Does 30fps feel more "cinematic" than 60fps?
- Thread starter blip
- Start date
see:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclien....,cf.osb&fp=263f1aff19c0f427&biw=1137&bih=690
see:
and:
I was just repeating other peoples uh... (must...not...use...rolly-eyes)..'expert opinion'
Like I said "the people from fact number 3 are mostly talking out of their asses:"
This means I don't agree with the contradictions posted.
I'll explain again:
ask anybody here who has an 'expert opinion', "what does the 'super smooth natural motion' option on your HDTV do?"
the answer is probably "it makes my 24p BD's look like soap opera tv shows"
then ask:
"would the 'super smooth natural motion' option on your HDTV when used on a 24p BD, give an indication of what to expect on "the hobbit"?
the answer is: "No! you can't compare that at all! most people are dumb and hate change and higher framerate is always better!"
then ask:
"so what would be indicative of the Hobbit's 48fps framerate?"
and the answer is: "watch a tv show"
Do you see the contradiction now?
Public Enemies is the best example, why?
-during a lot of scenes you can get a real good indication of how you will experience the hobbit.
although, to play the devils advocate: the hobbit is shot with a shorter shutter angle resulting in the individual frames having 'less blur'. though the more rapid succession of the frames probably cancels this out. (as it does in 60fps games: even on a high end plasma you'll see a smooth moving image instead of individual frames)
-It shows that the 24fps framerate is not a limitation the "natural, smooth, realistic look"; the disc is encoded at 24fps and you can see for yourself how smooth it looks.
-during a lot of scenes you can get a real good indication of how you will experience the hobbit.
although, to play the devils advocate: the hobbit is shot with a shorter shutter angle resulting in the individual frames having 'less blur'. though the more rapid succession of the frames probably cancels this out. (as it does in 60fps games: even on a high end plasma you'll see a smooth moving image instead of individual frames)
-It shows that the 24fps framerate is not a limitation the "natural, smooth, realistic look"; the disc is encoded at 24fps and you can see for yourself how smooth it looks.
You need to be clear about what you mean by various terms. "Soap Opera look" can be achieved with the right lighting and camerawork and such. 24 fps just means how much judder there is. Exposure length means how much blur there is. If a studio camera is filming at 1/250th of a second (I have no idea) then a film camera with the same fast shutter will look the same, only more juddery (excepting of course difference in film versus video colour capture, which can be adjusted in post).
Yes, they could have been changed, but they chose not to. But it's an assumption on your part that it was an artistic preference that landed us with 24 fps. The history is that film uses expensive silver-halide celluloid film. It's bulky as well. Shooting at 48 fps would mean 2x the quantity of film, requiring either massive film reels or halving the amount of footage you could fit in one can. It'd require more effort in making edits as there's twice the film to look through. It'd cost twice as much to shoot the same film, and you'd need twice the storage facilities to keep it all. Finally, you'd have shorter maximum exposure so would have a limit on your camera's light sensitive and need even more lighting.
The reasons for 24 fps were economic. It's more expensive than 12 fps but looks better. Sadly they couldn't really manage faster, so they stuck at the compromise. Since then, everyone has gotten used to 24 fps as a look, and the industry has developed around it and preserved it. Makers of cinema gear had no reason to introduce higher framerates without content to display, and filmmakers had no reason to film higher framerate content with no way to show it. It's exactly the same thing as HDTV - in the early days there were little point to it. It was a slow rollout of updates until we get where we are.
No, blur and high temporal resolution are two very different things. If the delta between two images is large enough, you'll get strobing with a high-framerate, low-blur scene. 50/60 fps sports are pretty crisp. The same motion captured at 24 fps with long exposure is blurry, giving a natural sense of motion because we are used to blur as eyes accumulate light over time. It's this difference in blur that I reckon is chiefly responsible for complaints. Every video interpolator is failing to recreate the motion effects that would be present in a natural capture. But blur is independent of frame rate (other than limiting maximum exposure) and with post-effect blur, we can add motion blur beyond the physical limits of our capture equipment anyway.
-the thread is about framerate not camerawork or lighting so I figured you would know that "soap opera look" was with regards to the fluidity, sorry if i overestimated anybody.
