|
ReidRansom posted:Speaking of relics... Now that we've long since moved on to digital projection, why is is that we're still hanging onto 24fps as the standard for movies? I get that anything higher doesn't quite look right, like as in what we expect of a movie, but that's only because we're so accustomed to it, and I'd expect that everyone would quickly reset their expectations if more movies were being distributed in higher frame rates. Is there any other reason though, beyond Hollywood rear end in a top hat studio execs doing their usual thing projecting their own stubborn idiocy onto the wider public? It's a very complicated and very psychological issue that's a lot more than just "it looks like teevee" as a poster said. 24 FPS goes a long way towards helping to trick the brain into accepting special effects as real because... ??? - but it is a noted effect. When you bump up the FPS, suddenly effects that would look perfectly realistic at 24 look like bad CGI from the 90s at 48.
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 15:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:07 |
|
|
I see. So basically, Last Chance posted:it's ... complicated Though I still think a lot of the non-tech side hangup is down to just refusing to accept change from our expectations. 24 fps isn't really some "magic" rate aside from that it's basically the minimum (and therefore cheapest on actual film when that was a thing) necessary to trick our brains.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 16:10
|
|
|
Iron Crowned posted:I used to work somewhere that would run that software to test video cards. I always wished those were real games, especially the car one with the walker There's a space marine scene after the car one and I'm pretty sure that was turned into a game. There's also an rts benchmark that was turned into a game. Ashes of Singularity I think. It's been a while but I also recall that you could enter a code or something to make the car scene playable. Edit: oh yeah I'm pretty sure that benchmark also included Max Payne. RVWinkle has a new favorite as of 16:28 on Jun 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 16:26
|
|
|
It looks like rear end, and everyone assumed it was olds just being stubborn. And then young people from all age groups saw it and said it looked like rear end as well. There's no incentive to change.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 16:28
|
|
|
I'm one of the "olds" (36) that thinks 48-60fps looks like trash on movies too... It just looks so.... fake, or "unnatural". I dunno...... err GET OFF MY LAWN! Even worse is the "smooth motion" effect some modern TVs have. I literally cannot stand to watch one with that enabled.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 19:37
|
|
|
stevewm posted:I'm one of the "olds" (36) that thinks 48-60fps looks like trash on movies too... It just looks so.... fake, or "unnatural". I dunno...... err GET OFF MY LAWN! smooth motion is terrible, but 60fps is good. hth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 19:55
|
|
|
I mostly hate 24fps because whenever there is text on some object that I want to read, I pause the movie and it's just a big indecipherable blur. I like high framerates but I won't disparage someone or pretend that I'm in pain or whatever when someone uses a setting I don't like.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 19:55
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:It looks like rear end, and everyone assumed it was olds just being stubborn. And then young people from all age groups saw it and said it looked like rear end as well. Yeah I used to believe 48fps would be awesome and that everyone who complained was wrong, but then I actually saw one of the Hobbit movies at HFR and holy poo poo it really did look terrible. Soap opera effect is one thing, but the bigger problem I had was that everything suddenly looked fake - sets, VFX, everything. It almost looked like a parody of a real movie at times. Idk how that works, but doubling the framerate completely ruined the illusion for me. I would've never expected that since usually more frames = better but for some reason apparently that's not true for movies. Bizarre.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
Iron Crowned posted:I used to work somewhere that would run that software to test video cards. I always wished those were real games, especially the car one with the walker The Matrix one uses Max Payne assets, and I vaguely remember there being a lobby shootout level in that game? It's almost real! I have fond memories of upgrading from a Riva TNT2 to a Hercules Kyro II and my poo poo still crashing on the foliage test.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 21:46
|
|
|
Ruflux posted:Yeah I used to believe 48fps would be awesome and that everyone who complained was wrong, but then I actually saw one of the Hobbit movies at HFR and holy poo poo it really did look terrible. Soap opera effect is one thing, but the bigger problem I had was that everything suddenly looked fake - sets, VFX, everything. It almost looked like a parody of a real movie at times. Idk how that works, but doubling the framerate completely ruined the illusion for me. I would've never expected that since usually more frames = better but for some reason apparently that's not true for movies. Bizarre. I showed Office Space to a couple of friends on a TV that had that interpolation feature on it. It made the opening scenes (which take place in an office, with no background music) look like some guy with a camcorder filming his workplace. It somehow sucked out all the cues that "there is a motion picture with plot points occurring right now, and you should pay attention" out of it. Both guys I was showing it to started playing with their phones and then a few minutes later wandered off. /anecdote
