Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hobbit Film Underwhelms At 48 Frames Per Second

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the change-is-scary dept.

Lord of the Rings 607

bonch writes "Warner Bros. aired ten minutes of footage from The Hobbit at CinemaCon, and reactions have been mixed. The problem? Peter Jackson is filming the movie at 48 frames per second, twice the industry standard 24 frames per second, lending the film a '70s era BBC-video look.' However, if the negative response from film bloggers and theater owners is any indication, the way most people will see the movie is in standard 24fps."

cancel ×

607 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Is it "too real"? (4, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827085)

Is this another version of the same issues people complained about when seeing their favorite newscaster (or "other" things) in HD?

Do we need some "masking" of the mundane reality of scenes (e.g., things "looking like sets") to sufficiently suspend disbelief?

Re:Is it "too real"? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827119)

Every time I hear someone bitch about higher FPS video I'm seriously annoyed, I've had to deal with the damn 24 FPS jerky and/or blurry bullshit for too long people need to just adjust.

Re:Is it "too real"? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827169)

I am completely unable to watch video at 60 fps. I literally get nauseated and get motion sickness. Same thing with video games, I actually try and keep my frame rate as close to 30 fps as I can or I simply can't play it for more than a few minutes without starting to get ill. If The Hobbit releases in only 60 fps then I flat-out would never be able to see it, especially on a big-ass theater screen.

Re:Is it "too real"? (5, Insightful)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827177)

You're handicapped.

Re:Is it "too real"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827207)

Obviously Sherlock, that was my whole point.

Re:Is it "too real"? (4, Funny)

Tanman (90298) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827219)

No, he's frame-capped!

ba-dum-dum! The next show's at eleven!

Re:Is it "too real"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827211)

I think this is evolutions way of saying "Don't have children, dudes."

I'm in that category for other reasons. (Autoimmune. Besides I'd rather build a robot with my own AI)

Re:Is it "too real"? (5, Funny)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827237)

This is exactly I am unable to leave the basement. The frame-rates "outside" literally make my brain hurt.

Re:Is it "too real"? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827441)

Have you tried acclimatising yourself to it? Increase your frame rate by, say, one frame a week. I get nauseated and motion sickness from FPS when I play them after a break of years, and I have to slowly work back into it. Obviously, I've no idea if this is the same thing or even if it'll work for you. My first assumption would be that you've tried it already, but I don't know for sure.

Re:Is it "too real"? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827241)

It's time to show these people what white power's all about!

Re:Is it "too real"? (5, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827313)

Me too.

Seriously, what could be wrong with 48 fps? That it didn't flicker enough?

I read this story a few days ago and actually went searching for some samples but couldn't find any at that time, other than some silly animated combat scenes.

What I did find was a bunch of bloggers who have never produced anything in their life except whiny bitching without a single valid criticism that didn't amount to jealousy and NIH.

Re:Is it "too real"? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827659)

Every time I hear someone bitch about higher FPS video I'm seriously annoyed, I've had to deal with the damn 24 FPS jerky and/or blurry bullshit for too long people need to just adjust.

Oh, thank GOD you're here. We needed raving frothing videophile douchebags to balance out the raving frothing audiophile douchebags. We were starting to feel a bit rusty with our eye-rolling routines, glad there's someone around we can practice on.

Re:Is it "too real"? (1)

Nyder (754090) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827193)

Is this another version of the same issues people complained about when seeing their favorite newscaster (or "other" things) in HD?

Do we need some "masking" of the mundane reality of scenes (e.g., things "looking like sets") to sufficiently suspend disbelief?

The only reason I would think someone would complain about seeing their favorite newscaster in HD is because they newscaster has blackheads, bad skin, or something. At least that's the only bad thing I've noticed about HD, cept when dumb ass's stretch a SD to HD when the aspect ratio is different.

I'm curious to see how the 48 frames per sec looks myself. I've seen my share of BBC 70's shows that use video, but by the time it gets over here in the colonies, it's not 48 frames per sec, but 25. I have no way of knowing what the TV stations played it at.

I don't normally go to movie theatre's, but maybe will just so i can see it at 48 fps.

