31–40 of 213 posts
Of course, its easy to say "you ain't used to it so it's odd" but that seems dismissive. Film is manufactured fantasy, so imperfect reproduction is totally acceptable and perhaps preferred.
> Those high frame rates are great for reality television, and we accept them because we know these things are real. We’re always going to associate high frame rates with something that’s not acted, and our brains are always going to associate low frame rates with something that is not. If they’re seeing something artificial and it starts to approach something looking real, they begin to inherently psychologically re…
According to the article, the outdoor scenes were awesome in 48FPS. It was the indoor scenes that looked fake and weird, due to the fact that 48FPS made it very apparent there was lots of makeup being used, because they had unnatural light blasting on the actors (where as there was no extra light added to outdoor scenes, obviously). Shouldn't he have just toned down the extra lighting indoors, knowing 48FPS was going…
A cogent argument, well explained and articulated. However, I don't agree with the conclusion - that what audiences want is ever more realism. Realism diminishes things; the 'film look' adds a dream like quality which is highly desirable for narrative work.
You could have said the same thing about higher resolution video, or color video, or talkies. But they've all been accepted, even though they increased the level of "realism". As the article says in its opening line: > New media technologies often cause an allergic reaction when they first appear. We may find them painful before we find them indispensable. At this point, such reactions to new technologies are to be e…
We've been able to shoot 48 fps for years; there aren't any major technical obstacles to doing so on film, even on relatively cheap cameras; for example, an Arri Super 16mm camera available for under $10k (a fixture on the indie movie scene for many years) can be cranked up to 50, 60, 75, 90, 120 fps dependent on the model. Later models allow one to dial in an exact frame rate rather than simply selecting one. High-speed shooting is a fairly standard feature, because you need to overcrank in order to shoot a scene in slow motion, and everybody looooves slow motion. I've worked with film cameras shooting at up to 240fps, and you can get specialized ones that go a lot faster (up to a few thousand FPS, if you have sufficiently fast film or sufficiently powerful lighting). Re-engineering a film projector to play back at 48fps is trivial. The only difference it makes in practice is that you have to hire more projectionists because they need to change the reels twice as often. Projectionists live near the bottom of the movie food chain so the additional expense isn't really a deterrent either.
So on a technical level, 48 fps is quite pedestrian. Nothing other than the cost of the celluloid and processing chemicals has prevented filmmakers from using it, and for all but the lowest budget films, those costs are a small fraction of the overall budget. It's only new(ish) in digital filmmaking, where until recently it's been a hassle to deal with the huge volumes of data involved in doubling the frame rate for everything, and few cameras had sufficient bandwidth because there was little demand for it. The reason that there are no 48fps movies shot on film is that nobody has ever liked the results enough to justify doing a feature on it and pushing it out to market. We've done that with plenty of new technologies in the past, from anamorphic projection to things like Cinerama, which required three synchronized projectors for the ultimate widescreen experience (which can only be viewed in 3 theaters in the US today).
Sometimes things hurt because they're new. But other times they hurt because they just don't satisfy us. In the case of 48 fps we could have rolled this out decades ago.
And then I went to a cinema,and could not get used to this effect. Everything the characters did, seemed accelerated. I did not think that the video looked amateurish or home-made - no, absolutely not. But each scene in Biblo's House or generally all inside scenes looked like they were playing at 2x the normal speed - the characters moved too fast, it was unnatural. But I know that it couldn't have been really moving at 2x the speed - the sound was in sync,so there was nothing wrong with the cinema. I have no idea,how this could happen - I have seen plenty of videos shot in 60fps and never noticed anything so disturbing. Sorry,but Hobbit in 48fps was unwatchable for me.
I would love to see cinematographers experiment with natural lighting for shots. Kubrick (in)famously did this in Barry Lyndon[1] 37 years ago. To do this he used f/0.7 Carl Zeiss lenses that were designed for NASA.
Nowadays we are far less limited due to the incredible light-sensitivity of modern image sensors. And if that doesn't work we can go for larger sensors, which would still be far cheaper than doing the same with film.
I have a feeling Kubrick would be having a field day with current tech and would have been one of the first supporters of 48Hz.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Lyndon#Cinematography
Humans like flaws. When CDs first came out, people argued that they sounded "cold," even though they're near-perfect recreations of the music that was recorded. People like the hiss and compression of records and tapes. This is also the same reason why people like Instagram filters. Normal iPhone pics are too good. Let's fuzz em up a bit. Also, look at v1 of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other popular sites - they…
> When CDs first came out, people argued that they sounded "cold," even though they're near-perfect recreations of the music that was recorded. People like the hiss and compression of records and tapes.
> This is also the same reason why people like Instagram filters.
This sounds more like "hipsters like flaws." CDs absolutely ROFLstomped both vinyl and cassette very quickly once they became affordable for normal people. People had the option of buying CD or cassette in the mid-'90s, and they generally preferred CDs. MP3 did the same thing despite similar complaints.
A slight bit off topic from the article here but was the 3D version the only one shown in 48fps? I saw the 3D version a fews days ago and was actually disappointed that I wasn't able to experience the 48fps experience. To me the 3D effect seemed to cause a lot of jitter and poor fps so I was a bit ticked the whole time. But now having read this article I'm even more ticked off that I didn't even realize I was watchin…
There's three versions: 24FPS 2D, 24FPS 3D, and 48FPS 3D. You most likely saw the 24FPS 3D version, unless it was specifically advertised as "HFR". The main aim of HFR is to make the 3D work better and not give the usual headaches, etc. people get when watching 3D. I haven't actually seen the 24FPS version yet, but I imagine there's a possibility the 24FPS version has a much faster shutter speed than would typically…
Either the 3D/24-fps combo makes things weird or JungleGymSam saw the movie in a place with a janky projector.
Humans like flaws. When CDs first came out, people argued that they sounded "cold," even though they're near-perfect recreations of the music that was recorded. People like the hiss and compression of records and tapes. This is also the same reason why people like Instagram filters. Normal iPhone pics are too good. Let's fuzz em up a bit. Also, look at v1 of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other popular sites - they…
Early CDs still sound bad, and I would take the respective vinyl over the CD any day still. Modern CDs sound amazing, if we leave the loudness wars aside for a moment.
I suppose there are two reasons why people use Instagram filters. Firstly, because most phone cameras aren't very good and the filters distract from the bad picture quality. Secondly, because it's in fashion, and people just do it because the cool people do.
I don't even understand where you were trying to go with the Facebook/Twitter/Youtube thing. It's a trivial statement and provides no illumination.
24 frames per second with a 180° shutter will always be more engaging than 48 frames per second with a 240° shutter or whatever they use, unless they manage to make the last one look more like the first one and add to it in some way. Like with modern CDs and vinyl.
Humans like flaws. When CDs first came out, people argued that they sounded "cold," even though they're near-perfect recreations of the music that was recorded. People like the hiss and compression of records and tapes. This is also the same reason why people like Instagram filters. Normal iPhone pics are too good. Let's fuzz em up a bit. Also, look at v1 of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other popular sites - they…
I'd argue that they don't. People like what they know, and a different reproduction creates an annoying cognitive dissonance, like hearing a new interpretation of your favorite piece after having listened to the original for decades.
It's pretty much the source of the Uncanny Valley issue