Does 30fps feel more "cinematic" than 60fps?

Has to be upscaling. Even PJ himself has confirmed in interviews that the post work was all 2K.

I still think it's more detailed than any non-digitally filmed blockbuster, and in HFR it's somewhat sharper looking than the average 24fps movie because of the lower amounts of motion blur.
 
After watching The Hobbit in 3D HFR I have to say "Whoa". I found it quite incredible how much clearer and smoother the picture was. The lack of motion blur made the picture seem so incredibly sharp and details were very clear even in motion. To me much of the movie felt like I was watching a stage play with real people right there in front of me. Sure, I would agree, It was less cinematic, but that doesn't make it worse. It was different. As you'd expect HFR is going to be incredibly useful for films with fast action sequences. It was quite incredible that even with lots and lots of stuff going on it was so easy to follow. Its going to be a learning process to use HFR well. I'm sure lots of film maker will avoid it, but there will be others out there that can see what it does and they'll exploit it.
 
Isn't there a 4K 3D HFR version of The Hobbit playing in some IMAX cinemas? How was the 4K version produced if the "master" version is in 2K? Upscaling?

IMAX 3D version of the Hobbit is 24 FPS. And it's rather jarring with quite obvious juddering/studdering in anything with more than lazy motion. Panning shots can be especially jarring.

I probably should have caught the 48 FPS version (it sounds much more pleasant from a 3D standpoint) but I really wanted to see it on a BIG screen.

Regards,
SB
 
Can a 48fps Hobbit trailer be downloaded? I got one (2D, which is what I'm looking for anyway) but it's a fake - official web site's classic framerate trailer with software interpolation. It was even aadvertised as 48fps but the file was 60fps.

I didn't see the movie and would more be interested in seeing 2D 48fps.
sorry, I don't want to spend the > 10 euros or what the hell the price is to see the 3D 48fps version. I've seen a demo of 60fps 2D cinema by the way when I was about 10 year old (and other things like 3D geodesic IMax, movie with a moving chair and a giant wall of CRT monitors). Old-tech, 60fps film cinema though it was 4:3 and not big, but still was "HD". It was like looking through a window.
 
A revision to my previous remarks about Hobbit reminding me of "The Twilight Zone" - I had the wrong program. I didn't think that was the right title but it was the only name I could think of in that genre, until I've remembered "Tales of the Unexpected", which looks like this:
Only this YT version doesn't have the 50i framerate.
 
The computers are cheap, ignore the cartels and issues of underpaid workers and bankrupt studios in Hollywood (Life of Pi). There is an aging issue between real "props" and VFX like the first Spiderman movie.
CGI is amazing but the industry has to much management and cinematography issues for a true cost assessment can help decide what looks better. Food for trough:

http://boingboing.net/2013/06/03/long-live-real-fake-fx.html
http://www.cracked.com/article_22000_5-surprising-things-you-learn-designing-movie-monsters.html
 
The computers are cheap, ignore the cartels and issues of underpaid workers and bankrupt studios in Hollywood (Life of Pi). There is an aging issue between real "props" and VFX like the first Spiderman movie.
CGI is amazing but the industry has to much management and cinematography issues for a true cost assessment can help decide what looks better. Food for trough:

http://boingboing.net/2013/06/03/long-live-real-fake-fx.html
http://www.cracked.com/article_22000_5-surprising-things-you-learn-designing-movie-monsters.html
Nice. I love this video. I was thinking about it quite often as I was looking at some of their Behind The Scenes work.
I prefer the feel of animatronics but I understand why they go for CGI quite often.
 
You can't direct animatronics in post, and you also have very little control over the performance even while shooting. They're also very limited in what they can do and require tremendous planning for camera moves and edits and composition and such.
 
Don't know if it's been said already, but 60fps just feels cheap and home made, it's almost like the frame is lacking pacing, choreography or direction compared to 30fps. I also have a theory the brain might take in more info from the slower moving pictures since you would have slightly more time to soak in all the details thus appreciating the picture more.
tale from my arse?
 
Don't know if it's been said already, but 60fps just feels cheap and home made, it's almost like the frame is lacking pacing, choreography or direction compared to 30fps. I also have a theory the brain might take in more info from the slower moving pictures since you would have slightly more time to soak in all the details thus appreciating the picture more.
tale from my arse?
Not sure, but the common impression I have from the different studies out there on the topic is that the more information-deprived is the sensory apparatus, the more the brain must compensate by additional "interpretation" of the scarce input. On the other had, above a certain threshold of input saturation (temporal and spatial resolution, signal/noise ratio, etc.) there are some evidence that the visual apparatus (mostly the eye's retina) begins to sample more details at higher frequency, but there's still not enough conclusive studies on the matter. But I think, as far as the frame rates debate goes, it's more about cultural and behavioral adaptation. It's more or less an artistic preference.
 
Don't know if it's been said already, but 60fps just feels cheap and home made, it's almost like the frame is lacking pacing, choreography or direction compared to 30fps.

60fps is Pizza by Alfredo whereas 30fps is pizza from Alfredo's Pizza Cafe. :yes: I'm kidding of course :nope:
 
Not sure, but the common impression I have from the different studies out there on the topic is that the more information-deprived is the sensory apparatus, the more the brain must compensate by additional "interpretation" of the scarce input. On the other had, above a certain threshold of input saturation (temporal and spatial resolution, signal/noise ratio, etc.) there are some evidence that the visual apparatus (mostly the eye's retina) begins to sample more details at higher frequency, but there's still not enough conclusive studies on the matter. But I think, as far as the frame rates debate goes, it's more about cultural and behavioral adaptation. It's more or less an artistic preference.
Most interesting, so our brains are constantly optimizing the visual input perceived by our eyes to our own optimal setting, the human body truly is fascinating. One thing I know for sure tho is that I always prefer watching blu-ray movies with motion flow setting turned off, I know it gives you 200hgz but just feels unnatural compared to the normal setting.
 
but without motion smoothing, the picture like a stuttery doubly mess to my eyes :(

heck, i even use double motion smoothing lol.
1. from SVP
2. from TV.
 
Back
Top