'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained • Hacker News Board

Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained

#61

Post by afterburner » Wed, Nov 21, 2012, 6:18 PM UTC

agildehaus wrote: post #49

I'll be seeing The Hobbit at a theatre that doesn't feature 48fps first, because I know I'll enjoy it. My experience with 48fps is exactly the same as my experience with those 120Hz televisions -- any significant motion looks like it's been artificially sped up. Anyone know why this is?

There is a thing that happens with 120Hz TVs where they fill in the intermediate frames that the source doesn't have. It's this filling in that is the culprit, since it's interpolating motion in a way that may not be accurate or realistic, or perhaps that the eye is just not used to, ie. too smooth, or perhaps too averaged.

Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained

#62

Post by justjimmy » Wed, Nov 21, 2012, 6:27 PM UTC

"Blurring simulates fluidity, sharpness simulates stuttering."

With a high FPS (in movies), each frame is less blurry, everything becomes sharper hence the 'uncanny' feeling.

And you can't compare video games and motion pictures - there's no blurring in video games at all. (Take a screenshot in them, compare and you'll see why)

Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained

#63

Post by jerf » Wed, Nov 21, 2012, 6:32 PM UTC

Seems like we have this debate every time someone takes a step forward. It was amusing the first couple of times, but really, we're still arguing that the particular technical limitations of the last generation really were The One True Cinema Format? That time, we got it for sure, not like all the previous iterations where we thought that, this time for sure.

Pfooui. Can't believe we're even having this discussion. You'll take your higher resolution and higher frame rates and in five years you'll have carefully edited your memory so that you knew all along that it was a great idea and you sure were telling everybody about how awesome it was going to be against all the naysayers.

Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained

#64

Post by HeXetic » Wed, Nov 21, 2012, 6:35 PM UTC

justjimmy wrote: post #62

"Blurring simulates fluidity, sharpness simulates stuttering." With a high FPS (in movies), each frame is less blurry, everything becomes sharper hence the 'uncanny' feeling. And you can't compare video games and motion pictures - there's no blurring in video games at all. (Take a screenshot in them, compare and you'll see why)

> there's no blurring in video games at all.

Most video games since a few years ago render frames with a degree of artificial motion blur to simulate speed. This is particularly the case with racing games but also exists in first-person shooters (moreso on the PC than on consoles, since rapid mouse movements translate to rapid screen motion).

Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained

#65

Post by robterrell » Wed, Nov 21, 2012, 6:38 PM UTC

shock-value wrote: post #46

laserDinosaur wrote: post #41

Someone in the industry told me it felt like they were watching actors in a stage show, and not in a good way. All sense of immersion and suspension of belief was eroded away into watching people in costumes fight on fake sets against CG monsters. He said with such a high frame rate it's almost like live footage has reached the uncanny-valley. It seems quite on par with the statement from Entertainment Weekly.

This is exactly right. I don't understand why some people are jumping up and down as though this is some massive technological and artistic advance. TV has been able to do 60fps for decades (and HD, digital 60fps for at least one decade) and yet no television dramas (and even most comedies) are filmed/broadcasted at that rate. Why? Exactly the reasons you describe. High framerates are great for live events and realit…

Indeed, Douglas Trumbull invented Showscan in the early 80's. It was a high FPS 65mm film process, and it resulted in a overly "real" subjective effect very much this article is complaining about. Showscan was demoed at some conferences and some critics (Ebert?) were big fans but it was never used for a feature film (although he tried to get the studio to use for his film Brainstorm). It was positioned against IMAX and lost (although to my eye, IMAX suffers greatly from strobing and could use a frame rate boost).

But there's something else going on with the Hobbit. I watched the trailer, which is definitely not 48 fps, and more than once I got the feeling of watching an actor-on-a-stage-on-video. This might be more related to the use of RED cameras than the framerate.

Using my film degree about once a year here on HN!

Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained

#66

Post by justjimmy » Wed, Nov 21, 2012, 6:40 PM UTC

HeXetic wrote: post #64

justjimmy wrote: post #62

"Blurring simulates fluidity, sharpness simulates stuttering." With a high FPS (in movies), each frame is less blurry, everything becomes sharper hence the 'uncanny' feeling. And you can't compare video games and motion pictures - there's no blurring in video games at all. (Take a screenshot in them, compare and you'll see why)

> there's no blurring in video games at all. Most video games since a few years ago render frames with a degree of artificial motion blur to simulate speed. This is particularly the case with racing games but also exists in first-person shooters (moreso on the PC than on consoles, since rapid mouse movements translate to rapid screen motion).

