|
WebDog posted:Anything higher starts entering the uncanny valley of super crisp where our brains find it hard to parse because we are used to some level of motion blur naturally. I would disagree with this. I think its all about comparison to what we are used to. When 60fps video started coming to Youtube it looked WAY off and not right to me but I just kind of got used to it and now it just seems smoother and nice now. I do agree that 24fps is right about where the individual frames become smooth enough for natural motion and film was super expensive so dont wanna use too much if we can help it!
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 03:31 |
|
|
Humphreys posted:Have heard that the 12AX7's are a popular tube. Lucky two of them are the same brand. My understanding is most people buy them in pairs? generally it's matched pairs; you need a mutual conductance tester to match them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:generally it's matched pairs; you need a mutual conductance tester to match them. I googled what one of those was thinking I might get away with using a DMM. Nope. And wow at the prices. Time to go to the radio club and see if anyone has one!
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
Yes, but real Cinerama movies were filmed and projected to use that quasi-spherical surface effectively. It's like saying "I saw this 16mm film in IMAX and it sucked."
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
Nutsngum posted:I do agree that 24fps is right about where the individual frames become smooth enough for natural motion and film was super expensive so dont wanna use too much if we can help it! He's now gone and made a film that shot in 120fps. http://fast.wistia.net/embed/iframe/ny6l8oet7v?popover=true
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
And it looks like rear end. It may be cultural conditioning but suspension of disbelief just does not work at high frame rates for me. Nature documentaries would look great though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:And it looks like rear end. It may be cultural conditioning but suspension of disbelief just does not work at high frame rates for me. Nature documentaries would look great though. Same here. Back when they (Best Buy?) had display TVs showing off 120 fps interpolation with U-571 it made everything look like it was a bunch of cosplayers making a movie in their basement. I'd watch hockey on it though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
treiz01 posted:This is such a great picture. It does make me cry a bit to know that the world is down one Ferrari Enzo. It's actually not http://bgr.com/2016/02/07/a-ferrari-enzo-that-got-cut-in-half-was-miraculously-restored-and-sold-for-1-75-million/
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
Cat Hatter posted:Same here. Back when they (Best Buy?) had display TVs showing off 120 fps interpolation with U-571 it made everything look like it was a bunch of cosplayers making a movie in their basement. I'd watch hockey on it though. I had the opportunity to keep a full set of reels for that movie. I passed as I couldn't be arsed carrying it to my car 50 metres away. As it was a lovely movie - I'm not that annoyed. But as I love random poo poo - I want it now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:So many Ataris. So you could say their credibility is... under attack from all sides?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 09:40
|
|
|
Humphreys posted:I had the opportunity to keep a full set of reels for that movie. I passed as I couldn't be arsed carrying it to my car 50 metres away. As it was a lovely movie - I'm not that annoyed. But as I love random poo poo - I want it now. Oh poo poo, I would definitely have kept that. Don't remember the film but I would have done something with submarine bits.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 11:02
|
|
|
Cat Hatter posted:Same here. Back when they (Best Buy?) had display TVs showing off 120 fps interpolation with U-571 it made everything look like it was a bunch of cosplayers making a movie in their basement. I'd watch hockey on it though. That would have been hz not fps. Shouldn't 23/24 fps look all right at 120hz? That divides nicely. Or is it still 3:2 pull-down for some reason?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 11:05
|
|
|
UWBW posted:Also, for some content, how about THIS BAD BOY: The only thing I can remember about it was finding the American accents on the dictionary side of it hilarious, particularly the way it enunciated "goatsucker."
