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

Sometimes less is more. Like 3D I don't think it's necessarily a straight win, directors will need to get used to it and I expect some will do better with it than others.

 

Anybody been on a live movie set? I have and it's not pretty. I want my movies to be pretty not "real"...

 

You are correct. There is no blur in the 24fps Hobbit trailer. It was one of the first things I noticed.

It's a very interesting argument... But a silly one. It's pretty obvious to notice the difference between watching a movie and behind the scenes footage. The key part is LIGHTING. This is due in part to the highly stylized look in films. Best example is the movie 300.

Before 300 hit theaters, Cinemax posted a clip that featured Gerald Butler (Leonidas) and director Zack Snyder introducing a scene from the movie featuring 2 Spartan warriors laying the smackdown on the Persian army. From the clip you can see the obvious cheap lighting from whatever Cinemax threw together to interview these guys... And then we go to the actual clip which looks darker and has a unrealistic yellow tint and all that trademark slow-mo. It looks nothing like real life.

With both scenes (Interview and Clip) converted to 60fps (Download below)

http://www.peejeshare.com/files/362103369/Frank_Millers_300_(CineMax_Excl._clip_60fps).mp4.html

You can see that 300 is still the same movie just running with a higher framerate. The higher framerate also helps the slow motion scenes look even better and removes the annoying judder that plagues every single panning shot. Key thing is that it still looks like a movie.

 

I am sorry, but it's a fact that the 48Hz trailer has no color grading/correction done... which directly attributes to the soap opera effect. Just because there's a parallel doesn't mean there's causation.

It's always the same with people (not directed at anyone here). It's different, therefore I don't like it... make it "common". Make innovation stop dead in its tracks.


Thing is, the "soap opera effect" is an acquired taste. People attribute the fluid motion of TV series to this, whereas feature films don't have that... that's a clear distinction. If movies don't stutter anymore, people tend to compare it to soap operas, because their brains are trained to view it as such.

I'd love to see a case study... like get some hundred amish and show them both versions of a movie and ask them which one they found less appaling^^

 

To add to your post:

Soap Opera lighting:



Hollywood Movie Lighting

 

I guess us in PAL land will ge tthe film at 50 Hz, and still have a better movie experience than 60 Hz peeps.

 

Ha... I've always thought that todays TV still being broadcasted at 50Hz in Europe, when HD and digital services started was a bad move... but looking at it like this... The 4% PAL speedup isn't as bad now, is it^^

 

If they want 48 to sell then they have to add even more to the movie that makes it movie like.

As a comparison, when i played Vice City on a underpowered PS2 with a CRT TV i think it looked impressive. it was lowres, it stuttered etc.. But like movies and lowres TV i obviously added the missing stuff myself. On the PC it looked alot better, but at the same time it had a almost clinical look.

Some of the old movies that i used to love on VHS couldn't handle a HD release, the sets, the look and the details made the movies more "fake".

I think the the deal is, that if 48hz looks to much like reality and to little like a movie it will just not work. Maybe there is a whole new level of work required for the Post job and maybe the sets should have been built with even more detail..

 

Every movie that I've watched using frame interpolation via PowerDVD looks more like real life. They look less cinematic. Has nothing to do with lighting.

 

Interesting that you mentioned the interpolation with PowerDVD. The algorithm is alot more problematic which introduces errors breaking the illusion of it trying to be in 60fps or just being smoother in general. It was the first software solution I was introduced to, so it does have it's merits.

And let's be honest... That 300 clip does not resemble real life whatsoever (24fps or 60fps). It all depends on how the scene is shot and the tone that the director is trying to display.

 

THE FUTURE OF CINEMA with DOUGLAS TRUMBULL - AIN'T IT COOL With Harry Knowles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IpZd-UoYWCY#!

 

Great clip with a true pioneer and visionary.

Good point: Higher fps needed for 3D. The large amount of blurring in 24Hz movies makes 3D reconstruction much harder for the eyes/brain.

Cheers

 

A lot of the improvement in panning might be from the fact that no display can show 48fps natively, you get judder from translating it to 60hz or 120hz. (120hz is lot better though.)

Panning is something that really likes high framerates as brain automagically starts to 'see' 3D at around 72fps even with 2D footage.
So 60 or 120fps movies might be very interesting alternative for 3D movies.

 

Well it's likely not the first time a movie has been previewed to select people before it has been fully color graded, all special effects in place, etc and the soap opera effect hasn't been mentioned before. This time it has to a significant extent. The only difference here compared to past select previewes is the frame rate, hence why I presume that is what these people are noticing.

That would be interesting I'm curious as well if I hate the look because I'm just used to 24fps for movies. In contrast I strongly prefer 60fps for games and non movie content like documentaries, home shows, etc. I hate that shows like House Hunters are not filmed in 60fps because for example when they show a nice neighborhood and pan the camera you can't see it clearly because of the judder. Or documentaries that pan across some ancient ruins and again you can't see them clearly because of the low frame rate. Mind you I also hate it when they use very shallow dof on non movie content, like what's the point on Pawn Stars when they show a close up view of some rare object and only 5% of it is in focus? I guess point being that I always prefer 60fps and limited dof on non movie content, but movies just have special needs to me for that immersion factor. Hence why at least so far I still prefer 24fps for movies when I watch them at home, and also do like when they play heavily with stuff like dof because it just adds to it.

 

I can not download these files. Can you repost them?

 

What movies have you seen that has been shot at other frame rates than 24 fps?

 

What soap operas are shot in progressive 48/50/60 fps. Have any ever been?

 

I would just like to add that he does not mention "The Hobbit" in the link posted, but some other footage that James Cameron has produced. Also, there was no comparison of the footage, he just said that it has a "live, electronic feel".

Also, at the end of the demo, he claimed it looked super.

 

None officially, only been able to watch interpolated ones. That's not a perfect guide hence why I'm curious about The Hobbit. But seeing the articles about it doesn't leave me feeling hopeful.

Aren't shows produced on video tape recorded at 60i?

 

The point is that you said:

And that guy said after watching footage shot natively at a high fps:

Not saying it's the same but it is similar.