Are you think of in situations (shooters) where you get like hit by a flashbang and your screen goes all blurry and shaky? That kind of blur? Or is the blur happening during just 'normal' firefight/gameplay all the time?

Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained

#67

Post by HeXetic » Wed, Nov 21, 2012, 6:42 PM UTC

barrkel wrote: post #48

60fps isn't even that good in video games, but so many gamers these days have been raised on 60Hz consoles and PC monitors. They don't remember the old days of CRTs, where 60Hz was painfully flickery, and you wanted at least 75Hz to relieve eye strain. 75 or 85Hz with corresponding fps was much slicker than 60Hz. IMO the purists complaining about 48Hz are complaining about a subconscious association, perhaps a bit li…

As micampe said, you're mixing refresh rates with frame rates, but actually you aren't entirely wrong, because I remember the heady days of upgrading my graphics card and having Counter-Strike hit 100-120 frames per second on my 120 Hz CRT monitor, and the visual difference was very noticeable vs. when I was back in 60fps zone.

The main visual difference was when rapidly moving the mouse; turning quickly was much more visually appealing at a high frame rate.

Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained

#68

Post by HeXetic » Wed, Nov 21, 2012, 6:45 PM UTC

justjimmy wrote: post #66

HeXetic wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there's no blurring in video games at all. Most video games since a few years ago render frames with a degree of artificial motion blur to simulate speed. This is particularly the case with racing games but also exists in first-person shooters (moreso on the PC than on consoles, since rapid mouse movements translate to rapid screen motion).

Are you think of in situations (shooters) where you get like hit by a flashbang and your screen goes all blurry and shaky? That kind of blur? Or is the blur happening during just 'normal' firefight/gameplay all the time?

No, not that kind of effect; there is genuine "motion" motion blur available in games in response to rapid movement (e.g., sprinting in Battlefield or Mass Effect - the scenery closest to the player [and therefore moving most rapidly relative to them] blurs in the appropriate direction) or rapid orientation change (Portal 2 does this; I think Mirror's Edge did so also).

Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained

#69

Post by __david__ » Wed, Nov 21, 2012, 6:57 PM UTC

philmcc wrote: post #38

Just a personal 48FPS testimonial here... For some reason I found myself at an IATSE event. IATSE is a union for motion picture professionals. At the end, they projected a scene, once in 24fps, the second time in 48fps. 48fps looked "real" to my eyes, insomuch as it looked how I imagine it would've looked to have been in the room. Unfortunately, that's not the look I like in films and movies. It truly looked like a s…

My friend saw the 10 minute Hobbit footage and said the exact same thing.

He felt like he was looking at a play of the Hobbit--watching costumed people walk around a set. He couldn't get it to shift into that "watching a movie" place in his mind.

But you're right--it might be that 10 minutes is just not long enough to adjust. I'm skeptical but I do want to try it.

Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained

#70

Post by __david__ » Wed, Nov 21, 2012, 7:03 PM UTC

protomyth wrote: post #57

zaphar wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He discusses the difference between 1080i and 1080p which is exactly the difference you are talking about. Interlaced vs whole frame. Not all TV's have scan lines. Any that are 1080p do not interlace.

You and the person voting me down seem to be missing the point of what I'm saying. A piece of film is illuminated and shown fully on the screen. There is no scan line. A TV is drawn one line at a time. There is a scan line. Interlaced vs Non-Interlaced has nothing to do with what I am talking about as both draw one line at a time. Interlaced just means it draws half the first tick and half the second tick. Non-interl…

No, NTSC on a CRT is drawn one line at a time (it is physically scanned by the electron gun). But TV is not NTSC any more and CRTs are dead/dying.

Your HD flatscreen (plasma or LCD) does not draw one line at a time. HD is decoded into a framebuffer and that framebuffer is drawn on the screen in some hardware specific way. It may be rectangles, or the whole screen, or different vertical/horizontal slices (with very high refresh rates so you don't see flicker).

Edit: Moveover, "film" is almost always digital nowadays (I don't think I've seen a non-digital projection in the last 5 years) which means that the picture gets to the screen via some form of LCD projection. So your home TV and film are basically the same at this point. You would've been right 10 years ago, though.