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

antwan said:
:arrow: That is why I concluded that the vast majority did not like the smoothness.
As for your "please stop spreading lies", you really need to calm down. I have provided a lot of factual evidence.

I you are calmed down, I suggest you watch a trailer of "Public Enemies" and tell me what you think :smile:
Click to expand...

Oh, master suppression technique #2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_suppression_techniques)! It would work better if I were an insecure teenager, but nice try :)


antwan said:
"did not enjoy the smoothness" < how is that not "certain aspects of it" ? :?:

Also, have you read a blog that claims the writer enjoyed the smoothness of the footage?
I could not find. One. Single. Person. who has seen the footage and wrote the smoothness of the footage looked great.
:arrow: That is why I concluded that the vast majority did not like the smoothness.
Click to expand...
From the second article in the google search you posted (http://www.google.se/#hl=en&sclient...90&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&cad=b):
"The online news outlets and blogs responded quickly with reaction. The most common praise was that the higher frame rate does make everything crystal clear and does eliminate the eye strain and strobing problems of current 3D. "

Maybe you could try reading the links you post....

Anyway, can you not please tell me where you can find professionally shot and distributed 50 (or 60) fps progressive content. The only thing that even resembles that (as far as I know) is the engadget link that I posted, and I would not consider that professional. But please, surprise me.
 
If we look at this objectively, then more framerate is definitely scientifically better.
Click to expand...
that would be the same as saying " If we look at this objectively, then color is definitely scientifically better." with regards to black and white photography.

If film was only used to be a perfect reproduction of reality, then your claim would be correct.

Also, as with other art forms, like photography. There is a reason why today people still like black and white photography, or why photographers like or use it. It is not because they are not used to color. And it is not because they are not used to seeing photos in color. It's because there are things you can express with the 'format', which you cannot do with real-life colors for example.
Spielberg wanted to make the audience experience shellshock. IMO the panic and emotion of that scene could have never been portrayed when using a "smooth, fluid, lifelike framerate"
The director of Public Enemies wanted to make the viewer feel like they were there, as if they were watching the events actually take place. He could have chosen to express this using a first person perspective ((lame)example), but in this case he chose to do this using a slow exposure which created the ultra smooth, hyper realistic images. Some viewers 'enjoyed being there', and others believed the realistic motion killed the suspension of disbelief.
It was the directors choice in the same way that P. Jackson wanted to have his film shot and viewed with the latest technology and in the smoothest way possible.

Unless every director wants their work looking like the truest representation of reality, I'll respectfully disagree with a statement like "If we look at this objectively, then more framerate is definitely scientifically better."

and as for Tuna: to me "crystal clear" sounds more like image clarity, but I'll give you the improvements with regards to 3D.
Also, I don't know why you would want professionally shot and distributed 50/60p content so much?
You do know that BOTH videos on your engadget example are encoded and shown at 30fps right? :LOL:
download the video and check the properties :cool:

The closest you can get to this footage you want is to look at the trailer of Public Enemies. That is the closest thing I can think of that is professionally shot and distributed so there you go.
 
antwan said:
Unless every director wants their work looking like the truest representation of reality, I'll respectfully disagree with a statement like "If we look at this objectively, then more framerate is definitely scientifically better."
Click to expand...
No you won't, becuse you've already agreed with it. ;) However, you'd prefer to look at it subjectively, as would many others, including myself at times. Nothing wrong with that. But objectively, higher framerate is better for the human visual system. Subjectively, people may prefer the look of 24fps except that at the moment there's no comparison for them to decide if they like it or not. It's like the earliest colour prints - because the colour technology was weak, some people could have prefered black-and-white over the unrealistic colour option. Currently, if we have 24 fps or a dodgy-looking 48 fps, people may well prefer the 'natural' 24 fps. But once they see well refined 48 fps footage with post tweaks to make them more aesthetically pleasing, maybe they'll hsve a change a heart? Or not. Like I said earlier, people are resistant to change, prefering what they know, and the average person (myself included) may find they prefer 24 fps 'just because'. Which is only because 24 fps came first and set the standard. Had cinema launched at 120 fps, and Jackson was trying to convince people that 24 fps was better for some film types, we'd be having the same argument in reverse (only without the objective argument support in terms of lower framerates).
 
antwan said:
and as for Tuna: to me "crystal clear" sounds more like image clarity, but I'll give you the improvements with regards to 3D.
Also, I don't know why you would want professionally shot and distributed 50/60p content so much?
You do know that BOTH videos on your engadget example are encoded and shown at 30fps right? :LOL:
download the video and check the properties :cool:
Click to expand...

