media, and for theater owners to make up for declining sales, in a business world predicated on ever increasing sales. I do wonder what they'll come up with next to try and stem the tide of people abandoning traditional movie watching venues for streaming things to our tablets/phones.
InexorableTash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2012, 09:10 PM   #10
Indy's brother
IndyFan
 
Indy's brother's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: In the Map Room playing with a laser pointer
Posts: 3,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by InexorableTash
My in-laws bought a new TV that up-samples incoming signals (broadcast TV, discs, etc) to some gawdawful high frame rate - something like 120fps. I was unaware of this, and when visiting their house one of my favorite wacky sitcoms (Psych) was on. For a few minutes I assumed the show was doing a soap opera parody... that wasn't funny. Then I asked my in-laws, who were clueless. Then I dug out the TV manual

That perfectly describes similar experiences I've also had while viewing other people's sets. It was jarring to me, and I didn't realize that this was what was causing it. I had already already voted for 24 fps, as I suspected that there would be inherent problems with it. Your testimony only cements my opinion on the matter. If 48 fps looks anywhere near as bad as what I've seen on televisions that upgrade framerate, then you can all count me out completely.

Blech.
Indy's brother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2012, 10:03 PM   #11
Dr. Gonzo
IndyFan
 
Dr. Gonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indy's brother
If 48 fps looks anywhere near as bad as what I've seen on televisions that upgrade framerate, then you can all count me out completely.

Blech.

That is exactly what we are talking about and 48 (in my opinion and many others) looks even worse.

The thing you guys are both describing is the Tru-motion feature in newer TV's.

And Inexorable that is 120Hz your talking about, not frames per second... whole different thing. Essentially if you watch a DVD and have Tru-motion on, it doubles the refresh rate and blurs an extra frame into the picture creating a faux 48 to 60 fps.

I just found this to help explain:
Quote:
Going Too Far
Enhanced refresh rates like 120Hz, 240Hz, and various other speed-boosting features on modern HDTVs, on the other hand, push the concept too far. Remember what I said earlier about not being able to add detail beyond what's in the source footage? That's exactly what those higher refresh rates do. They interpolate data between each frame to produce additional frames. But the data in those combined frames can only be based on the source frames and whatever mathematical magic the HDTV is employing to figure out the middle ground. This technique can help reduce judder, or the jerkiness that manifests when displaying footage on a display that doesn't share its native frame rate (like, for example, a 24-frame-per-second film clip pulled down to 30 fps, then interlaced to 60Hz). Some plasma HDTVs can even reach a 600Hz refresh rate, which, when you consider that the source footage is going to be between 24 to 60 frames per second, is downright overkill.
Actually, this effect can produce a distinctly artificial, unnatural feel to video. Motion can appear too smooth, almost dreamlike compared with the films and television shows we've spent decades teaching our brains to enjoy. Action can seem just slightly sped up to the point of looking unreal, and it can take you out of the experience quicker than any judder. Indeed, to many videophiles judder is just as natural as film grain, and a subtle but necessary part of watching TV and movies.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2379206,00.asp

Last edited by Dr. Gonzo : 04-26-2012 at 10:09 PM. Reason: added information
Dr. Gonzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2012, 10:48 PM   #12
teampunk
IndyFan
 
teampunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 155
mah, i'm going to have to wait and see.
teampunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2012, 11:18 PM   #13
Indy's brother
IndyFan
 
Indy's brother's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: In the Map Room playing with a laser pointer
Posts: 3,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo
That is exactly what we are talking about and 48 (in my opinion and many others) looks even worse.

The thing you guys are both describing is the Tru-motion feature in newer TV's.

And Inexorable that is 120Hz your talking about, not frames per second... whole different thing. Essentially if you watch a DVD and have Tru-motion on, it doubles the refresh rate and blurs an extra frame into the picture creating a faux 48 to 60 fps.

I can only assume that is what also gives otherwise normal programs/films that super artificial pan-and-scan feel, even though they haven't been chopped up for a TV edit.....
Indy's brother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2012, 11:20 PM   #14
IAdventurer01
IndyFan
 
IAdventurer01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Wish I knew....
Posts: 1,029
I'm a bit torn on this one. I can't say I'm a huge fan of frame rates over 24 that I've seen, but I'm not sure if that's because I haven't yet seen it done particularly well, or if it's just a matter of my eyes needing to get used to it. I can easily see this as something that if you get accustomed to it could look amazing and you'd be shocked at how iffy 24 suddenly looks in motion. I can also see it as surprisingly unnatural for the format and is just the latest gimmick to try to sell something new.

I guess you can chalk me up to waiting and seeing on this one.
IAdventurer01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2012, 12:37 AM   #15
InexorableTash
IndyFan
 
InexorableTash's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo
And Inexorable that is 120Hz your talking about, not frames per second... whole different thing.

The unit Hertz (Hz) is just the inverse of seconds (s). On it's own it tells you that something is happening at a given rate, but not what that thing is.

In this context, FPS and frame rate measured in Hz are the same thing. You may be meaning to distinguish the frame capture rate from the frame display rate, but Hz vs. FPS won't do that for you.

On the topic of up-sampling: I watched carefully for artifacts and while they could be identified (e.g. the timing of facial expressions) they were extremely subtle, and not the source of my distraction, so far as I could tell.
InexorableTash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2012, 01:27 PM   #16
Dr. Gonzo
IndyFan
 
Dr. Gonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,853
It appears the icy reception of Hobbit 48 frames per second footage has convinced many Theater owners not to upgrade...

http://www.slashfilm.com/revolution-...-distribution/
Dr. Gonzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:09 AM.