Re:Is it "too real"? (3, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827561)

>>>BBC 70's shows that use video, but by the time it gets over here in the colonies, it's not 48 frames per sec, but 25. I have no way of knowing what the TV stations played it at.

BBC video is 25 frames per second. Interlaced.
So basically it's just like U.S. video (30fps) but slightly slower.

Movement between one field and the next (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827637)

But if something moves between one field and the next of the interlaced frame, it's 50 fields per second. That's why 48fps is said to look like television.

Re:Is it "too real"? (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827201)

You'd think all those gamers at 100+fps would already be used to this.

Then there's the 1080p at 24, 30 and 60 fps. The only thing I notice is smoother movement as the frames go up, but only to a point. Past 30 it's pretty smooth.

Re:Is it "too real"? (1)

Kreigaffe (765218) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827495)

30 isn't smooth. That's likely caused by the screen you're watching it on.
Good old CRT's with a fast refresh rate? You could, absolutely, tell the difference between 30 and 60 and 100fps. Very clearly.

LCDs and the like, not so much, because the refresh is limited by the speed at which the pixels can change from a bright color to a dark color or back.. which means framerate gain isn't as significant as it was back when you had a CRT that was doing an honest 120 refreshes per second, from full white to black if need be.

If you're talking about a television set, they tend to muddy things even worse than a computer monitor.

It's kinda atrocious really, but nobody fucking cares anymore, so.. I'm sorta just pissing in the wind when I complain about it.

Re:Is it "too real"? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827291)

Is this another version of the same issues people complained about when seeing their favorite newscaster (or "other" things) in HD?

Do we need some "masking" of the mundane reality of scenes (e.g., things "looking like sets") to sufficiently suspend disbelief?

A lot of the complaints may actually stem from lighting issues. In general, movies are dimmer than TV. Lots of mundane "set"-type things are hidden in the shadows, and brightening everything up will reveal them even at 24fps. The lighting may need to be adjusted differently for 48fps (possibly planned for post-production and just hasn't happened yet), or maybe the lighting is intentionally too bright to counteract the dimming effect of 3D. Either way, people may be reacting to a lot more than just 48fps, so don't just assume they're all Luddites.

Also, the need for 48fps wouldn't be nearly as bad if the camera operators of the world hadn't all simultaneously forgotten how to slow down the shutter speed during pans. Seriously, there's judder all over the movie theatres today, and while it existed thirty years ago, it wasn't nearly as frequent or as bad as today.

Re:Is it "too real"? (1)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827475)

People spend extra money to buy TVs that interpolate & motion-smooth their 24fps blu-rays up to 120fps, yet freak out when theaters dare to go above 24. What the heck?

Re:Is it "too real"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827599)

But the 48fps theater film doesn't make everything look like a Soap Opera!

Re:Is it "too real"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827529)

I haven't seen anything in 48 fps, but when I first got an LCD TV with "120 Hz MotionFlow" or whatever the smoothing algorithm is called, my first reaction was that it looked "too real," for lack of a better way to describe it. It looked unnatural (and apparently similar to the way some old TV shows were shot) to my eyes, and I'm not really sure why, but I don't think it's because "it was so much better than what I was used to seeing." The reactions I'm seeing to _The Hobbit_ at 48 fps use a lot of the same words I used to try to describe what I was seeing with those newer TVs a few years back.

Re:Is it "too real"? (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827625)

Well if you have ever seen that demo where they show 24, 30, and 60 FPS then you know that frankly 60FPS is the way to go but I can imagine even 48FPS must be MUCH better (can't tell ATM since the site is /.ed) but the problem you are gonna have is people have gotten used to the shitty 24FPS (which was the slowest they could use and not have it jerky) that it will simply take time for people to adjust.

In the end the theaters will get the crappy 24FPS and the ones like me that prefer to watch at home will get the superior 48FPS just giving you one more reason not to care about going to the theater.

Can people actually tell the difference? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827109)

What proportion of the population can actually tell the difference between 24fps and 48fps? Have there been any peer-reviewed studies to find out?