Why do you keep lying? Here is what you get when you run the 50 fps version through mplayer:
mplayer engadget_4609.mp4
MPlayer SVN-r34129-4.6.3 (C) 2000-2011 MPlayer Team
mplayer: could not connect to socket
mplayer: No such file or directory
Failed to open LIRC support. You will not be able to use your remote control.

Playing engadget_4609.mp4.
libavformat file format detected.
[mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x6065c0]max_analyze_duration 5000000 reached at 5000000
[lavf] stream 0: video (h264), -vid 0
[lavf] stream 1: audio (aac), -aid 0, -alang und
VIDEO: [H264] 1280x720 24bpp 50.000 fps 1611.2 kbps (196.7 kbyte/s)


You do not get away with lies here a B3D, so just stop doing that.
 
tuna said:
Why do you keep lying? Here is what you get when you run the 50 fps version through mplayer:
mplayer engadget_4609.mp4
MPlayer SVN-r34129-4.6.3 (C) 2000-2011 MPlayer Team
mplayer: could not connect to socket
mplayer: No such file or directory
Failed to open LIRC support. You will not be able to use your remote control.

Playing engadget_4609.mp4.
libavformat file format detected.
[mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x6065c0]max_analyze_duration 5000000 reached at 5000000
[lavf] stream 0: video (h264), -vid 0
[lavf] stream 1: audio (aac), -aid 0, -alang und
VIDEO: [H264] 1280x720 24bpp 50.000 fps 1611.2 kbps (196.7 kbyte/s)


You do not get away with lies here a B3D, so just stop doing that.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I checked again here (still had both files in my downloads folder) and it appears that I checked the wrong file :-S
Sorry I you thought I was deliberately lying but this was just by accident.
I mean why would I tell you to go download the file and check for yourself?
Some "master Wikipedia technique suppressor"? No it was an honest mistake and I apologize for it. So again sorry.
I will analyze both files in detail now. I'll also make a 50fps version myself, but that will probably be for after the weekend.
 
I wonder how much of it is just what people are used to.
I moved from the UK to the US in the PAL/NTSC era and hated the look of US TV, a year or so later it just didn't bother me because it had become the norm.
Peoples expectations will change if enough content is out there, I just wonder if we'll ever get over the initial hump.
 
ERP said:
I wonder how much of it is just what people are used to.
I moved from the UK to the US in the PAL/NTSC era and hated the look of US TV, a year or so later it just didn't bother me because it had become the norm.
Peoples expectations will change if enough content is out there, I just wonder if we'll ever get over the initial hump.
Click to expand...

Weird... I can't really tell the difference between native 50Hz and native 60Hz. Maybe 60fps is slightly smoother. But then maybe that's just me.
 
Reiko said:
Weird... I can't really tell the difference between native 50Hz and native 60Hz. Maybe 60fps is slightly smoother. But then maybe that's just me.
Click to expand...

There is more of a difference than framerate.
PAL has better color reproduction and slightly better special resolutions as a trade off for the lower framerate.

The frequency difference is also more noticeable on video material, than it is comparing the framerates on a monitor.

They just look different.
 
ERP said:
There is more of a difference than framerate.
PAL has better color reproduction and slightly better special resolutions as a trade off for the lower framerate.

The frequency difference is also more noticeable on video material, than it is comparing the framerates on a monitor.
Click to expand...

The biggest problem for NTSC colour reproduction is small changes in phase of the colour signal can drastically change the hue. I remember the first time I was in the U.S. I wondered why everybody on TV were orange, - an artifact of the TV set in the motel I was staying (and not only because of spray-on tan).

I like the higher temporal resolution of NTSC though. When you watch stills (or even movies) with high contrast/high spatial frequency contents, PAL can be a flickering mess. This was a big selling point when Philips launched the first 100Hz PAL/SECAM CRT TVs in Europe.

Cheers
 
I am working for a film magazine now, so hopefully I'll see the hobbit early :D!
Then I can give you a "hands-on"
 
Well, kind of a strange test, with two completely different audiences.