-again, you could have similar fluidity to soap opera on 24fps, again, watch "Public Enemies in 24p", again, it would not require more film. Look up how a film camera works. it is like a SLR where you see the image through the lens until you 'expose'/ record a frame to the film.
the exposure time was limited in traditional cameras because of the camera man needing to see what he was filming.
If they chose a camera design simular to a 'rangefinder' camera (look it up) then they could have 1/24th of a second exposure times, resulting in a fluid, natural look (of course you sacrifice temporal resolution).
-reasons for 24fps over 12 had to do with the minimum requirement for recording the audio tracks on film, look it up.
Public Enemies was able to achieve that look because digital cameras don't require light being passed to either the viewfinder, or film, so they could have a full 1/24second exposure.
-again, you could have similar fluidity to soap opera on 24fps, again, watch "Public Enemies in 24p", again, it would not require more film. Look up how a film camera works. it is like a SLR where you see the image through the lens until you 'expose'/ record a frame to the film.
the exposure time was limited in traditional cameras because of the camera man needing to see what he was filming.
If they chose a camera design simular to a 'rangefinder' camera (look it up) then they could have 1/24th of a second exposure times, resulting in a fluid, natural look (of course you sacrifice temporal resolution).
-reasons for 24fps over 12 had to do with the minimum requirement for recording the audio tracks on film, look it up.
bravo! this is correct.
Public Enemies was able to achieve that look because digital cameras don't require light being passed to either the viewfinder, or film, so they could have a full 1/24second exposure.
I'd love to see your sources. Silent movies were filmed at all sorts of framerates. They wouldn't have picked the expense of 24 fps if 12 fps was adequate for all films.
Okay. So you agree motion blur is important. Thus you must recognise that the same motion blur applied to a 60 fps source would look similarly like a film. At this point you're saying that it's not needed because 24 fps at 1/24th second shutter speed looks just as good as 60fps with the same blur. Except that when the delta is large, like a pan of the mountains from LOTR, each frame is a discrete from the previous one. You get in essence 24 blurred images with no crossover between frames. This is unnatural as in normal human vision, the image is an accumulation of the past whatever fraction of a second. The same mountain pan filmed at 60 fps would have less judder, but wouldn't have the motion blur, so would look like a soap opera. That same 60 fps footage with a 1/24th second motion blur applied would be the best of all worlds, with the natural blur of the longer exposure but with the judder due to low temporal sampling. True or false?
Hi, you can see here why 24fps was chosen, I cannot create a link of the page itself so you have to... you know.. "look it up" 
But seriously, you can find it here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=jzbUUL0xJAEC&pg=PA24
Also, you must understand that most films are shut using a 180 degree shutter angle: this means that each film frame is exposed for half of 1/24; meaning each frame is exposed for 1/48th of a second. This is the 'cinema look' as the vast majority of films use this.
You can never get the 1/48th of a second exposure when you are shooting at 60fps. So you cannot achieve "the same motion blur applied to a 60 fps source would look similarly like a film".
This does work at 48fps shot digital however, with each frame exposed at 1/48th of a second. (You could even throw away half of the frames if you want to do a 24fps conversion); a frame from a native 24fps shot film would have the exact same amount of blur. So why don't people who have seen it like the 48fps hobbit footage, and why does the director himself state that it won't be ideal for every type of film?
Also "soap opera" is because of the fluidity; I don't even think that having or not having blur matters that much at 60fps: to your brain it probably looks the same.
Let me know if you get to watching Public Enemies on BD. (also let me know what you think of the movie :smile: )
But seriously, you can find it here:http://books.google.com/books?id=jzbUUL0xJAEC&pg=PA24
Also, you must understand that most films are shut using a 180 degree shutter angle: this means that each film frame is exposed for half of 1/24; meaning each frame is exposed for 1/48th of a second. This is the 'cinema look' as the vast majority of films use this.
You can never get the 1/48th of a second exposure when you are shooting at 60fps. So you cannot achieve "the same motion blur applied to a 60 fps source would look similarly like a film".