Re:Can people actually tell the difference? (5, Informative)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827231)

I don't have links handy but they aren't terribly hard to find. Most of the population (more than 90%) can tell the difference between 24 and 48. Most (over 50%) can tell the difference on any 10fps jump (i.e. 60fps to 70 fps) up to 80 fps IIRC. Beyond that it starts to dwindle, but there's still a substantial chunk (20ish%) that can tell a 10fps difference at 120fps. By 240fps you reach the point where basically no one can tell the difference between that and anything faster, no matter how much faster (e.g. 240 vs 480 fps benefits basically no one).

Also depends on the material, to an extent (4, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827493)

The more fast motion/pans you have, the more noticeable framerate is. If I shoot someone sitting and talking there isn't a ton of difference between the 60fps source and 30fps final product (the AVCHD cameras I use shoot at 60fps progressive). You can see it, but it isn't something that jumps out at you. However if I shoot someone running, the difference is extremely noticeable.

Re:Also depends on the material, to an extent (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827633)

Absolutely, I probably should have clarified that this is all for 'action'. The closer you are to a static image, the less relevant frame rate becomes. No one can tell the difference between 1fps and 600fps on a static image.

Re:Can people actually tell the difference? (2)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827651)

Well, I think this is down to the question of motion blur vs frame rate, It has been shown that humans can perceive frames that are only on screen for an extremely short amount of time, but not that the fluidity matters. That is for example if you record a plane passing by in 24 fps and you miss it - the distance between frames is so that you don't see it - on the other hand if you recorded the scene at >>24 fps, like say 1000 fps and then slowed it down to 24 fps, people would notice the plane but it's not sure they'd be able to tell the 1000 fps clip apart from the 24 fps clip. In fact in high velocity clips they're often down to 18 or 12 fps in order to get the right slow-down effect, without giving the impress that it stutters. Personally I'm in favor of as high frame rate as possible, it can always be scaled down but never scaled up.

Uh (1)

oGMo (379) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827243)

Just watch it. It's amazingly obvious. This isn't audiophile/videophile BS. It's easy to tell the difference between 15, 25, 30, 60 fps in video games. It's very easy to tell that the movie on the big screen is double-frame-rate. It's about as subtle as Michael Bay.

Re:Uh (2, Informative)

medv4380 (1604309) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827627)

Do you know the difference between the Frames in a Video game and the Frames in Film?

The 24 fps frames in film are all Fluid Frames. Games use Still frames since they have no natural motion blur, and when you increase the frame rate you start to improve the blur by overlapping frames. This is the same Audiophile Videophile BS because your eye sees frames at a far lower frame rate, but utilizes the blur in interpret motion. Reducing the blur in the frame by increasing the frame rate will screw with the motion of the image.

Try reading a book [google.com] on the subject. The entire reason they went to 48fps was to try and reduce eye strain during 3D movies. They seem to have forgotten that a 72 refresh rate with a 24 frame rate will do the same thing. Frame by Frame the 48fps will look better when it's still, however, the 24fps will look more natural to your eye when it's playing.

Re:Can people actually tell the difference? (3, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827245)

Ooops you posted twice. :-) BBC video is 25 frames per second..... so I don't understand the comparision.

And HDTV is upto 60 frames per second; aren't people used to seeing a rapid frame rate by now? I guess people are just weird.

Re:Can people actually tell the difference? (1)

Apotekaren (904220) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827393)

Being filmed in 48fps and having a draw rate of 60fps on something filmed in 24fps is VERY different!

Re:Can people actually tell the difference? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827619)

LCDs don't "draw" anything. It's flashed on the screen instantly. And when watching modern shows, they would display 60 frames per second..... much higher than the Hobbit's 48fps.

I suspect all this complaining is that the Hobbit looks like a high-quality TV show, and people don't want it to look like a high-quality TV show (for some stupid reason). It's kinda like saying, "That damn Frozen Planet documentary at 60fps looks too realistic. I prefer NTSC's 30fps; I prefer more flickering."

Re:Can people actually tell the difference? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827317)

Never mind. I see they are complaining that 48fps looks TOO real and too perfect. Kinda like how people complained the CDs sound too cold, and they prefer records. Or that Star Trek weapons looked like pieces of foam when viewed in HD (or even DVD).

I've never thought inferior quality (with jerky frames, lo-resolution, or static sound) was better than higher quality. That would be like saying I prefer to play PC games at 704x240 instead of the current high-def.

