48 movies fps vs 60 game fps?

Also Zyrusticae has the subject of motion blur pretty nailed. Read their posts if you want to understand why film is different to gaming in the need for framerate.

The more advanced realtime motion blur gets (its ability to emulate real world open shutter effects) the less need we will have for framerates above ~24 (gameplay aside)
 
AstroNut325 said:
It's almost a century of 24fps having exclusive reign in motion pictures. I personally would love to see progression to 60fps in movies and games. People will get use it over time. I support the Apple route... cut off 24fps entirely. People will b*tch for about five years then all is well. Yes I know this is unlikely to happen. Too many stubborn people set in their ways.

Also, if high frame rate doesn't add anything to the movie, neither does color nor surround sound.
Click to expand...

This is the dumbest thing I've read this week
 
Shadow Hog said:
That's because, to my understanding, it's using the same technology those "smooth motion" filters on HDTVs use. It's not actual 48FPS footage, it's 24FPS footage made to look like 48FPS footage.
Click to expand...

This needs to be addressed because its not true. They are shooting at 48fps - the camera is actually exposing 48 frames of film every second.

Most of the reason "smooth motion" (frame interpolation) looks garbage will be present in footage actually shot at high framerates; the artifacts from it being faked are but a small part of that.

bloodforge said:
He was talking about the trailer that was posted, not the actual movie.
Click to expand...

Sorry, yeah, I didn't know the trailer was interpolated (though at higher quality than realtime processes in TVs). It's still not the reason it looks offputting.
 
Funchameleon said:
This needs to be addressed because its not true. They are shooting at 48fps - the camera is actually exposing 48 frames of film every second.

Most of the reason "smooth motion" (frame interpolation) looks garbage will be present in footage actually shot at high framerates; the artifacts from it being faked are but a small part of that.
Click to expand...

He was talking about the trailer that was posted, not the actual movie.
 
I don't care what FPS that Hobbit trailer is in, but it looks like shit whenever it's just people (or in this case Hobbits).

I watch movies to escape reality, I don't need them to look like I'm at a play.

Now, I know this doesn't have to be an issue of HFR, but it will be.. but the production values better be there or you get what this guy said:

But many critics were less kind, with one Entertainment Weekly blog post saying the clips Jackson showed at CinemaCon "looked much more like visiting the set of a film rather than seeing the textured cinematography of a finished movie."
Click to expand...
 
NervousXtian said:
I don't care what FPS that Hobbit trailer is in, but it looks like shit whenever it's just people (or in this case Hobbits).

I watch movies to escape reality, I don't need them to look like I'm at a play.

Now, I know this doesn't have to be an issue of HFR, but it will be.. but the production values better be there or you get what this guy said:
Click to expand...

Those people have only seen movies in 24fps their entire lives. They very likely are not going to like it.
 
Doing some reading of mainstream articles on the subject, theres a lot of confusion between "SmoothMotion" type effects and "The Soap Opera Effect". The soap opera effect is a BYPRODUCT of Smoothmotion, separate from the artifacting that goes on when the TV isn't able to properly interpolate an 'inbetween' frame, or even the fact it's interpolating low shutter speeds.

The soap opera effect describes when CHEAP TV went from being shot on actual film to interlaced digital formats; where they basically recorded in and played on television 50fps (pal) or 60fps (ntsc) footage. Ignore the fact that the frames were interlaced (it was effectively imperceptible on CRTs); it was offputting purely because of the high framerates and consequentially, the loss of filmic motion blur.
 
AstroNut325 said:
Those people have only seen movies in 24fps their entire lives. They very likely are not going to like it.
Click to expand...

I don't think you are understanding what he was saying. The idea that higher just equals better is wrong.

HFR for sports or says the news works just fine, because sports looking more real works and the camera, for the most part is static and follows the actions, or where you are pretty much looking.. and with the news it's static shots of someone talking.

Movies on the other hand, the HFR can display flaws you might not notice at a lower frame rate.
 
It's not because of exposing flaws (well, maybe it is in the sense that low-framerate hides things we don't like about human motion). It's because it's high framerate and we're not used to that. There hasn't even been any studies that suggest people not exposed to 24-30fps their entire lives would prefer it.

Take this excellent example:

FinKL said:
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...

This was ACTUALLY SHOT at a high framerate. There's no reason to think The Hobbit at 48fps would be any different. It looks fucking horrible, if you ask me (and everyone I've been asking for the past 30 minutes).
 
apana said:
You aren't used to it in films either. None of us are and you don't know how the public at large will respond. It could be like color and win out over time or it could never catch on.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm referring to this point in time when its pretty new and It reminds some of TV broadcast, which has some negative connotations. I'm not saying that it will be like color, it may as well be like cinerama.
 
about the only legitimate complaint I can think of that isn't hysteria or clinging to previous experience is sets, cgi, action/stunts are harder to do well and look like they fit without leaning on the excessive blur from motion, panning, other camera movement in 24fps

people act like 24fps is integral to the film medium but I can guarantee you film makers will make it look very good. a movie like City of God would look great filmed at a higher frame rate without any changes. also doesn't preclude using artistic motion effects which of course are useful
 
24,30,50,60 fps etc... We already have enough fps as it is. 48fps makes no sense to me. Why not 30 or 50 fps? Or better yet enough with the half assing and go straight up 60 or even 120fps.
I fail to see the point in 48 fps. too many fps standards as is. no need to further add anymore than there should be.