I don't trust the audience response as reported in the first 'test' too much. As the article writes:

""The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" in its full 48 fps glory at the CinemaCon convention in Las Vegas. With the public having endured 80 years of 24 fps film-watching, Jackson appealed to viewers to allow their eyes to adjust to the doubled rate during the ten minute screening. But the reaction showed that public acceptance might take a while. One projectionist compared it to made-for-TV fare, and others referenced Mexican soap-operas and TruMotion. "

Thank god Jackson sticks to his guns.
 
Of course 30 fps feels more "cinematic" than 60 fps. We have been used to the 24 fps "cinematic" look for decades, and 30 fps is pretty close to it. 60 fps in the other hand looks much more like the real world. It's a matter of taste if you prefer "real" or "cinematic". Realistic look is often preferred in documentary movies for example.

This debate is different when we talk about games. Games are interactive and thus need to react to user inputs. Players tend to prefer quick "realistic" response to their actions compared to the dreamy "cinematic" slightly out of control feeling. 60 fps improves the reponsiveness of the game, and makes player feel like he/she is more in control. In real world you also prefer to have sharp visuals and good frame rate, because you are using that information constantly to make you next decisions. Same is true for most games. For example multiplayer first person shooters and fighting games are really reaction dependant (best players have excellent reaction times). Movies are completely different. There is no interaction, and no constant reaction based "feedback loop". You just sit down and enjoy the show.
 
And get an f*n headache whenever a large screen has some kind of wide sweeping pan, as you can count the individual frames. Hmm, thanks but no thanks. Maybe they can make shutterglasses for those handful of people that think they really need that.

At some point, I'm willing to bet there was a similar argument over video being black and white, not having voices but an orchestral soundtrack, running too fast, having spots and visibly moving left and right because there was leeway for the tape. It's just like people who love record players because they have bumps and scratches, wear out and run slow or fast, and you can hear the dust accumulate on the diamond needle.

In other words, yeah, people will initially complain, but the vast majority will eventually accept it as superior ;).
 
Arwin said:
And get an f*n headache whenever a large screen has some kind of wide sweeping pan, as you can count the individual frames. Hmm, thanks but no thanks. Maybe they can make shutterglasses for those handful of people that think they really need that.
Click to expand...
Yes. Fast sideways movement is the biggest problem in low frame rate. It's not possible to "precalculate" motion blur perfectly, as motion blur is dependant on your eye movement. If you follow (with your eyes) an object moving across the cinema screen, it should appear perfectly in focus. With 24 fps footage you instead see a heavily blurred object that judders. You would need a very fast frame rate to handle this case properly (60 fps is pretty good and 120 fps is even better).

Also this is a reason (among many) why some people dislike stereoscopic 3d movies. The wrong focus (cannot focus eyes on sideways moving objects) and juddering is much easier to see in stereoscopic film, and the mixed signals to our brains cause similar reaction as motion/sea sickness. This is the reason why I don't personally like 3d movies. Of course there are other reasons as well, such as flickering caused by the active shutter glasses.

Back to games: I don't remember any recent AAA game that was locked to 30 fps on PC. If developers would prefer 30 fps visually over 60 fps, I think we would have seen many games locked to 30 fps on PC as well. On consoles the situation is completely different. 30 fps doubles GPU performance per frame (33.3ms to generate a frame instead of 16.6ms). In this case 30 fps has been chosen to improve GPU performance, not because the lower frame rate looks more cinematic. This is proved by the fact that none of the PC ports of these 30 fps AAA console games are locked at 30 fps on PC. They default at 60 fps (when vsync is enabled). It would be very simple to lock a game to 30 fps on PC, but I have never even seen an option in the AAA games settings panel for this.
Reiko said:
So people found The Hobbit's 24FPS content with ZERO motion blur visually pleasing? lol


:cry:
Click to expand...
You can't manufacture a camera with zero motion blur. 48 fps footage should have plenty of motion blur in it. And you can of course add two 48 fps frames together to form a 24 fps frame (that should look identical to having a twice as long shutter time). I don't think they purposefully crippled the 24 fps version.
 
Finally got to see "The hobbit" in 48 fps 3D! I really liked the clarity of all the scenes, especially the action.
 
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
540
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
717
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