Re:Can people actually tell the difference? (1)

AdamHaun (43173) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827325)

I haven't seen 48fps, but I was accidentally subjected to a double-blind test on a 120Hz TV when I watched a Return of the Jedi DVD at my mom's house. It looked like a sitcom, and I figured out within a minute or two what was wrong. I guess I associate high frame rates with cheap TV shows.

Re:Can people actually tell the difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827477)

fps and double-blind tests do not work that way.

Re:Can people actually tell the difference? (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827333)

peer-reviewed? Peter Jackson has peers? Who knew?

Apparently, given the grousing these petulant bloggers post, the difference is easy enough to determine. I imagine action films would be much improved.

Re:Can people actually tell the difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827367)

In the demo's I've seen the difference between 24 and 48 fps is easily notable. Even people with poor vision should see a difference as fps affects motion not detail.

From what I remember you can find studies that show human vision to be equivalent to about 30 fps. The reason we need fps higher than this for the smoothest motion is that our eyes and displays are not synced.

Re:Can people actually tell the difference? (1)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827403)

>> What proportion of the population can actually tell the difference between 24fps and 48fps?

If the film takes 3 1/2 hours to watch and the actors move really slow, they're showing it at 24 fps.

Re:Can people actually tell the difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827481)

What proportion of the population can actually tell the difference between 24fps and 48fps? Have there been any peer-reviewed studies to find out?

There's a huge difference between telling the difference and liking/caring about the difference. It's a very obvious difference, I'd be surprised if 5% of people COULDN'T see if. That does not in any way translate into people LIKING 48fps better than 24fps.

Re:Can people actually tell the difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827581)

All of it? Fewer can explain it. The rest just shrug and say "I dunno, its just different...ya know?"

Can You SHow Me (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827123)

Could you show me what this "70s era BBC-video look" is. Despite having seen lots of 70s era BBC-video, I'm unable to understand what you're talking about based on the description.

Re:Can You SHow Me (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827183)

It looks like a soap opera.

Re:Can You SHow Me (2)

pthisis (27352) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827463)

"Looks like a soap opera" to me means the weird overly contrasty look you get when some of the stupid autocontrast/edge "enhancement" features are turned on on modern TVs.

Re:Can You SHow Me (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827531)

It means those snazzy digital effects that cost millions of dollars are going to go back to looking like cheesy, simple, video overlays that were the standard for "special effects" back in the 70's.

Re:Can You SHow Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827575)

It isn't just image enhancement, it's motion "enhancement" or otherwise known as motion interpolation [wikipedia.org] :

"The "video" look is a byproduct of the perceived increase in framerate due to the interpolation and is commonly referred to as the "Soap Opera Effect" after the way those shows looked, having been shot on cheaper 30 fps video instead of regular broadcast equipment or film""

And that's what they choose to be angry about? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827129)

If I was going to get angry at that preview, I'd go for the fact that the dwarves end up rescuing the three trolls in a battle.What's next, giving The Little Mermaid a happy ending?

Habit (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827139)

The only reason people don't like it is because they are used to film looking another way. It has nothing to do with what is actually happening on screen, or some magical quality that allows 24fps to transport you to another place.

If all films changed to this, in three years no one would have an issue with it. In 10 years, people would say that older movies looked to "fake."

It's all what you are acclimated to.

Re:Habit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827239)

I know it's anon coward, but you may as well mod it up, because it's put plainly and correctly. Of course I only say this as a second AC, because, wtf.

Re:Habit (4, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827257)

No, "Hobbit".

Re:Habit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827339)

No, halfwit.

Re:Habit (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827345)

This.

Re:Habit (4, Insightful)

tool462 (677306) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827405)

I think this is the case. I remember the transition to HDTV. When shows started airing in HD, I remember everything looking unnaturally crisp. It looked fake compared to the "real" 480i I was used to. By the time most shows went HD that effect went away for me, and the SD stuff started looking fake and crappy. I have roughly the same reaction watching SD shows now as I did watching the handful of B&W shows that were still airing when I was a kid. Yeah, it still works, but it definitely feels inferior and old fashioned.

My guess is 48fps movies will be about the same, unless they induce epileptic seizures or something...