This does work at 48fps shot digital however, with each frame exposed at 1/48th of a second. (You could even throw away half of the frames if you want to do a 24fps conversion); a frame from a native 24fps shot film would have the exact same amount of blur. So why don't people who have seen it like the 48fps hobbit footage, and why does the director himself state that it won't be ideal for every type of film?
Also "soap opera" is because of the fluidity; I don't even think that having or not having blur matters that much at 60fps: to your brain it probably looks the same.
Let me know if you get to watching Public Enemies on BD. (also let me know what you think of the movie :smile: )
Okay, I see a reference to the introduction of sound. That doesn't change anything said though. Why was 24 fps settled upon? Why not 16 fps or 50 fps or 120 fps? Because it was a happy medium. The introduction of sound enforced a requirement for consistent framerate, and perhaps a standardisation for equipment, but 24 fps wasn't picked as a magical number that provides smooth animation. It's just where things settled, and have stuck ever since. That's one problem with legacy compatibility - yo hold back progress.Hi, you can see here why 24fps was chosen, I cannot create a link of the page itself so you have to... you know.. "look it up"
http://books.google.com/books?id=jzbUUL0xJAEC&pg=PA24
You're right, you cannot physically. But as a post effect applied to digital footage, we can! We can have blur extend across any number of frames as long as the algorithms are suitably advanced to track large enough deltas. LOTR recorded at 120 fps with a digital motion blur applied would have looked the same as what we got to see only without smoother motion, meaning no judder of those mountains.
Because it's different, and the natural response to difference is to feel uncomfortable with it. New ideas tend to need a good bedding-in period to achieve acceptance, or be finally rejected. I didn't like 3D at first but I persisted in watching several 3D movies, and now I can comfortably say I don't like 3D movies, but not as just a knee-jerk reaction.
I expect The Hobbit to feel a little odd because my brain is comparing it to what it already knows and will report back "it's different" with an odd sensation. Once it is accustomed, then I'll get a more objective evaluation. I will be surprised if after people are comfortable with 48 fps, they'll prefer to go back to the judder or confused-mess-action of 24 fps films.Surely there are lots of other flms shot in digital cameras at 1/24th or 1/48th second shutter speed?
So you are just making things up. You have absolutely no basis to claim that "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." Some people wrote on blogs that they did not like certain aspects of it. That is all you can claim.
Many of your other claims have the same merit but I am to lazy to refute all of them. Now, could you please stop spreading lies?
"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.
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:
Okay, I see a reference to the introduction of sound. That doesn't change anything said though. Why was 24 fps settled upon? Why not 16 fps or 50 fps or 120 fps? Because it was a happy medium. The introduction of sound enforced a requirement for consistent framerate, and perhaps a standardisation for equipment, but 24 fps wasn't picked as a magical number that provides smooth animation. It's just where things settled, and have stuck ever since. That's one problem with legacy compatibility - yo hold back progress.
You're right, you cannot physically. But as a post effect applied to digital footage, we can! We can have blur extend across any number of frames as long as the algorithms are suitably advanced to track large enough deltas. LOTR recorded at 120 fps with a digital motion blur applied would have looked the same as what we got to see only without smoother motion, meaning no judder of those mountains.
Because it's different, and the natural response to difference is to feel uncomfortable with it. New ideas tend to need a good bedding-in period to achieve acceptance, or be finally rejected. I didn't like 3D at first but I persisted in watching several 3D movies, and now I can comfortably say I don't like 3D movies, but not as just a knee-jerk reaction.
Surely there are lots of other flms shot in digital cameras at 1/24th or 1/48th second shutter speed?
24fps with the film format/size at the time was the minimum that was needed to get good quality sound on the print, the rest (why not 30 or 100 fps?) is as you suggested because of cost-issues.
The 'blur' is not a post effect, even digital film has exposure; to test it for yourself, make a photo with you phonecamera while moving the camera; voila motion blur
digital cameras can have a mechanical shutter as well as a digital one."Once it is accustomed, then I'll get a more objective evaluation. I will be surprised if after people are comfortable with 48 fps, they'll prefer to go back to the judder or confused-mess-action of 24 fps films."