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 21:53
|
|
|
stevewm posted:Even worse is the "smooth motion" effect some modern TVs have. I literally cannot stand to watch one with that enabled. In my experience, the only thing that looks good with frame interpolation is cartoons, and probably not all cartoons at that. My TV used to have the bad habit of turning the crappy "TruMotion" thing back on with every software update, and by chance it did that right before watching the Charlie Brown Halloween special last fall... and it looked amazing. And the next time I watched something live action, I spent the first five seconds wondering why the video was so off-putting, went "oh yeah", and turned it back off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 22:03
|
|
|
Ruflux posted:Yeah I used to believe 48fps would be awesome and that everyone who complained was wrong, but then I actually saw one of the Hobbit movies at HFR and holy poo poo it really did look terrible. Soap opera effect is one thing, but the bigger problem I had was that everything suddenly looked fake - sets, VFX, everything. It almost looked like a parody of a real movie at times. Idk how that works, but doubling the framerate completely ruined the illusion for me. I would've never expected that since usually more frames = better but for some reason apparently that's not true for movies. Bizarre. Watch star trek tng on the blu rays and its the same thing. Higher fidelity == easier to see flaws, be it framerate or res
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 22:19
|
|
|
Honestly it's presumptuous to expect anything more than 16fps if it's good enough for Melies it's good enough for you
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
Regular Nintendo posted:Watch star trek tng on the blu rays and its the same thing. Higher fidelity == easier to see flaws, be it framerate or res I've watched TNG so many times I'm really looking forward to this (when I get a TV made in the last decade and access to the media), it'd be like getting a behind the scenes view of how a late eighties-early nineties TV show looked like on set. I love that drat show, warts and all. I saw a TNG clip showing off this interpolating effect + Blu Ray quality and frankly it's the only thing I've seen that makes these features look at all compelling. Will I use it to watch the Godfather or some other hallowed old cinema experience, probably not. Will I expend any money pursuing them in the predictable future, nah.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 01:18
|
|
|
Mousepractice posted:The Matrix one uses Max Payne assets, and I vaguely remember there being a lobby shootout level in that game? It's almost real! MadOnion (3Dmark) and Remedy (Max Payne) shared an office space back then (maybe still do, I don’t know) and used Remedy’s MAX-FX engine back then so they were pretty close. I used to run maxpayneheadquarters.com and got to tour their offices and do an interview with the devs while they were working on Max Payne 2 and it’s what taught me that game development really suuuuuuucks as a job. That visit killed all the ambition I had to make games and it started an 18 year journey of settling in to boring web analytics development.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 13:56
|
|
|
If you watch the original Star Wars trilogy in 24 fps it's three cinematic masterpieces of their time. If you watch them with motion interpolation turned on, it looks like you're watching 70s Doctor Who. I believe both 48 fps and 60 fps CAN be good for movies, but you would need to actually design the content of your movie for this. If it were done correctly, it should look wrong at 24 fps.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 16:24
|
|
|
evobatman posted:I believe both 48 fps and 60 fps CAN be good for movies, but you would need to actually design the content of your movie for this. If it were done correctly, it should look wrong at 24 fps. Exactly. It's not 48fps that's the problem, it's everything else about the movie making process. But dumb grognards keep shrieking "48fps sucks" like it's the framerate making the rubber monster costumes or lovely cgi look like crap.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 16:41
|
|
|
One reason 24 became the norm was that it was a mix between economy and viewing comfort. Edison did reportedly experiment with 46 fps. But film stock wasn't able to capture that fast very well back then and the cost would have been a fair bit. They also were handcranked (even for playing back) often moving at around 16 frames at a varying speed creating flicker. The main decider in locking in an industry standard speed appears to come with sound, as any variation would mean sound is desynchironised or slows down/speeds up. 24 came to be the magic number as it was the most economical amount to shoot on. A typical 305m reel of 35mm film holds around 11 minutes. And again cost is maintained. It also moves fast enough to display a stable image with little flicker.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 16:54
