[QUOTE=DinoJesus;39153452]If anything we should be pushing higher framerates. 24 fps is the bare minimum framerate you can keep and still have realistic lip movement for speech. I'd say it's about damn time we move on from that. We've got 1080p, why not try to excel in other areas?
Just because soap operas did it first is no excuse not to push our tech. Our current movies almost look choppy with there low framerates.[/QUOTE]
Is that why programs like Eastenders seem to be playing at a faster speed?
[QUOTE=Wormy;39153143]I am okay with this because I will never be able to experience 3D with my eyes anyway.[/QUOTE]
Another on the same boat as I. Suffer from lazy eye myself
[QUOTE=dagoth_ur;39157579]Another on the same boat as I. Suffer from lazy eye myself[/QUOTE]
I can't see it either, despite not having lazy eye. I think it's something to do with me being colourblind.
I had two 3d enabled devices. A 3d laptop and a PS3.
The PS3 3d was really shit. The effect was hardly there and you only really noticed it when particles occasionally flied near the game camera.
But with the laptop, I could crank the 3d effect to crazy fucking high levels. Playing TF2 with ultra high 3d settings was fucking crazy awesome.
There is potential with 3d, but it needs to be worked on a bit more.
3D is fucking awesome when done right
The problem is that its a nice feature to have, which puts it close to "gimmick" territory. The fact that you need to shell out SERIOUS cash to get actually -good- 3D (making it a technology that is never used for the general market), the fact that you need glasses to get it to work and as such can't just sit down and start watching with 3D, the fact that nobody used 3D except in specific content like 3D-supported PS3 or PC games or something, etc all put it into territory that would be niche as best.
I really like 3D when done right, it's really cool. The problem is it will never be widely adopted and popular unless the standards of 3D making not only are universally high quality but also universally adopted, it will never be popular as long as you have to wear glasses for it to work, it will never be popular as long as it costs more than a used car to get a display that properly supports it, etc.
It's cool but niche. I really like how the 3DS does 3d - you don't need glasses, its cheap, and it works well enough. You can also simply turn it off if it bothers you.
I also think how the Occulus Rift does 3D is really damn cool to. It uses head tracking to determine the "space" that objects are located at, so you get stuff that looks 3D without using glasses or fancy display technology at all.
Example of how headtracking can be used to create 3D visuals on standard TV's:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw[/media]
I can't be the only one who's got great vision and still doesn't see a difference between 2d and 3d movies can I?
I remember watching Avatar, Transformers 3, Pirates 4 and some other stuff all in 3d and other than annoying cranium-crushing shit tacked onto my head there was no difference in the movie watching experience. No "OOOO AAAAAA" 3d effects, no "oh that's fancy!" stuff, no nothing. Just a huge waste of money to be honest.
[QUOTE=Legolas;39158861]I can't be the only one who's got great vision and still doesn't see a difference between 2d and 3d movies can I?
I remember watching Avatar, Transformers 3, Pirates 4 and some other stuff all in 3d and other than annoying cranium-crushing shit tacked onto my head there was no difference in the movie watching experience. No "OOOO AAAAAA" 3d effects, no "oh that's fancy!" stuff, no nothing. Just a huge waste of money to be honest.[/QUOTE]
Properly done 3D doesn't shoot out of the screen at you. Doing so is gimmicky.
It's immersive if done correctly. It's not meant to be jaw dropping. It's just supposed to add depth to an image.
I never considred it real 3D anyways. Technically you're still watching a 2D surface manipulation that relied on fucking your perspective.
[QUOTE=download;39152984]3D tvs won't be popular until they can figure out how to do it without glasses[/QUOTE]
And for people blind in one eye. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Wb70W.gif[/IMG]
Holodecks tbh.
[QUOTE=Scot;39156646]
Are 120Hz monitors actually worth it?[/QUOTE]
Yes! It's my best investment of 2012. Makes games feel much more smoother, it's worth it even if you have to lower some settings to make it run at a higher framerate.
[QUOTE=MIPS;39159880]I never considred it real 3D anyways. Technically you're still watching a 2D surface manipulation that relied on fucking your perspective.[/QUOTE]
You're feeding your eyes two separate perspectives, like they'd get from any other object. Your eyes are still effectively seeing 2D images everywhere. We have a flat retina.