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 11:06
|
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:That would have been hz not fps. My in-laws have one of those TVs that do the interpolation. It makes everything look like a soap opera. Our eyes are used to what a 3:2 pull-down looks like and our brains say "That's a movie". When it's smoothed out, your brain says "That's a soap opera". It is pretty and is awesome for sports, but 24fps and 3:2 pull-downs are what our mind wants.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 11:12
|
|
|
quote:Our eyes are used to what a 3:2 pull-down looks like and our brains say "That's a movie". When it's smoothed out, your brain says "That's a soap opera". mystes has a new favorite as of 12:28 on Aug 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 12:26
|
|
|
“24 fps is more cinematic” is the visual equivalent of “tubes sound better”.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
mystes posted:... people simply having trouble dealing with movies looking slightly different than what they're used to in a way that you would normally stop noticing after 15 minutes. They don't look slightly different, they look very different. More so than the difference between, say, color and black & white. And you don't get used to it in 15 minutes. God, I saw Inside Out at home, and it was either interpolated or shown at its natural high frame rate (I didn't see it in the theater, so I don't know), and it drove me nuts the entire time. I like HFR for football games or video I shoot at Disney World or whatever -- it's great for real life, terrible for narrative cinema. Oh, and Platystemon's "tubes sound better" analogy is ridiculous. Audiophiles are idiots who are consistently proven wrong by blind tests. The difference between 24 FPS and 48 or 60 or 120 is legitimate and obvious. There's no "magic human brain biologically-perfect frame rate," but 24 looks better than 48.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:Oh poo poo, I would definitely have kept that. Don't remember the film but I would have done something with submarine bits. It was when I was in the Army, I had a car, but imagine me trying to hide/store big reels in my quarters come inspection time. I got in trouble for a loving orange in my drawer, and having the Top Gun soundtrack. Imagine a full NAVY MOVIE! EDIT: Granted I was a oval office to my Section Commander who was an Anti-Aircraft Weapons Specialist, and I was an Aircraft Tech and told him that I will defect to the USA and fix the poo poo he couldn't hit properly (I just lust for the A10 Thunderbolt). Humphreys has a new favorite as of 14:56 on Aug 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
You're just used to 24 fps, which was settled on as the lowest frame rate that looked ok, thus minimizing film costs. I used to feel the same way but I've seen enough HFR material to know it can be awesome. Ang Lee's next movie, Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk, was shot at 4K 120 stereo and looks AMAZING.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
Lincoln posted:They don't look slightly different, they look very different. More so than the difference between, say, color and black & white. And you don't get used to it in 15 minutes. God, I saw Inside Out at home, and it was either interpolated or shown at its natural high frame rate (I didn't see it in the theater, so I don't know), and it drove me nuts the entire time. I like HFR for football games or video I shoot at Disney World or whatever -- it's great for real life, terrible for narrative cinema. I agree with this. A bit of blur between frames makes the motion look better. 48 and especially 60 make the scenes look like obvious movie sets. I end up feeling like I'm sitting on the camera boom. It turns out I don't want a perfect reproduction of what the camera sees at high shutter speeds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
Lincoln posted:They don't look slightly different, they look very different. More so than the difference between, say, color and black & white. And you don't get used to it in 15 minutes. God, I saw Inside Out at home, and it was either interpolated or shown at its natural high frame rate (I didn't see it in the theater, so I don't know), and it drove me nuts the entire time. I like HFR for football games or video I shoot at Disney World or whatever -- it's great for real life, terrible for narrative cinema. At least some part of the framerate thing is the result of just what you're used to. Also now I'm wondering if higher framerate cameras might do better with different camera operation techniques since probably every technique in use was refined for 24FPS and not whatever else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
TVs with flickering backlights certainly don't help. I'd like to see a proper 120hz display and see if this fixes it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Elsa posted:I agree with this. A bit of blur between frames makes the motion look better. 48 and especially 60 make the scenes look like obvious movie sets. I end up feeling like I'm sitting on the camera boom. It turns out I don't want a perfect reproduction of what the camera sees at high shutter speeds. Exactly this. You can still get motion blur with higher frame rates of course, it's all about shutter angle. But 23.976 with a 180 shutter angle looks good with normal human motion. People are welcome to their opinion on what they prefer, but saying there's no difference is just wrong, as someone who works with frame rates everyday. Lizard Combatant has a new favorite as of 17:17 on Aug 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Why do camera pans in 24 fps almost hurt to watch for me in some movies?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
SinineSiil posted:Why do camera pans in 24 fps almost hurt to watch for me in some movies? I was always told that horizontal pans were bad because the film moves vertically through the projector, but that theory doesn't hold up because it's still weird with digital video.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
