48 movies fps vs 60 game fps?

Haunted said:
Are there any 48fps trailers so I can see what it looks like for myself?
Click to expand...

From this website:
http://www.48fpsmovies.com/high-frame-rate-example-videos/

panning shot at 24 fps: http://red.cachefly.net/learn/panning-24fps-180.mp4

panning shot at 60 fps: http://red.cachefly.net/learn/panning-60fps-180.mp4

action shot#1 at 24 fps: http://red.cachefly.net/learn/action-24fps.mp4

action shot#1 at 60 fps: http://red.cachefly.net/learn/action-60fps.mp4

Although this takes a while to load up, I think this is the best example of 48fps
http://wemusic.veenue.com/libraries/lib_170/media/h_guitarelectric_0.mp4
It's smooth, but to some, it's fake. Really depends on the person
 
FinKL said:
From this website:
http://www.48fpsmovies.com/high-frame-rate-example-videos/

panning shot at 24 fps: http://red.cachefly.net/learn/panning-24fps-180.mp4

panning shot at 60 fps: http://red.cachefly.net/learn/panning-60fps-180.mp4

action shot#1 at 24 fps: http://red.cachefly.net/learn/action-24fps.mp4

action shot#1 at 60 fps: http://red.cachefly.net/learn/action-60fps.mp4

Although this takes a while to load up, I think this is the best example of 48fps
http://wemusic.veenue.com/libraries/lib_170/media/h_guitarelectric_0.mp4
It's smooth, but to some, it's fake. Really depends on the person
Click to expand...

Ugh that second action shot. That is the WORST
 
FinKL said:
From this website:
http://www.48fpsmovies.com/high-frame-rate-example-videos/

panning shot at 24 fps: http://red.cachefly.net/learn/panning-24fps-180.mp4

panning shot at 60 fps: http://red.cachefly.net/learn/panning-60fps-180.mp4

action shot#1 at 24 fps: http://red.cachefly.net/learn/action-24fps.mp4

action shot#1 at 60 fps: http://red.cachefly.net/learn/action-60fps.mp4

Although this takes a while to load up, I think this is the best example of 48fps
http://wemusic.veenue.com/libraries/lib_170/media/h_guitarelectric_0.mp4
It's smooth, but to some, it's fake. Really depends on the person
Click to expand...

I love those 60FPS shots, it pleases my eyes.
 
I think films in 48fps look super weird.

60 fps in gaming is a totally different thing because I am in control.
 
Someone from GAF did a couple of great fps comparison vids with pebbles. Higher framerate looked much better and if they finally get rid of the shit that happens everytime there's panning movement, good.
 
FinKL said:
Yes, your choices are
2D 24fps
3D 24fps
2D 24fps IMAX
3D 24fps IMAX
3D 48fps

as I recall...

And here is the 48fps Trailer http://www.48fpsmovies.com/The_Hobbit_An_Unexpected_Journey_Trailer.mp4
Click to expand...

You sure that is the actual Hobbit 48 fps and not something someone made themselves? Is it possible to make a "real" 48 fps version of something from a 24 fps original? All I know is that there is a trend to make 60 fps porn versions of things which I always assumed were not taken from a 60 fps source... or so I've been told :)
 
In video games higher framerates result in lower input lag which is necessary for certain genres. Movies don't have to go through that argument.
 
FinKL said:
This is correct. I wanted to see 48fps 2D, but no theater is equipped with this tech or they didn't want to send it out. I'm not sure why (cost?). They went all in with the 3D 48fps so if you want to see 48fps, you better be ready for the glasses.
Click to expand...

Since 3D usually has a flickery effect, because of the way it is shown, 1 eye gets 1 image while the other is black, perhaps this 48fps 3d is a way to decrease the apparent flicker, making it feel like a full 24 fps in each eye.


Wasnt Early Hobbit footage shown over a year ago at 48fps, and every said it looks like ass already?
yes, they did

I was saying this when this was first announced, it shouldn't be surprising. This is probabaly why 2d is staying 24fps and 3d is 48fps(but feels 24fps)

As for the topic at hand. remember that tv is 30fps, and film is generally 24fps. You make a film run at 30+ fps and it looks like tv or a soup opera. You loose the film quality, film is an escape or a filter on reality. You take away that filter and it looks mundane every day life and you are just watching people on a stage the more you increase the framerate.
 