Re:Habit (1)

tunapez (1161697) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827585)

I concur, doctor. I also believe it can be improved upon. I hated HD and the 'you have to be within this area and this far from the screen' requirements. No matter if the unit wass a LCD, LED, Plasma or DLP, to me it looked as layered and 'swimmy' as a Viewmaster stereoscopic toy [wikipedia.org] wherever I sat/stood. Things seem to have improved or I'm properly acclimated now. By any measurement I don't sit in the 'required range'. or at the optimum angle...small place and high placement makes it just not possible. However, watching hockey on a 48" DLP in HD is a phenomenal experience* and that's a really good thing because that's all I need it for.
PS: GO YOTES!

* Almost as good as the deliberately downgraded(IMO) SD broadcast is meant to make me appreciate it. Talk about 1970's broadcast quality.

please, please make 48fps available (4, Interesting)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827171)

I'm one of the luck few with sensitive eyes. Watching movies at 24 fps is jarring. I can't wait til they move up to 60 or 120.

Re:please, please make 48fps available (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827539)

You and me both. I mean, I like Wallace and Grommit as much as the next guy, but it shouldn't be every movie and HD show.

When I went to buy my HDTV, I was wondering if everyone else was unable to see the effects, or if it was just me. A setup with Blu-Ray and HDTV is like watching a slideshow. It's jittery as fuck. (I found the Panasonic Viera series has a good picture, so if you're still looking for one, check out one of those.)

I'm not talking about aliasing on LCD (which makes my mind boggle as to why anyone would buy those, but that's a different point.)

From what, film hipsters? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827175)

I mean, the "it looks like a 70's era BBC documentary" gives you a hint there. Who the heck knows what a 70's era BBC documentary even looks like?

I'm sure it will be hated on as much as 3d though. "It looks too much like real life! Also it's new and therefore I hate it."

Re:From what, film hipsters? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827541)

I am not a hipster; you're just twenty years behind. I loved 48fps in 1978 before you even knew what that stood for? But now that it's in theatres that cater to the unwashed public, I hate it. You people don't even understand why what you're looking at is great and have no sense of context, and that makes it terrible. I am now against anything lower than 120px. Oh, you don't know what that is? Well, it doesn't matter; it's used in movies you've probably never heard of.

If movies had originally filmed at 48 FPS (4, Insightful)

mykos (1627575) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827195)

Everyone would say 24 FPS looked like old cell phone videos. The only reason people don't like high framerates is because that's what they were trained "cinema" should look like.

Just whiners (5, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827221)

People have decided that 24fps is "cinematic" since that's what movies have been for so long and so they expect it and hate on things that aren't. They need to STFU and just take some time to appreciate a more real format.

We have cameras at work that shoot 60fps and I just -love- it. It is so silky smooth. When you first see it, it almost seems like something is wrong. Then you realize what is missing is the stutter of 30 (or 24) fps. Things are fluid, much more like they really are. Motion looks great.

We need that in movies. Spatial resolution is getting really good these days, we need better temporal resolution. Get that framerate up there and things will start to look much more real.

People have just come to associate the stuttery crap that is 24fps as being "cinematic". They need to tie a can on it and get over it.

Re:Just whiners (4, Insightful)

Omega Hacker (6676) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827363)

I went to a very early digital cinema festival years ago, and in the round-table discussions all these people were focussing on how "sterile" digital looked, and moaning about how that "film look" was going to die a horrible ugly death, and the world as they knew it was ending. Everybody else was thrilled to death about how the image was actually sharp and consistent, you couldn't see the ugly film grain, colors were sharper, there was no crap stuck to every frame or spinning along down one side, you didn't have frames jumping all over the screen (60ft screen avg vertical jitter is +- 8 inches per frame!), etc etc etc.

Guess what? Digital won, end of story.

The "film purists" will always find something to complain about, while the rest of the world moves on.

Re:Just whiners (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827507)

Film grain is ugly when you have a cinematographer who doesn't understand it well. It can be beautiful if done well. Check out Kubrick's Barry Lyndon or just about anything else he did to see examples of beautiful grain. Avoid the Blu-ray releases. Most have removed the grain because too many modern viewers don't appreciate it. Kubrick would be rolling in his grave if such a thing were possible. Video has taught us that grain is bad because of the poor low light rendering of digital cameras compared to film and noisy compression that can't handle the dynamic range necessary for smooth gradients that film has no trouble with.

