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

to end the argument right here, right now:

Jackson himself said that 48fps won't be ideal for every type of film.

Read that again a few times. This is not some nobody (as we all are here with regards to cinematography) on a random forum. This is what Peter Jackson said himself.

So yeah, who to believe, Peter Jackson, or a random person on a forum which has never in his life seen real 48fps footage...:rolleyes:
 
One person's opinion is one person's opinion. It doesn't matter who they are - no-one is infallible and history is full of examples of experts getting it wrong. Whatever the reasons that 48 fps won't be ideal for every type of film, if films will benefit from lower framerates, those films will won't suffer from a hgiher framerate with the same degree of motion blur unless they either want the judder-look, or the cost of rendernig more frames is too much, like animation or scenes with complex CGI.

Also, everyone here I expect has seen 48 fps footage. Certainly everyone in Europe has seen 50 fps for quite some time now...
 
Shifty Geezer said:
Also, everyone here I expect has seen 48 fps footage. Certainly everyone in Europe has seen 50 fps for quite some time now...
Click to expand...

If I could see a Lord of the Rings movie at 50 fps, just as I've seen the BBC's incredible, beautiful and moving natural history shows, I would absolutely cream my pants. Figuratively. Not literally.

But also, probably, literally.
 
Davros said:
I dont think I have (seen 48fps footage) (could be wrong)
Click to expand...
You've either seen 50 or 60 fps footage. You've probably seen some games loitering around 50 fps too. We all know what it looks like in terms of smoother motion. At least we have a better understanding than to suggest 99% of all people who see 48fps at the movies don't care for it, when that sort of exact metric is not founded on any investigation AFAIK, and very few people have had the chance to see 48 fps at the movies too.
 
I don't know if any of us has seen footage in the way The Hobbit was filmed though. From what I read typical 24fps movies go with a 180 degree shutter angle giving 1/48th shutter speed, whereas he's going with a 270 degree angle on the 48fps The Hobbit to get a bit more exposure and hence more motion blur. I don't believe any of the 50/60 fps material we've seen in the past will look quite the same as the way he is filming this movie. I think also beause he is using Red digital cameras to do the filming means no film advancing, hence he can get even more exposure than an old school film camera if he wants to. So for example a 24fps movie filmed with film based equipment can't get 1/24/th exposure at max shutter speed because it needs time to advanace the film. A 24fps movie filmed with a digital camera like the Red's I believe can actually get very close to 1/24th exposure. So a 24fps film based movie can appear more jerky than a 24fps digital based movie if the creator takes advantage of the wider range of shutter speeds digital cameras provide. Hence I figure we need to see his footage in person to really get a feel for how it looks, existing 50/60fps material or tv upscaling won't give a good enough indication.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wasn't suggesting TV programmes at 50 Hz will be representative of the Hobbit, because they don't have the same blur. antwan was saying no-one had seen 48 fps footage - not 48 fps movie film from a Big Red. So yeah, none of us who hasn't seen the trailer at 48 Hz knows what it really will feel like. If they have exptended the exposure then it bodes well. In that case the only reason to dislike 48 Hz film is because it's different and human being naturally prefer what they already know. There's no technical or psychological advantage I know of to have lessing frames-pre-second and more judder or strobing.
 
Shifty Geezer said:
I wasn't suggesting TV programmes at 50 Hz will be representative of the Hobbit, because they don't have the same blur. antwan was saying no-one had seen 48 fps footage -
Click to expand...
Some of the Imax variants (perhaps Omnimax - I can't quite recall and am too lazy to look it up) are shot at high frame rates, so there is a chance people here have seen it
 
some facts:

1. the director of the first 'recent' big budget movie shot in 48fps himselfs, claims that "48fps will not be ideal for every type of film"

2. the vast majority of the people who have seen an actual sample of the 48fps movie "the hobbit", did not enjoy the smoothness of the footage.

3. people on a forum, who have never seen the footage, still claim that "HDTV framerate interpolation/enhancement settings don't look like the 48fps footage at all",
also they claim that 48fps will be better for movies.

I'll say that the people from fact number 3 are mostly talking out of their asses:
-framerate interpolation supposedly does not look like 48fps footage
-yet 50/60fps tv shows are similar to 48fps
-while framerate interpolation makes 24fps content look like 50/60fps tv shows

It's possible that Peter Jackson himself, plus almost anyone who has seen the actual footage is wrong, and that the forum people are right. Who knows..
 
Some more facts:

1. human beings can be naturally averse to changes, but after some exposure to something new can often be brought around

2. 24 fps is only the standard because it's based on old technology when things couldn't be done any better. If people had been able capture 50 fps in the early days and done so, we wouldn't be having this debate, and anyone wanting to bring in 24 fps films would be faced with complaints of judder

3. Peter Jackson is one man. His opinion is well informed, but not final or aplpicable to everyone. It may also have PR influences as he's being diplomatic. Perhaps he wants to say, "all you damned idiots using 24fps are stuck in the frickin' Dark Ages but you're all too dumb to get with progress ," but knows that'd damage his career, so he plays the middleman until he can turn people around.