|
|
|
BogDew posted:They also were handcranked (even for playing back) often moving at around 16 frames at a varying speed creating flicker. Speaking of interpolating to higher fps, Peter Jackson took a bunch of old WWI footage for a documentary and cleaned it and colorized it -but more importantly, digitally smoothed out the hand-cranking and interpolated it to "modern" 24fps. It's extraordinary how much realistic and lifelike it looks without the herky-jerky flicker from slow handcranking. Link
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 17:14
|
|
|
They Shall Not Grow Old is really excellent. There is some noticeable janky once in a while but it doesn't retract from the movie overall.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 17:16
|
|
|
BogDew posted:One reason 24 became the norm was that it was a mix between economy and viewing comfort. I feel it's worth nothing 24 only was the standard for cinema films. Home movies trucked along at 18 fps all the way through the 8mm era, including through Super 8. A lot of the better cameras had options for frame rates as high as 60 fps (I have an old Bolex that does that), that was meant to just be a trick slow motion effect thing and not something you actually filmed in since you'd be getting maybe a few seconds of actual recording time on a wind up movie camera.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 17:17
|
|
|
re: Interpolitation and TVs that use it to bump 24/30fps content to 60+fps I think it looks ok, and sometimes even looks good, but the biggest problem that most TVs can not do it consistently. Like the TV will be hitting a solid 60fps and actually looking good, then suddenly it can't for one reason or another and it drops back to the source materials native frame rate. So you will be watching something it will be constant changing from 60fps to 30fps and back every 20 or 30 seconds. The transition between the two is much more jarring than the effect it self.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 17:35
|
|
|
I think your TV is broken,
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 18:00
|
|
|
doctorfrog posted:I've watched TNG so many times I'm really looking forward to this (when I get a TV made in the last decade and access to the media), it'd be like getting a behind the scenes view of how a late eighties-early nineties TV show looked like on set. I love that drat show, warts and all. Oh for sure Tbh I'm not really interested in the new trek show, the tackiness and optimism that are my favorite parts of tng seem to be totally absent Movies are good dumb fun tho
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2019 19:39
|
|
|
Sweevo posted:Exactly. It's not 48fps that's the problem, it's everything else about the movie making process. But dumb grognards keep shrieking "48fps sucks" like it's the framerate making the rubber monster costumes or lovely cgi look like crap. I played the most recent tomb raider on the high-end xbone on a 4k tv and it had options to "favor resolution" or "favor framerate" and the favor framerate option legit looked like a 70s tv show next to the favor resolution option. What makes me wonder is if I would've noticed that if it just defaulted to favoring framerate, or if I would've felt the same if the game just ran at low-res 30fps to begin with Edit: don't pay money for that game stuffed crust punk has a new favorite as of 19:47 on Jun 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2019 19:44
|
|
|
Regular Nintendo posted:I played the most recent tomb raider on the high-end xbone on a 4k tv and it had options to "favor resolution" or "favor framerate" and the favor framerate option legit looked like a 70s tv show next to the favor resolution option. What makes me wonder is if I would've noticed that if it just defaulted to favoring framerate, or if I would've felt the same if the game just ran at low-res 30fps to begin with The recent indie horror-ish game Little Nightmares had a framerate increase on the PS4 Pro and I found it pretty jarring at first. The game has a real claymation kind of style that is sort of lost a bit when it runs so smoothly. (Still looks drat good either way though.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2019 20:30
|
|
|
I'm fuckin lolin at the concept that playing a game on good hardware is worse because it loses the cinematic feel of running at lovely 30fps. I've had to return a few games on steam because they were locked to 30 fps and it was garbage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2019 22:49
|
|
|
The "favor frame rate" or "favor performance" options don't always mean you'll get a steady 60fps. It could have been bouncing all over the place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 03:18
|
|
|
Monday_ posted:The "favor frame rate" or "favor performance" options don't always mean you'll get a steady 60fps. It could have been bouncing all over the place. Yeah the favor frame rate option is bunk because it usually just means you get an unsteady 40 FPS max.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 03:27
