Sorry, afaik the trailer is actually in 24 but nevertheless still looks off for some reason, which is very likely to be the 48hz parent with a lack of blur?
Anybody been on a live movie set? I have and it's not pretty. I want my movies to be pretty not "real"...
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^^
I guess us in PAL land will ge tthe film at 50 Hz, and still have a better movie experience than 60 Hz peeps.So does that mean 120Hz displays get screwed by 48fps? Oh look, guess we need 240Hz LCDs to cover 24,48,60
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^^
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.
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.
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#!
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.)As you can see the motion blur from the 24fps version is carried over. Movement is also very similar to the 48fps version. Surprisingly the 60fps interpolated version displays better panning on the last shot.
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.
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^^
Actually I will say the interpolation quality is very accurate to native 48fps or 60fps. This is acheivable since the algorithm (Very High Quality) in the script is not possible in realtime. Also the motion blur from the 24fps version carries over to the higher framerate. I did a test to demonstrate it.
Here's a shot of a dude kicking a basketball shot in native 24fps
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/362102663/basement24.mov.html
Now here's a shot of the same scene reshot in native 48fps
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/362102664/basement48.mov.html
Now here's the 24fps shot interpolated to 60fps
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/362102665/basement60fps.mp4.html
As you can see the motion blur from the 24fps version is carried over. Movement is also very similar to the 48fps version. Surprisingly the 60fps interpolated version displays better panning on the last shot.
I hope that clears up the interpolation vs. native debate.
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.
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.
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.
If you interpolate the movie from 24 to 60 fps it will not in any way resemble a real movie shot at 48 fps. Just like upscaling a DVD to 1080p will not give you Blu-ray quality.
First of all, I was surprised to see how similar the real deal looks to the phony-baloney version that's generated by 120Hz and higher-frequency television sets using frame-interpolation techniques to simulate the missing frames, extrapolating 120fps motion from, say, a 24fps Blu-ray source.