Cartman86 said:
You sure that is the actual Hobbit 48 fps and not something someone made themselves? Is it possible to make a "real" 48 fps version of something from a 24 fps original? All I know is that there is a trend to make 60 fps porn versions of things which I always assumed were not taken from a 60 fps source... or so I've been told :)
Click to expand...

How do you benefit from 60fps porn?

I want to know purely out of curiosity.
 
Luminous_Reaver said:
I'm okay with 30fps games to be perfectly honest. There was once a time where I couldn't really tell the difference without a side-by-side comparison. People must be making noise for the sake of having something to talk about.
Click to expand...

Wait, so because you can't tell, it's not a big deal to anyone and they must be making it up?
 
Because a game world will look the same at 30 fps as it will at 60 fps. It doesn't actually render the scene differently, just faster. The camera is static and won't detract from what you're seeing.

However, in film, even steady shots have small and usually unnoticeable movements. At 24 fps those are easy to overlook. But at 48 fps, those movements become pronounced, creating the disorienting effect often compared to soap operas. Further, that smoothness better shows the imperfections in set designs that are often covered up by lower frame rates, thereby making the movie itself actually look faker.
 
Cartman86 said:
You sure that is the actual Hobbit 48 fps and not something someone made themselves? Is it possible to make a "real" 48 fps version of something from a 24 fps original? All I know is that there is a trend to make 60 fps porn versions of things which I always assumed were not taken from a 60 fps source... or so I've been told :)
Click to expand...

The above trailer is a proof of concept of 48fps made by someone, but I can't find a official source of the 48fps trailer. (Maybe one was never made?)

I think there is a way to make a 24/60fps video from a source 24fps video as I do have a performance that is 60fps from a 24fps source. Would need someone's expertise in cinematography/video codecs or something as I don't know anything about it :)
 
Cartman86 said:
You sure that is the actual Hobbit 48 fps and not something someone made themselves? Is it possible to make a "real" 48 fps version of something from a 24 fps original? All I know is that there is a trend to make 60 fps porn versions of things which I always assumed were not taken from a 60 fps source... or so I've been told :)
Click to expand...

Thats not from a 48fps source. But 48fps film does look great and I would start going back to the theaters if they were shown in 48fps. HATE HATE 24fps panning on the big screen. I think higher frame rate is MORE immerse, not sure why people want to have that low framerate discconect.
 
Cartman86 said:
Tarantino on digital and fps

While this is an argument about the debate between digital and film and I think Tarantino is insane in his hyperbole about wanting to quit the industry when digital takes over (which will probably happen in the next couple years) he expresses the same argument many will use for staying with 24 fps. That film looks a certain way because it's an illusion. It's 24 fps for a reason, and that's where the "movie magic" comes in. I agree there is a look to it, but not only can that look be done with digital, but for me personally the digital aesthetic looks good as well. I personally have not seen a 48 fps movie so I am curious what my reaction will be to that. So far though films like Zodiac, The Social Network, Skyfall and Life of Pi have made digital look pretty fucking good, so I trust I will be fine with the "soap opera" look.
Click to expand...

One thing is digital vs film, and another is 24FPS vs 48 or 60FPS... Personally I can live with digital movies (I still love film, and the "organic" nature of it).

I hate motion interpolation on tvs, and I don't know how a movie in the movie theaters would look, so I'm going to wait and see.
 
I'm so used to my 120Hz HDTV, that I can never go back to 60Hz. I'll take smooth motion in movies over the constant stutter. Can't unsee.
 
majik13 said:
Since 3D usually has a flickery effect, because of the way it is shown, 1 eye gets 1 image while the other is black, perhaps this 48fps 3d is a way to decrease the apparent flicker, making it feel like a full 24 fps in each eye.
Click to expand...
No, since I recall reading that 3D projectors presently run at a higher framerate than 24-per-eye as it was; it flashed the same frames for a couple of times each. I'm not particularly sure how many times, and I could also be way off the mark...

majik13 said:
Wasnt Early Hobbit footage shown over a year ago at 48fps, and every said it looks like ass already?
yes, they did

I was saying this when this was first announced, it shouldn't be surprising. This is probabaly why 2d is staying 24fps and 3d is 48fps(but feels 24fps)

As for the topic at hand. remember that tv is 30fps, and film is generally 24fps. You make a film run at 30+ fps and it looks like tv or a soup opera. You loose the film quality, film is an escape or a filter on reality. You take away that filter and it looks mundane every day life and you are just watching people on a stage the more you increase the framerate.
Click to expand...
I'm not entirely sure "watching people on a stage" is an issue when millions of people already do that in traditional theaters the world 'round. Granted, Broadway musicals and films are rather different media, but still...