|
|
|
Regular Nintendo posted:Oh for sure Season 2 (and the weird little between-season episodes) got a fair bit better in that regard - it's not TNG, but at least it's not the Darker and Edgier™ season 1. The TOS callbacks at the end were sort of cute, too. Season 2 of The Orville also got better- and arguably had much smoother season-to-season continuity. Computer viking has a new favorite as of 10:00 on Jun 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 09:13
|
|
|
The 24 hr of Le Mans race has been happening this weekend, so I turned on all the image processing, frame interpolation and fake high dynamic range on my TV. It looks absolutely amazing, because the race content is wide swooping shots of passing cars, with headlights and taillights clearly visible through evening, night and morning lighting. No humans are on screen doing things, so you don't get the soap opera effect. Once it cuts to commercials all the horrors come back.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 13:36
|
|
|
That does sound pretty rockin.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 13:39
|
|
|
evobatman posted:If you watch the original Star Wars trilogy in 24 fps it's three cinematic masterpieces of their time. If you watch them with motion interpolation turned on, it looks like you're watching 70s Doctor Who. I legitamately watch them on Laserdisc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 14:38
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:I'm fuckin lolin at the concept that playing a game on good hardware is worse because it loses the cinematic feel of running at lovely 30fps. I've had to return a few games on steam because they were locked to 30 fps and it was garbage. Monday_ posted:The "favor frame rate" or "favor performance" options don't always mean you'll get a steady 60fps. It could have been bouncing all over the place. The issue was that the framerate bumped up while resolution and detail both dropped so noticeably it conjured thoughts of a cheap rear end soap opera E: a good counter-example of this is going from gta5 on a 360 to a good pc or current gen console. It's jarring at first but now I couldn't imagine going back
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 14:43
|
|
|
Humphreys posted:I legitamately watch them on Laserdisc. I remember the early 2000s when the new versions (greedo short first, cgi Jabba In ANH) of the OT were coming out on DVD the laserdisc versions were highly prized because they were the best format possible without the changes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 14:45
|
|
|
Shutter speed is just as important to the depiction of motion as the frame rate is. The Hobbit had the gate open 100% of the time per frame leading to a hell of a lot of motion blur. I don't think it did the presentation many favours, it looks swimmy and cheap and destroys any detail in movement, kind of defeating the purpose of the higher frame rate. That being said I havent seen many examples of a HFR cinematic movie with shorter shutter speeds so I don't really know what it would look like. Probably better though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
big crush on Chad OMG posted:I remember the early 2000s when the new versions (greedo short first, cgi Jabba In ANH) of the OT were coming out on DVD the laserdisc versions were highly prized because they were the best format possible without the changes. These days, it's universally acknowledged that the best available release is the quasi-legal Harmy's Despecialized Edition, which basically strives to re-create the laserdisc version but using the highest-quality elements available of everything. Never underestimate the power of fans. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHfLX_TMduY
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 18:55
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:Shutter speed is just as important to the depiction of motion as the frame rate is. The Hobbit had the gate open 100% of the time per frame leading to a hell of a lot of motion blur. I don't think it did the presentation many favours, it looks swimmy and cheap and destroys any detail in movement, kind of defeating the purpose of the higher frame rate. Is that an artifact of digital capture? I assume they could manipulate that in post. I find it hard to judge the film format of the Hobbit movies because it is colored by my low opinion of the movies in general. I watched all of them in HFR and aside from the few minutes it took to get accustomed, it didn't really bother me. I remember one scene in the first film with lots of people movement being hard to watch. Alternately, the barrel ride action scene in a later movie was pretty good but I mostly attribute that to the excellent choreography.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 19:03
|
|
|
I don't think I've ever had a computer that could play games well over 60fps. I hate watching movies on my mom's TV because it's set for a higher refresh rate and everything seems like it's in fast forward and hyperrealistic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:07 |
|
|
Cojawfee posted:I think your TV is broken, Every TV I have ever seen with interpolation does it on pretty much everything except sports.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 20:49
|
|