/oldmanyellsatcloud rant
 
Vulcano's assistant said:
Yeah, I'm referring to this point in time when its pretty new and It reminds some of TV broadcast, which has some negative connotations. I'm not saying that it will be like color, it may as well be like cinerama.
Click to expand...

My best guess is that it will end up being another option but won't ever really overtake what we have now. These next few years are going to be very hit and miss as film makers experiment with what works. The Hobbit actually seems like a strange film to introduce it. It would have been really neat to see a 48 fps version of Dark Knight. Can our televisions display 48 and 60 fps? I wonder why it isn't used in more shows, I haven't noticed it at least.
 
apana said:
My best guess is that it will end up being another option but won't ever really overtake what we have now. These next few years are going to be very hit and miss as film makers experiment with what works. The Hobbit actually seems like a strange film to introduce it. It would have been really neat to see a 48 fps version of Dark Knight. Can our televisions display 48 and 60 fps? I wonder why it isn't used in more shows, I haven't noticed it at least.
Click to expand...

Tv shows in 60i using line doubling shows a 30fps program with 60fps motion.
 
Different mediums. Cant compare.
higher framerate in movies makes things more unrealistic (or too realistic) and cheaper. It makes it look like a stage play on television rather than a movie.
Games obviously do not suffer from this problem. In games sometimes the smoother, higher framerate makes the game play better, so it isnt even really bout the quality of the visuals.
However if you compare 60fps games to 30fps games that use motion blur, the latter tends to look better. Maybe that is because it is closer in style to movies.
 
DjRoomba said:
Different mediums. Cant compare.
higher framerate in movies makes things more unrealistic and cheaper. It makes it look like a stage play on television rather than a movie.
In games sometimes smoother, higher framerat makes the game play better, so it isnt even really bout the quality of the visuals.
If you're actually comparing Call of Duty to something that runs at 30fps with motion blur, the latter will look better. 60 fps certainly doesnt = looking better
Click to expand...

You just gave me an idea... Be back in a few.
 
In this thread I learned that I'm a "soulless freak" who would be "killed on the spot". Guess I better take care when I go to enjoy a 48/60 FPS showing.
 
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...
Mmmm.... those 60fps videos. I can't wait until HFR is the norm.
 
Durante said:
In this thread I learned that I'm a "soulless freak" who would be "killed on the spot". Guess I better take care when I go to enjoy a 48/60 FPS showing.
Click to expand...
I said in audio you would be killed on the spot because that's the truth. Greater fidelity has not resulted in everything better. You basically reached the roof in the 70s and it didn't get much better since then... Rather it's gotten worse in the past ten years.

I think we're mixing up frames per second with fidelity - that's not really the case here and nobody seems to be getting it. I've been down this road already and I'm sorry, judge it on its own merits or don't judge it at all.

Next.
 
FinKL said:
Yes, your choices are
2D 24fps
3D 24fps
2D 24fps IMAX
3D 24fps IMAX
3D 48fps

as I recall...

And here is a fan made Proof of Concept 48fps Trailer http://www.48fpsmovies.com/The_Hobbit_An_Unexpected_Journey_Trailer.mp4
Click to expand...
Good, you edited.

That is just frame interpolation, the shitty effect on TVs that guesses the in between frames and as a result makes some things jerky, others smooth and introduces shitty artifacts to boot. This is also used on Geico ads inexplicably.
 
Let's go a little deeper GAF...

Inception 60FPS TRAILER


http://www.gigashare.in/b8980


Looks amazing when properly done. IMO


polyh3dron said:
Good, you edited.

That is just frame interpolation, the shitty effect on TVs that guesses the in between frames and as a result makes some things jerky, others smooth and introduces shitty artifacts to boot. This is also used on Geico ads inexplicably.
Click to expand...

The Geico commercials and the ones used on TVs are shitty algorithms. The one in the video above is very good actually.
 
Reiko said:
The Geico commercials and the ones used on TVs are shitty algorithms. The one in the video above is very good actually.
Click to expand...

There are still some telltale signs, anything that moves fast enough loses its 60FPS while everything else in the shot that is moving slower still maintains it. It's very disorientating.
 
polyh3dron said:
There are still some telltale signs, anything that moves fast enough loses its 60FPS while everything else in the shot that is moving slower still maintains it. It's very disorientating.
Click to expand...




No framedropping on my end.