4. People who post with rollyeyes smilies and fail to engage in honest, open debate on the merits of the opinions being discussed, prefering instead to just quote experts as irrefutable and roll their eyes at whoever disagrees, don't last long on this forum.
 
Also I'd prefer to see it with my own eyes and decide for myself. I often see things completely different than others, heck just go by video game forums for example where I more often than not completely disagree with what's said regarding how games look. Plus I'd want to see it at home. Truth be told we don't go to theaters much anymore for movies and instead watch them at home as we have a nice home theater setup. So while sitting 50 feet away from a monstrous screen perhaps doesn't give a pleasing effect, what I really want to know is how The Hobbit will look at my house on my tv.
 
antwan said:
some facts:

.....

2. the vast majority of the people who have seen an actual sample of the 48fps movie "the hobbit", did not enjoy the smoothness of the footage.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to this published study? How many people were in the sample group?
 
antwan said:
I'll say that the people from fact number 3 are mostly talking out of their asses:
-framerate interpolation supposedly does not look like 48fps footage
-yet 50/60fps tv shows are similar to 48fps
-while framerate interpolation makes 24fps content look like 50/60fps tv shows
Click to expand...

Where are these 50/60 fps progressive tv shows broadcasted/distributed? Where can we find an unbroken chain of professionally filmed 50/60 fps progressive content?
 
the rollyeyes seemed really appropriate to use, because of your argumentation.

For a taste of the hobbit:
watch this in high definition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8xOgO7_eT8

I have it on BD and in native 24p mode (which my tv supports) the fluidness and 'realism' really take you out of the movie. This is with repeated viewings, and I have to be honest here: initially I thought I would love the look of this movie because I remember seeing a trailer in the cinema and I was like "holy shit! this theater must have a 60hz projector! movies from the future will look amazing on this!!"

higher number is not always better, the hobbit will prove this.
 
joker454 said:
Also I'd prefer to see it with my own eyes and decide for myself. I often see things completely different than others, heck just go by video game forums for example where I more often than not completely disagree with what's said regarding how games look. Plus I'd want to see it at home. Truth be told we don't go to theaters much anymore for movies and instead watch them at home as we have a nice home theater setup. So while sitting 50 feet away from a monstrous screen perhaps doesn't give a pleasing effect, what I really want to know is how The Hobbit will look at my house on my tv.
Click to expand...

then get Public Enemies on blu ray:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8xOgO7_eT8

watch this on your house and on your tv. After watching the movie, which is great and which last almost 3 hours which is enough to adept to the effect, you will know if you love the effect.
 
24Hz sampling rate in the Cinema is a byproduct of an era with significant technological and economy-pf-scale limitations -- just remember those bulky Technicolor film cameras with two or three negative reel lines running in parallel, and each standard camera kit actually included a couple of support technicians contracted at full-time jobs. As Shifty Geezer already pointed out, if it was feasible, now all we would enjoy a much higher frame rates with a similar attitude to the "cinematic" feel.
 
fellix said:
24Hz sampling rate in the Cinema is a byproduct of an era with significant technological and economy-pf-scale limitations -- just remember those bulky Technicolor film cameras with two or three negative reel lines running in parallel, and each standard camera kit actually included a couple of support technicians contracted at full-time jobs. As Shifty Geezer already pointed out, if it was feasible, now all we would enjoy a much higher frame rates with a similar attitude to the "cinematic" feel.
Click to expand...

this is where most of the people here are wrong:
even with 24fps shot footage you can achieve a 60fps soap opera look: you just need to have the shutter open during each frame.
this would require a change of the camera design, but this was never done because people and directors did not like the look to begin with!

Somebody (not from here I'm afraid) could probably explain in detail how film cameras work, and how they could have been changed to allow for a 1/24 second exposure time.
public enemies on BD is native 24p, and it has the soap opera look in a lot of scenes.

So yeah 24fps is not the limitation folks ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Shifty Geezer
Why isn't framerate upscaling being progressed when TVs have it but it's a better fit in game engine?
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
7K
xz321zx
X
I
The first Evil Within still has remarkably sophisticated lighting
Replies
2
Views
497
Phantom88
P
D
Are modern GPU's really offering a worse level of performance than historic GPU's??
Replies
16
Views
2K
Kaotik
Kaotik
Cyan
Playtron : new Linux based platform-agnostic open gaming OS
Replies
9
Views
655
eastmen
E
iroboto
  • Locked
Are current games less effectively executed than previous generations? *spawn
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Shifty Geezer
Shifty Geezer
Back
Top