Also, not all TV is 30FPS outside of soap operas; sports broadcasts are higher, for instance.
 
godelsmetric said:
I think it's partly because when you record a movie, each frame gets pixel perfect motion blur 'for free', as it were. Whereas most games are just lots of single-frame, motion-blur-less images shown very quickly.

For instance, look at this screencap from the Hobbit trailer:


Although most things are moving slowly, the water in the foreground is still blurry. If you took a picture of most videogames, that would be static, like it was frozen in time.
Click to expand...

This is interesting, I never thought about it this way.
 
FinKL said:
From this website:
http://www.48fpsmovies.com/high-fram...xample-videos/

panning shot at 24 fps: http://red.cachefly.net/learn/panning-24fps-180.mp4

panning shot at 60 fps: http://red.cachefly.net/learn/panning-60fps-180.mp4

action shot#1 at 24 fps: http://red.cachefly.net/learn/action-24fps.mp4

action shot#1 at 60 fps: http://red.cachefly.net/learn/action-60fps.mp4

Although this takes a while to load up, I think this is the best example of 48fps
http://wemusic.veenue.com/libraries/...electric_0.mp4
Click to expand...
shiiiiiii those look awesome. Much prefer the smooth ones to the 24fps ones. Just look at that panning shot. How can you prefer the first one?

Thanks.
 
You know what's going to happen, years down the line, 48fps or something higher will become the norm and the young generation of the time will grow up with it. Then daddy, i.e one of the people clinging on to 24fps will be sitting in his hyper sonic rocking chair and say "Back when I was young ...",
 
Sethos said:
You know what's going to happen, years down the line, 48fps or something higher will become the norm and the young generation of the time will grow up with it. Then daddy, i.e one of the people clinging on to 24fps will be sitting in his hyper sonic rocking chair and say "Back when I was young ..."
Click to expand...

and then a bunch of hipsters will start the retro digital 24fps revival
 
I can't wait for this fucking movie to come out so people can actually see it AND THEN discuss how it looks and people's opinions on it


So far there are the very few people that have seen it with mixed reactions and then there are the people that haven't seen it yet who either say "twice as many frames = twice as good, that's just math bro" or "Eww, this will look like I'm watching the set of the movie being filmed, do not want."

I'm looking forward to seeing it in 48fps (Seattle has a few theaters that are showing it), but I have no feelings either way about whether it will be better or worse than normal.
 
I don't think one standard should fit either games or movies. What works for one thing, won't necessarily work for something else. I want to watch a film, how the director intends it to be seen. But if in the future 48fps is forced on by movie studios, the same way 3D has been then i won't be happy.

I've seen quite a lot of people up in arms over this. As i understand it, you're either a simpleton, afraid of change or a hipster if you don't like the look of 3D or 48FPS. It couldn't possibly be, you just don't like the look of it.
 
Shadow Hog said:
No, since I recall reading that 3D projectors presently run at a higher framerate than 24-per-eye as it was; it flashed the same frames for a couple of times each. I'm not particularly sure how many times, and I could also be way off the mark...

I'm not entirely sure "watching people on a stage" is an issue when millions of people already do that in traditional theaters the world 'round. Granted, Broadway musicals and films are rather different media, but still...

Also, not all TV is 30FPS outside of soap operas; sports broadcasts are higher, for instance.
Click to expand...

the sports comment is a moot point, since I am referring to 30fps and up. Im just making a generlization that standard tv broadcast is generally 29.97 fps.

also, people dont go to movies to watch people on stage or tv, is just all that I am saying. Yes most importantly the story or entertainment value is paramount, but a higher frame rate just looks odd and takes you out of the experience. Maybe it will be fine for younger people who have never seen a 24fps film before though.
 