[QUOTE=Scot;39156646]
Are 120Hz monitors actually worth it?[/QUOTE]
If your PC can't run games faster than 60 fps you won't see a difference
I don't understand why someone would watch a film at a higher frame rate. Anything above 24 fps just looks super smooth and unnatural. I think 24 fps has been the standard for 100 years is because its the most realistic. Shooting at a higher fps so you can slow it down in post is fine, but to keep it at that frame rate is just strange. I think the main reason The Hobbit was shot at 48 was because, at that rate, there is less motion blur allowing tracking in post to be much easier for the vfx artists.
[QUOTE=Rings of Saturn;39160805]I don't understand why someone would watch a film at a higher frame rate. Anything above 24 fps just looks super smooth and unnatural. I think 24 fps has been the standard for 100 years is because its the most realistic. Shooting at a higher fps so you can slow it down in post is fine, but to keep it at that frame rate is just strange. I think the main reason The Hobbit was shot at 48 was because, at that rate, there is less motion blur allowing tracking in post to be much easier for the vfx artists.[/QUOTE]
Super smooth and unnatural, what, you mean like real life?
I hate everyone who is against higher frame rates. It's the very definition of old fuddy-duddys being resistant to change for literally no reason other than "well it looks different from what I'm used to and I just can't handle that".
Seriously, anyone who honestly believes that lower framerates are better, try playing your games at 24fps compared to 60. It's just fucking silly.
[QUOTE=Corey_Faure;39153434]What drove me away from the 3D fad is that, when it was just kind of starting out, animated movies would have something that would fly into the camera on purpose, unnecessarily, every minute, as if to say [b]"you see this? DO YOU SEE THIS? It's 3D look at it RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE"[/b].[/QUOTE]
perfect for porn
[QUOTE=J Paul;39160860]Super smooth and unnatural, what, you mean like real life?
I hate everyone who is against higher frame rates. It's the very definition of old fuddy-duddys being resistant to change for literally no reason other than "well it looks different from what I'm used to and I just can't handle that".
Seriously, anyone who honestly believes that lower framerates are better, try playing your games at 24fps compared to 60. It's just fucking silly.[/QUOTE]
While I'm in support of higher framerates if it can be made to look natural and high-quality (and I have yet to see this happen), your comparison to videogames is completely invalid. A 24fps movie rarely has any issues displaying realistic and smooth movement, save for camera pans which tend to judder a fair deal. To compensate, our brains use something called the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phi_phenomenon]Phi Phenomenon[/url] as well as what was colloquially known as "Persistence of Vision" (which was mostly debunked, but still serves to explain why we don't see the black frames in low-fps video) to interpolate between the frames and smooth out the motion, and motion blur also smooths out the image immensely. The latter is the reason why Crysis 1 & 2 are surprisingly playable at 20-25 fps while most other games are unplayable at that framerate.
I'm all for high FPS once a director can prove to me that it's really the next step for movies and television. I've heard The Hobbit did it well, but I don't have a theater anywhere near me that's playing at 48fps :(
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;39161118]While I'm in support of higher framerates if it can be made to look natural and high-quality (and I have yet to see this happen), your comparison to videogames is completely invalid. A 24fps movie rarely has any issues displaying realistic and smooth movement, save for camera pans which tend to judder a fair deal. To compensate, our brains use something called the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phi_phenomenon]Phi Phenomenon[/url] as well as what was colloquially known as "Persistence of Vision" (which was mostly debunked, but still serves to explain why we don't see the black frames in low-fps video) to interpolate between the frames and smooth out the motion, and motion blur also smooths out the image immensely. The latter is the reason why Crysis 1 & 2 are surprisingly playable at 20-25 fps while most other games are unplayable at that framerate.
I'm all for high FPS once a director can prove to me that it's really the next step for movies and television. I've heard The Hobbit did it well, but I don't have a theater anywhere near me that's playing at 48fps :([/QUOTE]
I personally see it as a very valid comparison because I've always felt that 24fps movies are slow and choppy, I really don't know how everyone else doesn't see a problem with it.
[QUOTE=J Paul;39161141]I personally see it as a very valid comparison because I've always felt that 24fps movies are slow and choppy, I really don't know how everyone else doesn't see a problem with it.[/QUOTE]
I honestly don't notice any choppiness at all, unless it's a really long pan over a landscape (and even then it's almost imperceptible for me).
