Really? Everything I've ever seen on the subject has everyone moving to digital because it's better in every way. Wider brightness range, on the spot reviewing, direct pipeline into post processing, less hassle, etc.
Best 4K HDR TV's for One X, PS4 Pro [2017-2020]
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
- Status
For one, Patty Jenkins and Zack Snider for sure are film aficionados. And they shot Wonder Woman and BvS on film as much as they could, then added digital effects on top.
Film is still a thing.
Percentage wise, I doubt it's 10%.
https://stephenfollows.com/film-vs-digital/
Although the graph adds up to over 100% at the end... Comments explain that's because movies can use both.
https://stephenfollows.com/film-vs-digital/
Although the graph adds up to over 100% at the end... Comments explain that's because movies can use both.
One more reason to hate on Snyder.
Personally I don't see how all these new amazing action movies (think all the Marvel ones for example) that are shot digitally with the best 4k+ cameras around, which are very much capable of shooting at higher frame rates, are still 24p. Except for this sense of "tradition" and a general sense of not having a lot of cinemas capable of showing it. Or maybe I just don't know what I'm talking about.
I think the negative public perception of HFR has killed it. I think you need a whole new cinema, and one that doesn't really work in storytelling. Because movies are unreal, and they allow us to step out of ourselves. When you get something on screen looking like real life, the emotions are the same. So, for example, you visit some friends and they start having a blazing row and it gets really ugly. Or you are in the street and see someone sobbing. Do you whip out the popcorn and enjoy the drama? Or feel really uncomfortable and want to run away? When you're no longer watching a screen and instead watching someone hurting as if it were really happening, you lose the disassociation that makes the drama palatable.
IMHO.
IMHO.
We're really off-topic but in practical terms, HFR only really helps in action scenes and long camera pans for landscapes. Seeing someone 'hurting' or in emotional scenes is very well served by the current status quo. Dialogues etc look real now at 24p. The problem is that when things start moving enough, the illusion is broken in a mess of blur/stutter/mess.
Special effects cost twice as much at double the frame rate ?
That said, I've read that James Cameron is still doing Avatar 2,3 & 4 in 3d & 60fps, so maybe it'll revive the hfr scene
I loved the Hobbit at 48 fps, in close scenes, you got the feeling the actors were playing live right in front of you.
Unfortunately, I've only managed to see the first one at HFR, couldn't get reliable info on 2&3 and got the crummy 24fps versions
That said, I've read that James Cameron is still doing Avatar 2,3 & 4 in 3d & 60fps, so maybe it'll revive the hfr scene
I loved the Hobbit at 48 fps, in close scenes, you got the feeling the actors were playing live right in front of you.
Unfortunately, I've only managed to see the first one at HFR, couldn't get reliable info on 2&3 and got the crummy 24fps versions
I imagine adding effects at 60fps is way more expensive than 24, not to mention basic stuff like colour correction.
The transition will probably happen. It'll just take time. Right now you can pay for premium tickets for imax, 3d and those will probably be where 60hz happens.
The only real commercial attempt at 48 hz was the hobbit and those screenings were rare plus the movie was shit.
The transition will probably happen. It'll just take time. Right now you can pay for premium tickets for imax, 3d and those will probably be where 60hz happens.
The only real commercial attempt at 48 hz was the hobbit and those screenings were rare plus the movie was shit.
I think you have it backwards. The traditional way of filmmaking using film and 24 fps worked because it did a good job of washing away the fakeness of films. In reality, its all fake from the acting to the lighting. Traditional filmmaking immerses us by fooling us.
When you go digital and up resolution and frame rates, you can create enough details where the viewer is no longer fooled. Staged lighting looking staged and styrofoam rocks looking like styrofoam are just a few examples that can betray when providing too much information to the eyes of viewers.
Furthermore, the "realer" you make a scene, the more fake the acting becomes. A film scene equivalent of the "uncanny valley" would apply to that statement. LOL.
As filmmakers learn to use HFR for its benefits while not destroying immersion, you'll see it used more often.
Last edited:
That's a very interesting point!
One of the common complaints about the hobbit was that the movie in hfr looked more "fake". People said the costumes and sets looked like cheap costumes and sets. I didn't see it myself.
The more recent Billy Lynn was shown at 120fps in select screenings, and it apparently looked amazing, especially in some of the combat scenes, but at the tradeoff of the acting looking more amateur, but the cast in that wasn't too great, so who knows. Also didn't see the movie at all.
Regardless, I think they'll figure out how to get the soft "blur" look of 24Hz at 60Hz, but correcting the judder issues.
Back to tvs, I really hate these things. I finally figured out the cms on my tv, and then realized I can't make custom color spaces for both movie mode and game mode. It's one or the other, and I don't know which to pick.
https://www.avforums.com/review/mic...es-console-4k-uhd-blu-ray-player-review.13709
Good to know the XBS is a fantastic 4K BR player. Good news for those not wanting a dedicated device.
Good to know the XBS is a fantastic 4K BR player. Good news for those not wanting a dedicated device.
Stark contrast to some assertions that MS were effectively lying about their UHD support and shouldn't be allowed to sell the console on such grounds because it couldn't play a lot of discs.
Never trust FUD propaganda spouted from overly emotional and unhinged posters.
- Status