I feel my eyes hunting for the picture during pans too. I would take a guess why the blur happens but I need to find out what shutter angle is before I can feel like I know what I'm talking about again. lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Depends where you're watching them, but let's assume you mean at the movies. The judder from panning shots is the DP not doing a perfect job of the pan (whether due to time constraints or whatever). Cameras are tricky beasts and there are critical speeds where things will appear to judder. You may have noticed credits crawls occasionally looking janky as well. Different frame rates handle vertical and horizontal movement differently. Without getting into too much detail, you're noticing it in 24fps movies more because there's overwhelmingly more of them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
IMO it's mostly because the footage is a blurry mess thanks to 24fps and corresponding exposure so it's uncomfortable to look at. Same thing can happen IRL if you move your head/eyes around too quickly so we generally don't do that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:IMO it's mostly because the footage is a blurry mess thanks to 24fps and corresponding exposure so it's uncomfortable to look at. Same thing can happen IRL if you move your head/eyes around too quickly so we generally don't do that. What? What does exposure have to do with anything? e: do you mean shutter speed like on a dslr? With film cameras that's shutter angle. You realize you can shoot at whatever shutter speeds you like with 24fps yes? People just generally stick with 180° (or 1/48th of a second in dslr terms) because it's pleasing to the eye, but plenty films vary it up for different effects. Lizard Combatant has a new favorite as of 18:34 on Aug 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
It’s party the cinematographer’s fault for panning too fast, but also party 24 fps fault for making pans janky unless they’re executed at a glacial pace.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:It’s party the cinematographer’s fault for panning too fast, but also party 24 fps fault for making pans janky unless they’re executed at a glacial pace. That's an oversimplification (there's lots of other things to consider, such as lens focal lengths) but sure, it's a limitation. But there are trade offs with absolutely anything you do and temporal aliasing is absolutely still present in higher frame rates. e: again, I don't mind what people prefer I'm just glad folks are discussing the merits of each instead of writing it off as "no difference" or "something you stop noticing after 10 minutes". Lizard Combatant has a new favorite as of 19:19 on Aug 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Humphreys posted:I got in trouble for a loving orange in my drawer, and having the Top Gun soundtrack. Imagine a full NAVY MOVIE! Yes but was it the viewing material or the orange you were loving to it that they objected to?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:e: again, I don't mind what people prefer I'm just glad folks are discussing the merits of each instead of writing it off as "no difference" or "something you stop noticing after 10 minutes".
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Remulak posted:Watching action movie type stuff on 120 for a few days then going back to 24 is painful. Ok again, frame rate and refresh rates aren't the same thing. What action films have you seen that were shot at 120fps? I like high frame rates for sports and documentaries btw. e: sorry I did misread that, you did say action movie type stuff. What do you mean by that, is it stuff shot at 120fps? Lizard Combatant has a new favorite as of 20:17 on Aug 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Yep, lots of test footage, not a feature. Seen a lot of stuff in 60 too, but the more the better. I do note that Ang Lee has given conference demos of Billy Lynn in 4K 120 stereo. Even on that poo poo Christy Mirage projector it looks great.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Ideally, we'd get the best of all possible worlds via Variable Frame Rate. Boost the framerate during horizontal pans (or for aesthetic effect) to maintain smooth motion, while appealing to tradition when necessary
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
Remulak posted:Yep, lots of test footage, not a feature. Seen a lot of stuff in 60 too, but the more the better. Which I'm very excited to see. Anyway, sorry for the massive poo poo fit everyone but current frame rates ain't obsolete! You may commence mp3 chat now Lizard Combatant has a new favorite as of 05:14 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:Ideally, we'd get the best of all possible worlds via Variable Frame Rate. Boost the framerate during horizontal pans (or for aesthetic effect) to maintain smooth motion, while appealing to tradition when necessary disney's cars 4, now with nvidia g-sync
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 10:21
|
|
|
Remulak posted:Watching action movie type stuff on 120 for a few days then going back to 24 is painful. Made more so by the last decade or two being unreasonably fond of high-speed closeup action scenes with a moving camera. I've resigned to leaning back and waiting for things to slow down enough to see who's still standing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 10:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 03:31 |
|
|
I think that's a trend born out of bad choreography or directors (studios more likely) not able or willing to commit to the kind of precision you get from Hong Kong flicks. CA Civil War actually does have great choreography but they intentionally went for a chaotic style, which to me worked for the most part. Especially when they actually let the take roll. Lots of quick cuts and close ups usually means the fight scene didn't look great on the day. It's also much cheaper. Cinema's all smoke and mirrors, upping the frame rate certainly removes a lot of the smoke which is most of the problem for me. A high frame rate kung fu movie could look incredible, if they nail it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 11:00
|
|