Re:Just whiners (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827549)

I remember those discussions as well, except the conclusion was more "Yeah, this DV kinda looks like crap, but film costs so much I can't afford it, and I can't easily edit it on my Mac in my spare time."

Digital didn't really win until the HD systems came out with better color reproduction, no interlace, etc.

Re:Just whiners (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827385)

Spatial resolution is getting really good these days, we need better temporal resolution.

Translation: 4K digital films have finally caught up to 35mm films, now we just need to find a way to prevent digital films from exaggerating the judder that people used to be able to mitigate by changing shutter speeds during pans. Once that happens, we will totally be back to where we started (except in teal & orange this time)!

Re:Just whiners (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827389)

Yup... it turns out for the most part 60 fps isn't that bad for compression either, unless things are moving crazy fast - in which case you want higher framerate anyway - then a drama at 60 fps is not that different to 24 fps. I'd certainly like 60/50 fps as the new standard, too bad they don't multiply until 600 fps which is far too much for any human eye.

Re:Just whiners (4, Interesting)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827535)

60fps isn't a visual or motion problem for people, but a psychological one. Footage based on nature (wildlife, flyovers etc) or fast paced sports action is very pleasing at the 60fps rate. But, when you're having to watch people at those rates, it feels too realistic for people's comfort. For some, it's a feeling of invasiveness while for others it breaks the suspension of disbelief. Basically, their acting looks fake because now the temporal resolution is much higher for an actor than you're normally accustomed to. For example, if you suck as an actor at 24fps, that actor is really going to suck at 60fps. The subtle nuances become more prominent to us.

Re:Just whiners (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827545)

...I just -love- it. It is so silky smooth...

Like buttah, huh?

Re:Just whiners (1)

beantherio (922523) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827569)

It's just that 48/60/100 fps looks VERY ugly. Danish director Lars von Trier shot a lot of his movies at higher framerate digital video to get a more "dirty" documentary-like look. It may be more realistic but I don't want a film like The Hobbit to look "realistic". I want it to look like a fantasy and that is what 24 fps makes it look like.

Re:Just whiners (1)

kikito (971480) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827571)

"People have decided that 24fps is "cinematic" since that's what movies have been for so long and so they expect it and hate on things that aren't"

People have decided that 2D is "cinematic" since that's what movies have been for so long and so they expect it and hate on things that aren't. They need to STFU and just take some time to appreciate a more real format.

No?

I thought so.

So? (5, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827235)

lending the film a '70s era BBC-video look

Well, it's a story about olden-times in England, isn't it?

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827359)

lending the film a '70s era BBC-video look

Well, it's a story about olden-times in England, isn't it?

Actually I think it's about World War 1.

'70s era BBC-video look...? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827253)

Awesome, does that mean it has tom baker and liz sladen in it? Instant hit!

Modern 120Hz+ HDTVs (1, Interesting)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827275)

Anyone who has watched a movie on a modern 120Hz+ HDTV knows exactly what they're talking about.

Suddenly "film" looks like "video", and it "just doesn't look right". To the point of being annoying.

And it's so clear, that sometimes you can see make-up lines on necks, and other signs of "fakery" used in productions, that totally take you out of the moment and spoil the suspension of disbelief.

When I got my new HDTV, I had to spend an hour or two playing with the settings to "detune" the image so as not to be so damn clear and sharp and, for lack of a better word, "shiney". It took a while to get the colors to look okay, to get the sense of motion/motion-blur right, etc.

It's still not perfect, but at least it's not visually jarring and annoying.

I have to wonder if, when the movie is distributed, there will be guidelines for configuring the digital projectors to optimize the movie experience for viewers not used to the "new" look...

Re:Modern 120Hz+ HDTVs (5, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827397)

Stop thinking of "movies" and "TV shows" as being separate entities. It's all basically the same (actors on fake sets), and the only distinction that exists is all in your mind.

In fact a lot of 2000-era movies don't even use film anymore..... they're using HD videocams. Same thing TV productions use.

