I hate 60fps in movies. I once stumbled upon LOTR in 60 fps and at first I thought it was some documentary about horses and then goblins appeared :v:
[QUOTE=Rusty100;37398831]Except that 60fps looks like shit[/QUOTE]
The only reason you think that is because we've all been used to watching shitty 24fps movies for the entirety of our lives, if you spent a week watching only 60fps content on a TV that supports it you'll see how bad 24p actually is compared to it.
the reason that 60fps looks so bad is that everything is far too focused. they're always deep focus shots and with everything in motion and overly fluid it looks entirely unnatural.
take your hand and wave it in front of your face. you don't see one discrete hand moving back and forth, you see a constant blur back and forth. the only way to maintain that focus is by staring and following your hand back and forth with your eyes. our eyes aren't "perfect" like these cameras are, so to see something that's "perfect" is really off. that, on top of the fact that our eyes only can focus on like 3-4 degrees of radiance and everything else generally blurs out.
just because you can see everything in a 60fps shot doesn't make it better or more immersive, it actually draws you out. you see it less as a representation of reality and more of a "whoawhoaa look at this image"
[editline]25th August 2012[/editline]
motion is not supposed to look fluid and perfectly visible. the world is inherently filled with imperfections.
Most 60fps films look like shit because they're not made for 60 fps rather than simply upscaled from 24fps.
making any seriously formed opinion on 48/60fps before seeing an entire film in it is dumb and ignorant. it's such a new experience that you're never going to fully understand it by watching a 10 second clip in an article or a fast-cutting presentation at a technology expo. the peculiar sensation you get from watching it is reported to go after the first 10 minutes or so (just like when you play a game at a low fps for a long time, you start to get less bothered by it, or like how you stop noticing 3D so much in a 3D film)
the parallel in the article about CD/vinyl is very similar. this notion that something is "too good" that it's weird is not new. i'm excited to see the hobbit in 48 so i can really understand it. then i'll decide what i think about this progressive vs conservative argument
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;37401864]making any seriously formed opinion on 48/60fps before seeing an entire film in it is dumb and ignorant. it's such a new experience that you're never going to fully understand it by watching a 10 second clip in an article or a fast-cutting presentation at a technology expo. the peculiar sensation you get from watching it is reported to go after the first 10 minutes or so (just like when you play a game at a low fps for a long time, you start to get less bothered by it, or like how you stop noticing 3D so much in a 3D film)
the parallel in the article about CD/vinyl is very similar. this notion that something is "too good" that it's weird is not new. i'm excited to see the hobbit in 48 so i can really understand it. then i'll decide what i think about this progressive vs conservative argument[/QUOTE]
It has nothing to do with it being a new experience. New and jarring don't go hand in hand. But that's what a high framerate for film is, incredibly jarring. Anybody that says they get used to it is probably kidding themselves and wants to get used to it because it's 'cooler' rather than actually enjoying it.
As stated in brickinheads post, that level of focus and smoothness is unnatural and you don't see things that smooth and in focus in every day life. 24fps better emulates how we actually see objects in real life. not that we see in frames. but as a representative of how we do see, 24fps is much closer.
[editline]26th August 2012[/editline]
Have you ever tried watching TV on one of those 120hz TV's with motion smoothing on?
I was watching tv at a friends who had it enabled and I asked him why and he said 'eh, i'm used to it'. but it was so jarring for me that I turned it off and he immediately went 'holy shit, this is so much better'.
i dunno i'll just wait and see i guess because there's no way i'm going to be able to make an informed opinion based on short footage i can find in articles about it
and i bet CDs and 24fps films n stuff were jarring at first too?
it's yet another gimmick people are buying into without actually evaluating it intelligently
there are more important technological hurdles:
make digital film as close to celluloid as you can and make your films better
We don't need more gimmicky technologies that distract from the film driving up ticket prices, we've been disillusioned over 3d already, this is just history repeating itself
[QUOTE=DinoJesus;37398984]Except that's your (arguably wrong) opinion and not fact.[/QUOTE]
you do know you're talking to Rusty100
his opinion is never wrong and is always fact
[QUOTE=RubberFruit;37376129]60fps looks nice and immersive for certain things, but for film, just no. Always go 24 or 25.
The 60fps video of that logo looked silly, like a home movie. Actually, watching enough of 60fps can hurt your eyes.[/QUOTE]
you are literally retarded
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;37401778]the reason that 60fps looks so bad is that everything is far too focused. they're always deep focus shots and with everything in motion and overly fluid it looks entirely unnatural.
take your hand and wave it in front of your face. you don't see one discrete hand moving back and forth, you see a constant blur back and forth. the only way to maintain that focus is by staring and following your hand back and forth with your eyes. our eyes aren't "perfect" like these cameras are, so to see something that's "perfect" is really off. that, on top of the fact that our eyes only can focus on like 3-4 degrees of radiance and everything else generally blurs out.
just because you can see everything in a 60fps shot doesn't make it better or more immersive, it actually draws you out. you see it less as a representation of reality and more of a "whoawhoaa look at this image"
[editline]25th August 2012[/editline]
motion is not supposed to look fluid and perfectly visible. the world is inherently filled with imperfections.[/QUOTE]
Well said; that's exactly why I'm so uncomfortable when watching high-FPS film. I'm not sure where this apparent disgust with motion blur came from.
Surely providing the maximum amount of information for our brains to deal with is better? Because our eyes will be able to create this 'realistic' frame blending themselves instead of us doing it beforehand with a computer?
