Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

latimesblogs.latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 141 posts

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#111

Post by nitrogen »

jeremyswank wrote: post #53
mhb wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like an argument similar to the one lamenting the advent of digital photography because the grain of the film no longer provided the same effect in photos. But although the grain effect is available for digital photos, it is seldom seen.

a grain effect added to a digital photo is a kind of affectation, an artifice that is not intimately connected to the process of making the image, included as a stylistic decision; possibly an afterthought. it seems dishonest (not necessarly wrong) but it is part of a panoply of effects that can be applied that constitute what's possible with digital. there's no need to 'lament' since each medium has its own panoply…

...interlace vs. progressive...

Please, no. Interlacing doesn't have the same nostalgic effect as a 24fps frame rate, and only serves to lower video bandwidth for devices that can't handle a progressive image at the desired frame rate. It's a tradeoff between vertical and temporal resolution that works well for limited technology because it preserves the sharpness of still images. Basically everything except broadcast TV can handle 1080p60, though, so let's let the hack die.

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#112

Post by nitrogen »

seanalltogether wrote: post #31
modeless wrote: post #7

The problem is that 24 FPS is now part of the Hollywood "look". 24 FPS is associated with high quality high budget productions in people's minds; 60 FPS looks like a home movie or low-budget TV sitcom. It may take a while to change people's perceptions.

Sitcoms and soap operas look the way they do because of lighting. I won't disagree that 24 fps has something to do with the 'film' look, but I think camera lens, filters, and lighting affect the look of the movie more then the framerate.

Not to mention dynamic range/gamut, gamma, etc.

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#113

Post by nitrogen »

jwr wrote: post #27

Notice he's leaning towards 48p as opposed to 60p, which is an already standardized framerate that your modern TV likely supports. I do not think that is an accident. After all, once we all buy our new 3D TVs, something will have to happen for people to buy new TVs again in 3-4 years. And before you mention bandwidth considerations, I do not have actual data, but I suspect that when using H.264 High Profile, the diff…

I believe there are already some TVs that accept 48Hz as an input frame rate over HDMI. This is the only way 48fps video will look right, unless we move to 240Hz (the LCM of 48 and 60). 120fps would give the same juddery results as playing 24fps on a 60Hz display, but going up to 180 might be good enough to make the judder invisible (I don't notice the judder of a 24fps stream on an 85Hz CRT, but do at 60Hz, for example).

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#114

Post by alabut »

9999 wrote: post #45
alabut wrote: post #22

Film geeks in here will eat up the story of MaxVision48 - it's an equally inexpensive upgrade to existing film capture and projection that results in a much higher picture quality, way higher than even the Red camera. Check out this infographic on Roger Ebert's blog comparing the different formats: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2011/01/resolution%... The full blog post is well worth a read, especially give…

In what way is it equally inexpensive to shoot twice as much film and use twice as much film to make every print? Digital tech is what's going to make high framerate capture and playback economical.

Two reasons:

1) according to the Ebert article, it's not twice as much film, it "requires 50% more film and one stop more light (a trivial issue)"

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2011/01/MaxiVision%...

Notice what's implied in the diagram is that the MV48 format would use existing 35mm film and would modify existing cameras for it.

2) it's way less expensive than 3D, both to shoot and display.

3D is just as much a competitor as the Red camera. It's what the movie studios and theaters have been banking on to compete with the quality of home theater setups, not an increase in 2D image quality. Caring about the unique look of film compared to digital while trying to increase the quality is why directors like Christopher Nolan like the IMAX format, but shooting with 70mm film is not only expensive but unwieldy because the cameras are huge. Sort of like what bulky 3D cameras were like before James Cameron forced the invention of a new one for Avatar.