Re:Modern 120Hz+ HDTVs (2, Interesting)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827491)

While true, that is all utterly and completely irrelevant to what I posted. The reality is that the higher refresh-rates and "processing" going on in modern HDTVs makes "film" look like "video", regardless of the source. If you haven't seen the effect I'm talking about, you should make an effort.

Re:Modern 120Hz+ HDTVs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827443)

Those TVs are taking a non-120 Hz source and converting it, though. Surely a film designed around the faster framerate, in terms of motion and effects, would look better? Like how the film-to-digital transition is forcing cinematographers to re-learn how to shoot, the people involved in production just need time to learn how to use the new technology properly.

Re:Modern 120Hz+ HDTVs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827473)

This.

When I moved to a 120Hz TV I had to gradually increase the settings to default over a few days before everything stopping looking like it was TV news. I don't perceive it anymore, but at first it was REALLY jarring.

Re:Modern 120Hz+ HDTVs (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827557)

I totally understand. When I got my HDTV I found the wide aspect ratio to be completely annoying. So I taped black construction paper to the left and right side of the screen, and while it isn't perfect, it is a lot less visually jarring.

Re:Modern 120Hz+ HDTVs (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827567)

...playing with the settings to "detune" the image so as not to be so damn clear and sharp...

I'm in the other camp. When watching my favorite news caster I crank that stuff to maximum. She has the cutest dimples...

Re:Modern 120Hz+ HDTVs (1)

dorianh49 (988940) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827673)

Dejudder. Turn it off, and all will be well.

Psychological? (4, Interesting)

Kylon99 (2430624) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827279)

"THE HOBBIT, frankly, did not look cinematic."

Is it because we are conditioned that the low frames per second represent a 'movie?' I remember seeing an FPS one time at 60 fps, not realizing right away that it was supposed to be a FPS and not a movie and my first and immediate response my brain gave me is, "wtf is this?!" It seems different frame rates make me think it's a different 'experience' of sorts, a game, a TV broadcast, etc. (Even say the 60fps black and white from back awhile ago... was it 60fps?) So I think I understand the feeling, even though I tell myself that I prefer the 48 frames per second. Because I then see the action in some other movies, say, Gladiator, at 24 fps and I see just how bad the action is represented.

I really *do* want to see more motion/information on the screen and I'm willing to put myself through reconditioning to do so.
But I'm not sure everyone else will, or even understands it this way.

Has anyone else noticed this effect?

Blur reduction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827293)

It's like newer TVs with blur reduction.

I can't stand it when it's turned on, it gives everything a "soap opera" look. Intellectually, I know what I'm seeing is "better" but emotionally I hate it. After 30 years of watching everything with motion blur, my eyes just expect it when watching the TV.

Let me be the judge, please... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827299)

Just send me the 10 minutes, and I'll review it in the comfort of my home and let you all know how it is :).

Games (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827305)

We already have video games running at much higher framerates, it's about time the movie industry caught up with the times. Most nature documentaries are already filmed at a few hundred fps and then have to be sampled back, which is a shame.

These people are stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827307)

I'm sick of jerking/studdering/tearing during fast action and large pans.
I went out and purchased a 120hz monitor not for 3D, but so I could have smoother action in fast paced games. TF2 and L4D2 look amazing when you have twice as many frames.

In film, frame rate = exposure time (5, Informative)

Fahrvergnuugen (700293) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827343)

Because the shutter is fixed, the exposure time of each frame is directly related to the frame rate. Lower frame rate = longer exposure = more motion blur in the frame. Shorter frame rate = shorter exposure = less motion blur in each frame. You need more light to shoot at a higher frame rate to keep the same aperture setting.

So, if they do project this at 24 frames per second (by throwing away half the frames in post), the frames will not have the necessary motion blur and it will actually look worse because half the frames are missing. This could also probably be fixed in post, but that would be a pretty big hack for such a large production.

Re:In film, frame rate = exposure time (2)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827379)

This wasn't shot on film. The exposure time in digital has nothing to do with the frame rate.

Re:In film, frame rate = exposure time (4, Informative)

Fahrvergnuugen (700293) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827515)

This wasn't shot on film. The exposure time in digital has nothing to do with the frame rate.

I didn't realize it was shot digitally, but you're statement isn't completely true. If you shoot something at 48FPS then the slowest possible frame rate you can have is 1/48th of a second in digital. Digital does give you the chance have a faster shutter speed though.