I can say that when I was living at my parents, we had one of the first Sony 100HZ tv's with the extra motion smoothing. I had 100s of VHS tapes at the time (I would watch movies constantly) and I had to endure the motion smoothing for 2 years before I got my own TV (I was not allowed to change the settings on the Sony
!! ).I can tell you that I never grew accustomed to it, and I must have watched more than 100 films like that. In the beginning I did not even know what was wrong, initially I loved it because it felt "like looking trough a window" , that is how I remember describing it. But movies looked to real, seeing William Wallace (great movie btw) walking, talking, moving in general felt really disorienting, because it was as if I was watching a play through a window or something. So yeah, I feel like I know that I won't enjoy it. I will still watch it in 48p, because that is how the director intended it
plus I might like it, as I am always open to new experiences (even though I know that I have probably experienced a very similar effect)
I know. I'm saying that now we can add blur as a post effect, just as we can colour-grade. We are no longer limited to the capture methods.The 'blur' is not a post effect, even digital film has exposure; to test it for yourself, make a photo with you phonecamera while moving the camera; voila motion blur
Motion smoothing in TVs is sporadic and inaccurate. That's like eating good food badly prepared.
If unresolvable fight scenes and juddery backgrounds don't bother you in films, then I'm sure 24 fps will remain more comfortable. Personally I want something to be done about them, for the same reason we crank up the framerate in games. I want to be able to see what's happening without being made to feel like I'm watching a holiday slideshow.I will still watch it in 48p, because that is how the director intended it
However, it could well be that everyone's so used to 24fps that they'll reject changes. It's not unusual for the lowest common denominator to set a lower standard. In which case, one wonders if 24 fps games with ideal motion blur wouldn't be the best way to design games? COD would look a lot more cinematic.The 'blur' is not a post effect, even digital film has exposure; to test it for yourself, make a photo with you phonecamera while moving the camera; voila motion blur
You can pretty much set shutter speed arbitrarily on digital cameras. The Big Red camera supports 1 through 359 degree shutter. One degree shutter @ 24fps corresponds to a shutter speed of 1/8640 of a second. Yes, you would need a lot of light.
Shoot stock at high fps and use high quality motion estimation to apply motion blur in post processing.
Selective motion blur would be of great use in 3D movies, where screen elements with high parallax would receive less motion blur, so that your brain can better reconstruct the image.
Cheers
Unresolvable fight scenes? That probably has more to do with artistic choice.
And I am pretty sure that the opening of Saving private Ryan would look amazing to you when filmed in Call of Duty 60fps, right?
If you ever take a look at Public Enemies then you will see that you can have smooth landscapes at 24fps. See all previous posts for the explanation.
Same with unresolvable fight scenes. Unless you mean that there have been scenes where people move so fast that 24 fps cannot capture it I'd love to see that movie so please, do tell.
Gubbi I didn't know about how they shoot with a fast exposure now and add blur afterwards, do you have a link for this or was it based on personal preference or hypothesis
And I am pretty sure that the opening of Saving private Ryan would look amazing to you when filmed in Call of Duty 60fps, right?
If you ever take a look at Public Enemies then you will see that you can have smooth landscapes at 24fps. See all previous posts for the explanation.
Same with unresolvable fight scenes. Unless you mean that there have been scenes where people move so fast that 24 fps cannot capture it
I'd love to see that movie so please, do tell.Gubbi I didn't know about how they shoot with a fast exposure now and add blur afterwards, do you have a link for this or was it based on personal preference or hypothesis
The Great Frame Rate Debate
Just watch it. The 24Hz was picked simply as an "average" rate, and a lot to do with audio tracking.
Just watch it. The 24Hz was picked simply as an "average" rate, and a lot to do with audio tracking.
It has to do with movements faster than are captured in camera. In part it's artistic choice, with various closeups and fast camera changes. But shooting a fight scene from all the way out is pretty boring. Faster framerates mean the eye can track when the various arms, legs, and weaopns are moving, instead of leaving the viewer giving up and just appreciating, "there's a fight going on somewhere in that."
Except COD doesn't have long exposure blur, which the film would need.