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#115

Post by alabut »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #26
alabut wrote: post #22

Film geeks in here will eat up the story of MaxVision48 - it's an equally inexpensive upgrade to existing film capture and projection that results in a much higher picture quality, way higher than even the Red camera. Check out this infographic on Roger Ebert's blog comparing the different formats: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2011/01/resolution%... The full blog post is well worth a read, especially give…

That chart is seriously misleading. They wanted to represent the 2x increase in framerate, so they showed that as a 4x increase in resolution, which doesn't make any sense. And they seem to suggest that RED made the entire chart, which they didn't. RED made the accurate part of the chart, but MaxiVision48 added their own nonsense. The impression I get about this company is that they tried to sell a product to a bunch…

What's misleading is that you're only focusing on resolution or framerate, not the point that MV48 upgrades image quality while maintaining both the unique look of film vs digital, but also uses existing film and cameras, unlike digital, IMAX, or 3D.

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#116

Post by tpz »

jwr wrote: post #27

Notice he's leaning towards 48p as opposed to 60p, which is an already standardized framerate that your modern TV likely supports. I do not think that is an accident. After all, once we all buy our new 3D TVs, something will have to happen for people to buy new TVs again in 3-4 years. And before you mention bandwidth considerations, I do not have actual data, but I suspect that when using H.264 High Profile, the diff…

Since no one else responded with this: you're right, it is not an accident that he would be considering 48fps, the reason being that a good amount of 24fps film projection occurs at 48fps on equipment that double pumps each frame. Such equipment (and the related equipment and processes around it) would likely be easier to upgrade/retrofit to 48fps than to 60fps.

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#118

Post by yxhuvud »

alexqgb wrote: post #58
jwr wrote: post #27

Notice he's leaning towards 48p as opposed to 60p, which is an already standardized framerate that your modern TV likely supports. I do not think that is an accident. After all, once we all buy our new 3D TVs, something will have to happen for people to buy new TVs again in 3-4 years. And before you mention bandwidth considerations, I do not have actual data, but I suspect that when using H.264 High Profile, the diff…

Assuming the bitrates are the same, 48fps will require 80% of the bandwidth needed to handle 60. To the best of my knowledge, H.264 only supports two GOP structures (short = 6 frames / long = 15 frames), both of which operate independently from the playback speed. In other words, a short GOP setting produces 8 blocks per second running at 48, and 10 per second running at 60. Assuming a constant bitrate (I know, I kno…

So because one country is willfully going back to the stone age with caps, everone living in other less idiotic countries have to suffer?

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#119

Post by vetinari »

seanalltogether wrote: post #31
modeless wrote: post #7

The problem is that 24 FPS is now part of the Hollywood "look". 24 FPS is associated with high quality high budget productions in people's minds; 60 FPS looks like a home movie or low-budget TV sitcom. It may take a while to change people's perceptions.

Sitcoms and soap operas look the way they do because of lighting. I won't disagree that 24 fps has something to do with the 'film' look, but I think camera lens, filters, and lighting affect the look of the movie more then the framerate.

That's what I always used to think, until few years ago. Then a new crop of TVs came and it started to mess up the movies. The movie looked like a soap opera. It turned out, that it was caused by a feature that increases fps and inserts interpolated frames (every manufacturer calls it differently). After turning it off, the movies look like movies again.

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#120

Post by MikeCapone »

zephjc wrote: post #34
mberning wrote: post #16

There are some televisions that have the ability to interpolate a 24fps format and produce an apparent higher frame rate. Watching sports on these televisions is great, but I tried watching Iron Man on one and it made it look like an after school special. I believe this is colloquially know as the 'soap opera effect'. Google for 'samsung soap opera effect'.

My new TV does that - it came with the mode enabled, and when I watched an HD movie off Netflix, it seemed very odd and low-budget - this soap opera effect - until I realized what was going on with a second movie doing the same thing. It's definitely jarring and everything looks, ironically, like it was shot with cheap cameras.

Have you tried getting used to it? Does the effect go away with time or is it forever burned in your brain?
Post reply on HN