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;39161181]I honestly don't notice any choppiness at all, unless it's a really long pan over a landscape (and even then it's almost imperceptible for me).[/QUOTE]
Yeah and that's perfectly understandable, I'm sure that a lot of people don't perceive it, but should we really stick with a shitty, terrible old standard just because most people don't pay enough attention to notice why it's bad? I'd rather have a new framerate where we all agree there's no problem instead of sticking with an old framerate that has problems displaying certain things and must be cleaned up with motion blur.
I mean the only argument for keeping movies in 24FPS is "I DON'T LIKE CHANGE", and come on, that's just ridiculous. When has that argument ever been a rational argument for anything? When has that argument ever come out of the mouth of someone who isn't completely insane? Don't you guys understand that that's the same argument you see being used ubiquitously on those freak shows about dealing with people who have mental illness, like Hoarders and Intervention and even some episodes of Kitchen Nightmares? I mean I could understand if there was literally any other argument, but that's seriously the only one anyone ever brings up, that it's different. Well of course it's fucking different, it's better, it should be different.
See you in another 20 or so years 3D TV :v:
[QUOTE=J Paul;39161141]I personally see it as a very valid comparison because I've always felt that 24fps movies are slow and choppy, I really don't know how everyone else doesn't see a problem with it.[/QUOTE]
The reason it's not a great comparison is that 24fps video compensates for the crap framerate, while most PC games don't (As mentioned, once you add motion blur the framerate can drop without noticeable issues)
But that's not a reason why 24fps video is "better", the fact that you have to work around the main problem that just isn't present at higher framerates should be proof enough that it's not as good.
[QUOTE=J Paul;39160860]Super smooth and unnatural, what, you mean like real life?
I hate everyone who is against higher frame rates. It's the very definition of old fuddy-duddys being resistant to change for literally no reason other than "well it looks different from what I'm used to and I just can't handle that".
Seriously, anyone who honestly believes that lower framerates are better, try playing your games at 24fps compared to 60. It's just fucking silly.[/QUOTE]
While I do think videogames play better at higher frame rates, movies don't. A film shot at 60fps does not look like real life. It just seems jellow-y if you know what I mean. It just doesn't look right. 24fps is part of what gives movies that "cinematic look". It has nothing to do with being stuborn with the changes in technology.
i used to think 3D was dumb, then i got a 3ds and it seems so natural.
but i wouldn't want a stupid tv where i had to wear glasses to use it either. it is a neat technology, but something that still isn't ready for realization.
[QUOTE=Rings of Saturn;39161620]While I do think videogames play better at higher frame rates, movies don't. A film shot at 60fps does not look like real life. It just seems jellow-y if you know what I mean. It just doesn't look right. 24fps is part of what gives movies that "cinematic look". It has nothing to do with being stuborn with the changes in technology.[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about, it has everything to do with being stubborn. You just said it doesn't have that "cinematic look", that it "just doesn't look right". That means it just doesn't look right compared to what you're used to, and that's being resistant to change because it doesn't matter what you're used to, what you're used to from the past has nothing to do with what we can get used to in the future.
Video content in 60fps is fucking awesome, I don't know what you're talking about. Have you seen porn in 720p60? Shit's fucking ridiculous son. You can see every god damn jiggle.
[QUOTE=DinoJesus;39153425]I feel sorry for one sighted people who have to put up with all this 3d bullshit they can't even see.[/QUOTE]
For me, I'm not even sure if I can perceive depth correctly. I can see out of both eyes, but my right eye is far more dominant than the left, probably because the left is slightly lazy. In fact, I can't make a discernible difference between a picture from a camera and the real world spatially.
As such, if I watch a movie in 3D, it gives this weird spatial effect (like flickering). Its a bit annoying.
The only movie I've ever seen in 3D, was Jackass 3D.
The dildos. The writhing 3D dildos.
[QUOTE=FluD;39153142]Never seen 3D tv :v:[/QUOTE]
is it just me but when ever I go to a 3D TV Demo they are all ways turn off . ? great way to make me want to pay and Extra 700$ puls the $500 for the normal price ($1200)
[QUOTE=Rings of Saturn;39161620]While I do think videogames play better at higher frame rates, movies don't. A film shot at 60fps does not look like real life. It just seems jellow-y if you know what I mean. It just doesn't look right. 24fps is part of what gives movies that "cinematic look". It has nothing to do with being stuborn with the changes in technology.[/QUOTE]
"I am used and raised with the old stuff"
Hopefully the next big advancement is burn-in prevention.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