Well, this is kinda misarguing on two counts. Firstly, if Public enemies shows perfectly smooth footage, then there's no benefit to 48 fps or faster. The fact 48fps looks different to 24 fps, no matter what exposure length you use, means Public Enemies and other digital films aren't 'smooth'. 'Smoother' on a scale, yes, but not 'smooth'. Secondly, 24 fps means 24 discrete steps per frame. The motion blur of one frame ends where the other begins. This means you don't get smooth, continuous movement, but a series of stills. If the delta isn't too much, such as when viewing slighter movements or watching a pan on a smaller screen, then the brain interprets the same object moving. If the delta is very large, like the mountain pans of LOTR viewed on the big screen, then the brain interprets a series of discrete frames. The only way to get continuous blur connecting where an object was to where it now it is is by sampling the light during the closed-shutter interval. We can do this as a digital effect.
I've been telling you all along in this thread! It can be added as a post effect digitally. Look up ReelSmart Motion Blur. It's been used in "The Fighter" to 'fix' video footage. The huge benefit of post blur is being able to extend it beyond one frame (I don't know if the algorithms are that advanced yet), so footage shot at 120 fps can have motion blur equivalent to 148th or 1/24th of second, resulting in extremely smooth and natural motion.
60fps was picked to match up with ac current as well, so both came about due to various compromises. I'm still going through the videos you linked but it's interesting that even when Douglas Trumbull made a 60fps movie he called it "disturbing" in how it looked. He also mentions how much screen size matters, that could be why 24fps doesn't bother me as much as others here because 99% of the time I watch movies at home and not at a theater. So while judder may be an issue on a huge movie screen, on a home theater tv it may not be as much of an issue. They do all seem to mention how 24fps does make a "look" though, which is something I've been mentioning as well.
Exactly! Stereoscopy and wide-FOV (parabolic) theater screens will drive higher frame-rates (and visa versa), not the home video market. At least that was my impression from the panel's rhetorics.
Be honest... What looks better to your eyes?
Doom 3 in 30fps?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYq2XWAQxUk&feature=youtu.be
Or Doom 3 in 60fps? (80MB)
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/362131768/DOOM-3-BFG-Edition---Debut-Trailer(60fps).mp4.html
(Mirror)
http://ifile.it/1qewuay/DOOM 3 BFG Edition - Debut Trailer(60fps).mp4
Doom 3 in 30fps?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYq2XWAQxUk&feature=youtu.be
Or Doom 3 in 60fps? (80MB)
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/362131768/DOOM-3-BFG-Edition---Debut-Trailer(60fps).mp4.html
(Mirror)
http://ifile.it/1qewuay/DOOM 3 BFG Edition - Debut Trailer(60fps).mp4
Absolutely. Small screens are a far nicer experience IMO. And titles can look silky smooth at 24fps as long as you have a 24 fps TV (or 25 fpsp PAL
). My best experience of HD to date is probably Monsters Inc. BRD. There is going to be a 'look' as it's based on prior experience. Brains become accustomed to repeated exposure of the same thing, and changes are noticed. Someone who's only ever had Heinz baked beans their whole life will probably recognise HP baked beans as 'wrong', and vice versa. If we look at this objectively, then more framerate is definitely scientifically better. Almost every example referenced so far is comparing a different look (colour grading, exposure, camera angles) such that a soap opera does look different to a movie, but that doesn't mean 60fps is incapable of feeling like a movie. But even if it can't replicate that subjective sensation, I'd say it's time to move on and get a new feeling - one that's better at pulling the viewer in and telling the story instead of putting visual obstacles in their way.
That doesn't help. Games don't have any exposure time, so you have perfect clarity in every frame, so the transition from frame to frame is more obvious. Games always look better as they are now at higher framerates. But drop them to 24 fps and throw in photographic quality DOF+bokeh and motion blur, and suitable cinematic colour grading, and perhaps they'll take on a cinematic feeling? Maybe such a processed Doom 3 would be preferable at 24 fps?
Perhaps the people we should turn to for reference material is the CGI lot? Laa-Yosh's studio is putting out photorealistic CGI. If they could render the same clip in 60, 30 and 24 fps flavours with the same amount of motion blur (50ms a frame or whatever), we'd have a pretty perfect test case I think.
Similar threads
- Locked