Also it's definitely a matter of taste. But looking at the comparisons kindly provided by FinKL, i definitely prefer the 24fps. I'm not for one second saying it's better though, just that i prefer it.

There's an argument to be made though, for the fact they're only a few seconds long and I may need to watch a full film to appreciate the advance. I plan to watch the Hobbit a second time in 48fps and i'm going to keep an open mind.

EDIT: Oh and about the movie vs games thread title. I prefer to play games in 60fps for the increased response and smoother feel of the game. Which is completely irrelevant when watching a movie.
 
codhand said:
60 fps gaming looks awesome
48 fps film looks like Korean soap operas
Click to expand...

You realize that isn't actually a criticism of the framerate, right?

All it means is that you're only used to seeing that framerate in a limited number of contexts. There's nothing inherently better about 24 fps.
 
If you have access, try playing the HD remake of Medal of Honor Frontline (which runs at 60FPS, albeit not locked) and then plug in the PS2 game. While the HD remake is much more technically capable, it does nothing to impress, while the original has a certain feeling of an overwhelming experience too powerful for even the game to keep up with. The Shadow of the Colossus remake might have felt the same way if the design team had chosen to try 60FPS rendering instead of locking to 30FPS.

It's not quite totally comparable in games because no matter what you still have artificial images on your screen instead of real people and places (if The Hobbit can be considered as such,) but even here there's a difference in how your eyes and brain comprehend motion blur and refresh rate.

And the one big difference between movies and games is that movies have an inactive audience looking not for reality, but "cinematic reality". With games, so many new titles and every genre places the player in a different perspective and there's no expectation of how things should look other than "good"; with movies, you have over 80 years of experience of people sitting in a dark room and knowing what's going to be on that screen. Change the projector framerate and you've changed the quality of the picture presentation in a way that might be technically "better" but is still different from everything you've known and liked about cinema since before you can remember.

I hope it works out for The Hobbit, but don't expect standards to change. We'll still see 24FPS movies for a long time to come. And despite the underlying hyperbole when game designers say it, ("Oh, we intentionally chose 30FPS to focus on our cinematic presentation" almost always translates not to 30 looking more movielike but instead to they couldn't get those graphics with that engine without compromise,) there is even in gaming sometimes a good reason why 30 might be the right way to go.
 
Anyway, that biking video might be a good point of comparison for the people who've been asking me to illustrate the difference between 24FPS and 48FPS, since they just couldn't tell. I was hoping to get a 60FPS video of, say, New Super Mario Bros. U and produce a 30FPS version for comparison, but I wasn't sure where I would DL the HFR version.
 
Movies don't "look like movies" when they aren't 24fps. It's weird. Different. It somehow makes them look lower quality. It's like seeing a home movie or a soap opera. It's dumb but that's how it is.
Click to expand...
As silly as that sounds, I kind of agree. I haven't actually experienced a proper 48 fps on a movie screen just yet but I'm excited to see it for myself.

As for footage displayed at a higher framerate or smoothed out using a displays interpolation feature, I've found that the results definitely give the impression of a amateur recording. Footage running through a motion smoother often gives me the impression that I'm watching a documentary video.

Anyway, that biking video might be a good point of comparison for the people who've been asking me to illustrate the difference between 24FPS and 48FPS, since they just couldn't tell. I was hoping to get a 60FPS video of, say, New Super Mario Bros. U and produce a 30FPS version for comparison, but I wasn't sure where I would DL the HFR version.
Click to expand...
A game comparison is very different as a result of how the images are generated. There is no natural motion blur present (outside of post processing added in some games).
 
haikira said:
Also it's definitely a matter of taste. But looking at the comparisons kindly provided by FinKL, i definitely prefer the 24fps. I'm not for one second saying it's better though, just that i prefer it.
Click to expand...
Try playing them both side by side if you haven't already. At first I did find that the 60 fps videos felt a bit off, like everything was going too fast. But once I played them both side by side there's really no comparison and I don't see how anyone can find the 24 fps ones to be better (or really acceptable at all, it really shows just how bad panning and fast action is at 24 fps).
 