I've always believed our brains crave data, and the more data you give them the more they enjoy an experience. That's why doubling the resolution and frame rate make you go 'whoa that looks nice' when you play a game. The more the resolution and frame rate mimic real life the more realistic the experience. When I shoot footage at 60fps I think it looks better and more real than 24fps footage in films. This is entirely 'oh god it's different I don't like it', even from 'experts'. I bet if you sat people down for a week with no access to low frame rate footage they'd find 24fps unwatchable.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;37401929]
Have you ever tried watching TV on one of those 120hz TV's with motion smoothing on?
I was watching tv at a friends who had it enabled and I asked him why and he said 'eh, i'm used to it'. but it was so jarring for me that I turned it off and he immediately went 'holy shit, this is so much better'.[/QUOTE]
That's because the concept of motion smoothing is retarded. You can't pull information out of your arse and expect it to look real.
No, fuck that, I don't care what I'm used to I don't need my movies looking like pbs
[QUOTE=Rusty100;37401929]It has nothing to do with it being a new experience. New and jarring don't go hand in hand. But that's what a high framerate for film is, incredibly jarring. Anybody that says they get used to it is probably kidding themselves and wants to get used to it because it's 'cooler' rather than actually enjoying it.
As stated in brickinheads post, that level of focus and smoothness is unnatural and you don't see things that smooth and in focus in every day life. 24fps better emulates how we actually see objects in real life. not that we see in frames. but as a representative of how we do see, 24fps is much closer.
[editline]26th August 2012[/editline]
Have you ever tried watching TV on one of those 120hz TV's with motion smoothing on?
I was watching tv at a friends who had it enabled and I asked him why and he said 'eh, i'm used to it'. but it was so jarring for me that I turned it off and he immediately went 'holy shit, this is so much better'.[/QUOTE]
because frame interpolation isn't the same as native high framerate video, you still have the motion blur from the 24FPS footage and coupled with the obligatory artifacts this looks a bit jarring
high framerate video doesn't have the same insane amount of motion blur 24FPS video has, while it's true that our eyes do naturally blur things that move too fast to process properly, this happens unconsciously and you almost never see it; the only reason 24FPS is fluid is because of the motion blur; 60FPS doesn't need it. Your eyes'll blur stuff that's moving too fast anyway, they do in games IIRC
So they're spending more money of FPS so it can look cheaper?
Unless the film is shown in 3D, there's no reason to watch it this way.
Another hurdle is that more frames equal way bigger filesize. I don't see how you can fit a feature length film at 60fps even on a blu-ray disc. Not only does it look horrible but it's also impractical
[editline]26th August 2012[/editline]
I'd argue that a good camera makes things look much more lifelike than a higher fps.
If anyone's watched The Dark Knight on Blu-ray for example, the IMAX scenes look superb and feel lifelike without the jarring quality of having an absurdly high fps.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;37402306]Another hurdle is that more frames equal way bigger filesize. I don't see how you can fit a feature length film at 60fps even on a blu-ray disc. Not only does it look horrible but it's also impractical
[editline]26th August 2012[/editline]
I'd argue that a good camera makes things look much more lifelike than a higher fps.
If anyone's watched The Dark Knight on Blu-ray for example, the IMAX scenes look superb and feel lifelike without the jarring quality of having an absurdly high fps.[/QUOTE]
Ah man, the intro to The Dark Knight is GORGEOUS on Blu-ray. Another jaw-dropping transfer is Game of Thrones; best picture I've seen on a blu-ray in a long while.
Yeah it actually makes more sense to use bigger film like 70mm stock than pursue something that is arbitrary and not really a milestone like 60 fps
but a little impractical and super expensive right now
[QUOTE=qwerty000;37401510]I hate 60fps in movies. [B]I once stumbled upon LOTR in 60 fps[/B] and at first I thought it was some documentary about horses and then goblins appeared :v:[/QUOTE]
I dont even
Not to mention people have been watching 24fps their whole lives, the transition can be jarring. I'm hoping 48 wont be ignored.
60 fps on movies just looks really weird, I think the Japanese Grudge is in 60 FPS, it just looked weird watching it.
The thing with 48+ fps movies is that they're too crisp clear.
Real life is not crisp clear, it's like watching a videogame, and that is not good.
IIRC the sexy Blur studio CGI game trailers (SWTOR, Prey2 etc) are in 30fps, I'd watch the shit out of a film that looked like that.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;37401864]making any seriously formed opinion on 48/60fps before seeing an entire film in it is dumb and ignorant. it's such a new experience that you're never going to fully understand it by watching a 10 second clip in an article or a fast-cutting presentation at a technology expo. the peculiar sensation you get from watching it is reported to go after the first 10 minutes or so (just like when you play a game at a low fps for a long time, you start to get less bothered by it, or like how you stop noticing 3D so much in a 3D film)
the parallel in the article about CD/vinyl is very similar. this notion that something is "too good" that it's weird is not new. i'm excited to see the hobbit in 48 so i can really understand it. then i'll decide what i think about this progressive vs conservative argument[/QUOTE]
i've watched a 48fps film
it looked bad.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;37403327]i've watched a 48fps film
it looked bad.[/QUOTE]
Was it a good film?
Not being willing to switch to 60FPS because you're used to 24FPS is the most hilarious thing I've ever seen
also, you're used to 24FPS and some frame blending
Oh man, I can't wait for 60/48 fps full HD movies!
i don't know how you can defend 24 fps at all, i can't wait for everything to be atleast 60 fps
[QUOTE=alien_guy;37403385]Was it a good film?[/QUOTE]
it was alright. some movie about the stock market collapse and a wall street kid who created an algorithm that detected it a few days in advance and tried to help save his company from collapse
it was a stage film so the fact that everything was too deeply focused and clear was greatly exacerbated, plus on top of the fact it was on a 120hz tv (which probably had motion enhancers on) made it all worse
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buSaywCF6E8&hd=1[/media]
Also, this is a quite informative video about how the human eye perceives fps.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
