Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2014]

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you look closely most manufactured props and sets look pretty fake. I just watched rotk and it looked just as fake as smaug in hrf, only a lot blurrier in motion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is the problem that HFR is not realistic, or that it doesn't look movie-like?

Isn't the complaint usually that it's too realistic? That's certainly the case with me. You can clearly see that your watching a bunch of actors jumping around on a set.

Or as you say, you lose that "movie look" which helps you suspend disbelief.

Nothing to do with game frame rate and resolution though since it's all about frame exposure times.
 
Isn't the complaint usually that it's too realistic? That's certainly the case with me. You can clearly see that your watching a bunch of actors jumping around on a set.



Or as you say, you lose that "movie look" which helps you suspend disbelief.



Nothing to do with game frame rate and resolution though since it's all about frame exposure times.


I think we are subtlety ignoring the problems with having everything at 24 FPS, as action scenes are severely limited by their ability to pan, everything just becomes a blur for several seconds. I'd like to see something like Iron Man or similar style film done in HFR,and I feel people might have a different opinion.

And honestly, if you were to take someone from the 1920s and show them a 4K TV, they might be nauseated too. They aren't used to it.
 
Nauseated by 4k is pushing it a bit far but I agree otherwise. We have gotten very good at hiding the flaws of 24fps in cinema after 100 years, it will take much less than that to get good at 48fps, even if it means shooting with three or four lenses at once (ie a separate one for exposure)
 
I watched The Hobbit recently in Imax (though not sure how true, there is a lot of cheating the specs in Imax branded theatres)/HFR/3D.

The HFR really gave it that odd soap opera, super realistic/almost could say cheap look, but I'm not sure I hated it, I think it also made it look more hyperreal.

Overall it was very, very impressive, as a whole (what part of that was attributable to 3D, the screen size, HFR, the movie special effects themselves, I cant say). Even kind of made me sad 3D is apparently dying out in the home.
 
I'd still like to see Hobbit HFR 2D. There are too many shortcomings of cinema 3D for me to separate out what HFR contributed to the experience. I do remember it feeling very odd though.

But that won't matter for gaming. Games are mostly trying to get photoreal and immersive and tracking the action is an important part of that. No-one's going to grumble if COD or Halo or Uncharted of the future is running at 120 Hz. Only games that are trying to be movies may suffer, and I still think decent optical effects will solve that.
 
I think the 24fps exposure gave motion pictures the "look" that we are used to (motion blur/stutter). If you've see actual movie props, they look fake and cheap. I suppose the HFR would make that more obvious given that 2X amount of visual details are provided in terms of frames and not the resolution, thus the props looks "fake" when it's closer to what they actually look like.

Agreed. With HFR, you can actually see that the indoor scenes are staged. You can see through the illusion. That's why its called unrealistic because in reality it is. Its all a bunch of faked lighting.

I call it the "TV soap opera" look.

Games don't have that problem. They don't stage scenes during gameplay.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Believe me, I've seen people diss 60fps games and claim 30fps looks more "real". Madness.

That's what it seems like in my experience. I think movies look a lot better at 24 fps than 60fps. It only seems like that though because only Soap operas and talk shows have ever been filmed at 60fps. Like ever.
 
That's what it seems like in my experience. I think movies look a lot better at 24 fps than 60fps. It only seems like that though because only Soap operas and talk shows have ever been filmed at 60fps. Like ever.

It doesn't look like a movie is what people have a problem with. The fact that 60 fps is far more realistic looking is lost in the fact that 24 fps looks "like a movie."

Regards,
SB
 
That's what it seems like in my experience. I think movies look a lot better at 24 fps than 60fps. It only seems like that though because only Soap operas and talk shows have ever been filmed at 60fps. Like ever.

That's because your brain is so used to processing film and video at 24fps it freaks out when you show it 60fps which is why it looks weird/funny.

I watched a good chunk of videos on youtube from people in the film industry and they were saying it will take years for 60fps to accepted because people's brains just aren't prepared for anything above the 24fps they're used to and the biggest hurdle with 60fps is changing the way peoples brains see it when it's used to seeing 24fps for years.

I've had nearly 28yrs of watching video at 24fps so 60fps to my brain looks weird and not right.

My nephew who's 5yrs old will adapt to 60fps better as he's had a lot less exposure to 24fps like I have.
 
My nephew who's 5yrs old will adapt to 60fps better as he's had a lot less exposure to 24fps like I have.

Ouch. So you're basically saying that us old folk will end up bitching about movies in a few years time cause they're 'not like they used to'. A bit like my grandma who still watches black and white movies cause they remind them of her youth. We'll be watching our good old 24p movies and say HFR is the root of all evil.
I'm so old.
 
My nephew who's 5yrs old will adapt to 60fps better as he's had a lot less exposure to 24fps like I have.
Nope. He'll be watching 24 fps films all his life too. He's already watching lots on TV, DVD, and/or BluRay. Even if cinema were to jump to HFR tomorrow, unless he only watches modern movies he'll become conditioned to the 24 fps legacy perception that we all have. Only those born into an HFR world will not understand the fuss of the early 21st century and people wanting a juddery, unclear look to their movies.
 
That's because your brain is so used to processing film and video at 24fps it freaks out when you show it 60fps which is why it looks weird/funny.

I watched a good chunk of videos on youtube from people in the film industry and they were saying it will take years for 60fps to accepted because people's brains just aren't prepared for anything above the 24fps they're used to and the biggest hurdle with 60fps is changing the way peoples brains see it when it's used to seeing 24fps for years.

I've had nearly 28yrs of watching video at 24fps so 60fps to my brain looks weird and not right.

My nephew who's 5yrs old will adapt to 60fps better as he's had a lot less exposure to 24fps like I have.

But most of us, and many others that are younger was exposed to 50 and 60hz interlace looks, and all kinds of weird "100hz" motionplus crap solutions.
 
That's what it seems like in my experience. I think movies look a lot better at 24 fps than 60fps. It only seems like that though because only Soap operas and talk shows have ever been filmed at 60fps. Like ever.

Are there any soap operas filmed in 60 fps?
 
Lots of TV soap operas are/were interlaced, and thus shot at 60 fps.
I'm not sure now, as they tend to prefer 24 fps progressive for bluray distribution.

So they were actually shot on video (and then edited etc on video as well)? Do you know any shows that were actually shot and edited this way?
 
Lots of TV soap operas are/were interlaced, and thus shot at 60 fps.
I'm not sure now, as they tend to prefer 24 fps progressive for bluray distribution.

It was and is not uncommon to drop a field during the interlace days.. to give it that "strobed" look to make it "movie/film" like.. Yes you lost half the res.. so what it worked..

The fast way to deinterlace :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top