Here's the kicker though, in film you have to double it. So 24fps would give you 1/48th shutter speed (half open half closed) meaning the motion blur for 48fps digital vs 24fps film should be the same, which explains why they picked 48fps - it afforded them the option to do either 48fps, slow motion or 24fps in post without giving anything up (except disk space).

Re:In film, frame rate = exposure time (1)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827509)

There has been incredibly little motion blur in movies for decades now. The exposure time remains very short, even if the frame rate is low, to intentionally make each frame "clearer" by reducing motion blur. This is compensated by having lots of glass to bring in enough light.

Can we just get it over with. (1, Interesting)

lattyware (934246) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827353)

Just everyone do it, and in a few months, everyone will have forgotten this insane thing and be used to it.

Re:Can we just get it over with. (1)

kikito (971480) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827611)

I will not if cinemas start charging more because "hey, in glorious 48fps".

It'll take a little getting used to, that's all (5, Interesting)

ajegwu (1142365) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827365)

When my old TV finally gave up the magic smoke, I replaced it with a modern 240Hz LCD panel. The first show we watched on it was Lost. Everyone immediately said it looked fake. It was compared to a low budget History Channel documentary instead of a high budget network show. Within a week or two no one I lived with seemed to notice the difference any more. It was just different, therefore something for most people to complain about, until it became the new normal.

No need for 48 FPS...? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827375)

24 FPS ought to be enough for anybody.

Re:No need for 48 FPS...? (2)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827525)

640fps should be enough for anybody.

Re:No need for 48 FPS...? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827601)

shut up.

Think opening scene of Resevoir dogs (1)

Rooked_One (591287) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827377)

yea... The black and white one where its filmed at 12 FPS. I bet the theme song is already in your head.

Now go watch it! :D

I remember when the first tv's that were interpolating frames came out... Besides for sports, higher frame rates, to me, take something away from what you're viewing. Its like the "artistic" element is tarnished.

Soap Operas (1)

Riddler Sensei (979333) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827427)

It's my understanding that the reason many soap operas look and feel so cheesy (outside of the acting, story, etc.) is that they are filmed at a much higher framerate than is typical and many find it jarring, or bizarre.

Same as 120/240Hz HDTVs, I can't stand it (2, Interesting)

rAiNsT0rm (877553) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827523)

I have tried time after time to get used to it but I can't. The overly smooth look pulls me out of what I'm watching and makes it look fake, to the point that it doesn't seem natural. There is something off about it but I don't know what it is, real life doesn't have that look so I think there is some other factor at play here that makes people (myself included) react this way.

Re:Same as 120/240Hz HDTVs, I can't stand it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827667)

That's because the frame rate of real life is 58 FPS (~60 FPS). That is about a quarter of the frame rate of your 240 Hz LCD TV, that's why your TV looks overly smooth.

Coincidentally, I watch all my early BBC video (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39827621)

On crappy, 50Hz PAL VHS tapes on an old, tiny CRT display, the way GOD and the BBC intended!

Give me a break. How could 48fps *possibly* not look better than 24fps? As it is, when things move quickly at 24fps in a regular movie I feel like yelling "focus!!" because the blurring is so bad, or it's terribly choppy.

If people are so upset about it they should hand out a pair of glasses with vaseline smeared on the lenses for people pining for that "authentic" cinematic look. Either that or it isn't the framerate that is the problem.

Meanwhile, the "framerate" of the website linked in the article is rather underwhelming.

the footage wasn't even color-graded (2)

unami (1042872) | more than 2 years ago | (#39827645)

that's something that also makes it look "cheaper" than the final product will be - something that only a few people would notice consciously - but it makes a huge difference. anyways, the 24fps framerate is one thing that we are conditioned to associate with cinematic movies. i doubt it's really bad looking it's just a type of look associated with tv. the lack of color-grading probably underlines the tv-look even more. the only thing i'm afraid of.... i don't see any theater in my country switching to 48fps projection. and even if some of the big multiplexes do.. those are the ones who only play shitty dubbed versions of films. so i'll probably have the worst of both worlds - jerky 24fps projection without the 24fps motion blur (which will probably make it even more jerkier). this sucks.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>