Enkidu said:
Try playing them both side by side if you haven't already. At first I did find that the 60 fps videos felt a bit off, like everything was going too fast. But once I played them both side by side there's really no comparison and I don't see how anyone can find the 24 fps ones to be better (or really acceptable at all, it really shows just how bad panning and fast action is at 24 fps).
Click to expand...
Well...to be fair to 24 fps, most displays do a poor job handling the content. The 72Hz 3:3 pulldown support on my plasma produces a very consistent image, but viewing it on most monitors will introduce a lot of image judder since 24 doesn't properly sync up with 60 Hz.

A proper judder free 24 fps looks a lot nicer than what you see in that video. Judder drives me absolutely crazy.
 
Htown said:
You realize that isn't actually a criticism of the framerate, right?

All it means is that you're only used to seeing that framerate in a limited number of contexts. There's nothing inherently better about 24 fps.
Click to expand...

But it shows that technology isn't everything.
What looks better might always be the more technically correct answer.
 
dark10x said:
A game comparison is very different as a result of how the images are generated. There is no natural motion blur present (outside of post processing added in some games).
Click to expand...
Regardless, it'd be a good illustration of higher framerate in general, if not specifically for film.
 
Htown said:
There's nothing inherently better about 24 fps.
Click to expand...
well it can hide flaws better. if you want to consider that an advantage.

but comparing a 48fps movie to a 48fps tv soap makes as much sense as comparing a 24fps movie to a 24fps tv sitcom, or a disney/pixar film to a nick tv cartoon.
 
ah; the soap opera effect.. Yeah, I've tried to get used to higher frame rates for movies all the way since I had a TV that made use of frame-interpolation many years ago. The Hobbit trailer (although it's not the real 48fps trailer, no?) gives me the same feeling unfortunately; Like wathing a bad 80's soap opera.. It's not something I'll ever get used to. Some cinematic games gives me the same feeling actually, much the same way I only enjoy high framerate movies if it's nature or sports.
 
dark10x said:
Well...to be fair to 24 fps, most displays do a poor job handling the content. The 72Hz 3:3 pulldown support on my plasma produces a very consistent image, but viewing it on most monitors will introduce a lot of image judder since 24 doesn't properly sync up with 60 Hz.

A proper judder free 24 fps looks a lot nicer than what you see in that video. Judder drives me absolutely crazy.
Click to expand...
That might certainly be true. Regardless of what my monitor did to the 24 fps video though, putting them side by side made the 60 fps one stop looking weird and isn't that kind of the whole problem? That 60/48 is worse because we've been trained to associate low framerates with high quality cinema and high framerates with home video. So if you can get the high framerate video to stop looking weird then all you get it the benefit of the smoother video.
 
bj00rn_ said:
ah; the soap opera effect.. Yeah, I've tried to get used to higher frame rates for movies all the way since I had a TV that made use of frame-interpolation many years ago. But it's useless, and the Hobbit trailer gives me the same feeling unfortunately; Like wathing a bad 80's soap opera.. It's not something I'll ever get used to. Some cinematic games gives me the same feeling actually, much the same way I only enjoy high framerate movies if it's nature or sports.
Click to expand...


The trailers are not in 48fps..

Also being natively shot in 48fps is different than TV frame interpolation. Just as watching my TV convert Avatar Blu Ray into 3D is absolutly nothing like watching the Avatar 3D Blu ray on the same TV. Not even close.
 
I want to keep this simple since I know of the tech and others have touched on more technical aspects but your eyes, if not trained to get accustomed to higher frames, can be jarred by going from console like frame rates to smooth PC frames. Or even a shooter with horrendous issues to one that almost holds 60fps at all times. It's not some innate thing. It's better but if you never put yourself in a position to see that difference, you may get dizzy or have early bouts. There's no doubt that 60fps makes just about everything in games better.

Movies, change is good. We shall see how this goes but if your eyes are trained for all time to see 24fps movies then this may be jarring. I welcome it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lossless Scaling allows you to play any 30/60 fps locked game with a 60/120 fps without breaking game logic
2
63
3K
evanft replied
60 fps is the minimum game should aim for.
2 3 4 5
201
6K
violence replied
The difference between 60 and 120 fps is... pretty massive
2 3
139
7K
rofif replied
Indiana Jones and the Great Circle on PS5 Pro: Ray traced native 4k at 60 fps
3 4 5 6 7
308
14K
Duchess replied
Dreadmoor reveal trailer - Dredge inspired FPS
2
242
drotahorror replied
Top Bottom