Hardware interpolation is known for dropping frames. This is just encoded video.

EDIT: Ah... That is the algorithm dealing with parts of the actual trailer that is slowed down for dramatic effect. Some parts of the 24fps trailer is moving slower than how it was actually filmed. This algorithm picks up on everything that you didn't notice in a lower framerate.
 
danmaku said:
The irrational hatred towards everything new is hilarious, and this thread is no exception.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm, now that's just annoying.

My dislike of 48 FPS has to do with the attempt to reduce the level of motion blur, which is something I do not like. 48 FPS with 1/24 shutter angle is fine by me, but most of them are doing it with 1/48 which cuts the motion blur in half and just looks too realistic. I like my cinema to be larger-than-life, thank you very much.
 
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...
The difference isn't in visuals alone, even though 60fps looks much smoother. With a higher framerate, you have reduced input lag and the game feels much more responsive.

Anyway, in response to the thread, there's a difference between a movie and a game. I was going to point out why, but it seems people have already covered it. I'm interested to see The Hobbit in 48fps though. I'm not turned off by the idea of 48fps, but I can imagine it taking some getting used to.
 
shinobi602 said:
Lol what? No.

I can't stand the faster FPS in movies. Make them look like cheap soap operas. No thanks.
Click to expand...

But they look like cheap soap operas because we're used to cheap soap operas running a higher frame rate.

A better frame rate allows for new techniques, swifter camera motion that isn't destroyed by blur and judder.
 
It will look like shit in 48fps. Plain and simple. That kind of motion fidelity is simply too close to reality for film. It will feel like you're on set instead of viewing this fantasy world from an outside perspective. It will make the CGI look worse as well.
 
Funchameleon said:
Also Zyrusticae has the subject of motion blur pretty nailed. Read their posts if you want to understand why film is different to gaming in the need for framerate.

The more advanced realtime motion blur gets (its ability to emulate real world open shutter effects) the less need we will have for framerates above ~24 (gameplay aside)
Click to expand...
Hold on, are you seriously suggesting that games would be better at 24FPS with motion blur (gameplay considerations aside)? Because... I don't agree with that assessment. At all. I'll hold off on the merits of HFR film for now (although most of the actually-shot-at-HFR footage I've seen, I actually kinda like, including that guitar one you cite as terrible), but I don't want games to start going low framerate because it's "more realistic" (it's not) or "more cinematic" (it is, due to the old tried-and-true 24FPS standard, but games aren't supposed to be cinema).

I could also be way off the mark and you aren't insinuating that - do correct me if that's the case.
 
ScOULaris said:
It will look like shit in 48fps. Plain and simple. That kind of motion fidelity is simply too close to reality for film. It will feel like you're on set instead of viewing this fantasy world from an outside perspective. It will make the CGI look worse as well.
Click to expand...
What was your initial reaction to the introduction Full HD media? The same? If so, have you come to accept and embrace HD by now? If not, why is the increased fidelity of high definition good but the one of high framerate bad?
 
If anyone has gone to Universal Studios in Hollywood, the King Kong 3D attraction, also helmed by Peter Jackson uses high framerate video, running at 60FPS. And it looks awesome.

Some people are just too accustomed to their movies being a certain framerate and to be honest, they're luddites.
 
ScOULaris said:
It will look like shit in 48fps. Plain and simple. That kind of motion fidelity is simply too close to reality for film. It will feel like you're on set instead of viewing this fantasy world from an outside perspective. It will make the CGI look worse as well.
Click to expand...

So you've seen 48 fps movies, then?
 
Turok_TTZ said:
24,30,50,60 fps etc... We already have enough fps as it is. 48fps makes no sense to me. Why not 30 or 50 fps? Or better yet enough with the half assing and go straight up 60 or even 120fps.
I fail to see the point in 48 fps. too many fps standards as is. no need to further add anymore than there should be.

/oldmanyellsatcloud rant
Click to expand...

The reason they're using 48fps is because it is a perfect double of 24fps. This helps the theatrical release for screens running at 24fps. Studios will use multiples of 24 for filming because it will make theatrical release easier. 24, 48, 72, 96, 120.

When it is time for home video releases, the studio has a 24fps master created from the 48fps source elements. Due to its limited theatrical release and whether they receive negative feedback from consumers, the studio may choose not to release the 48fps version until a point when high frame rates are popular.

In the US, TVs use refresh rates of 60hz. In PAL territories (such as the UK), TVs use refresh rates of 50hz. Primarily you should see these frame rate standards as a divide between TV and movies in their respective histories and technological evolutions.

The nearest intersection you could see between movies, theater screens, and TV sets would be 120fps.
 
exmachina64 said:
When it is time for home video releases, the studio has a 24fps master created from the 48fps source elements.
Click to expand...
That is a terrible idea and I really hope they don't do this.

Unless the shutter angle is actually set to 1/24 instead of 1/48, it'll just end up looking awful.
 
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