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

Why movies look weird at 48fps, and games are better at 60fps

accidentalscientist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 129 posts

Re: Why movies look weird at 48fps, and games are better at 60fps

#71

Post by barium »

agumonkey wrote: post #40
sray wrote: post #25

I liked the article, but, as a game developer who does not specialize in graphics, I really liked one of the comments: Joe Kilner - One extra issue with games is that you are outputting an image sampled from a single point in time, whereas a frame of film / TV footage is typically an integration of a set of images over some non-infinitesimal time. This is something that, once stated, is blatantly obvious to me, but i…

Game renderers do sample time too, for per-object motion blur[1] and sometimes full-scene blur or AA. To push the idea further, research has been done around 'frameless' renderers, where you never render a complete frame but sample ~randomly at successive times and accumulate into the frame(sic)buffer. At low resolution it feels weird but very natural, computed persistence of vision : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=…

Speaking of "frameless" rendering, I noticed during Carmack's Oculus keynote (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gn8m5d74fk8#t=764), he talks about trying to persuade Samsung to integrate programmable interlacing into their displays in order to give dynamic per-frame control over which lines are being scanned.

This would give you the same "adaptive per-pixel updating" seen in your link, though primarily to tackle the problems with HMDs (low-persistence at high frame-rates).

Re: Why movies look weird at 48fps, and games are better at 60fps

#72

Post by techrat »

nitrogen wrote: post #48
bhauer wrote: post #4

This article is detailed and scientific. However, anecdotally speaking, the concern I have with evaluating high-frame rate in film is that we have very little context—most of us have only ever seen Peter Jackson's Hobbit films in HFR. In other words, I have never seen how other directors' work would be affected by HFR. Speaking exclusively about the Hobbit series in HFR, I too observed an uncanny valley that traditio…

I saw the first two Hobbit movies in HFR 3D, but the third in 24fps 3D. The third still looked like a play. I attribute it to the frequent use of infinite focus to reduce 3D-induced headaches, or if not that, a stereo separation that was too wide. The sets and locations felt very finite and contained, rather than expansive and overwhelming as in LoTR.

Desolation of Smaug has this issue as well. The only time the film felt truly deep and expansive to me was when Bilbo first stepped into Erebor and you got to see how massive the pile of gold was as it panned through the main chamber. Then it got closed up and tight again shortly thereafter. The few wider shots that followed reeked of bad CGI compositing (especially when Bilbo falls off the platform with the lever when Smaug knocks it down)

I chalked it up to the cinematography just not meshing well with the way the film was shot.

Re: Why movies look weird at 48fps, and games are better at 60fps

#73

Post by agumonkey »

barium wrote: post #71
agumonkey wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Game renderers do sample time too, for per-object motion blur[1] and sometimes full-scene blur or AA. To push the idea further, research has been done around 'frameless' renderers, where you never render a complete frame but sample ~randomly at successive times and accumulate into the frame(sic)buffer. At low resolution it feels weird but very natural, computed persistence of vision : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=…

Speaking of "frameless" rendering, I noticed during Carmack's Oculus keynote ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gn8m5d74fk8#t=764 ), he talks about trying to persuade Samsung to integrate programmable interlacing into their displays in order to give dynamic per-frame control over which lines are being scanned. This would give you the same "adaptive per-pixel updating" seen in your link, though primarily to tackle the…

Weird, I missed this part. Vaguely reminds me of E. Sutherland fully lazy streamed computer graphics generation since they had no framebuffer at the time.

Re: Why movies look weird at 48fps, and games are better at 60fps

#74

Post by mietek »

agumonkey wrote: post #40
sray wrote: post #25

I liked the article, but, as a game developer who does not specialize in graphics, I really liked one of the comments: Joe Kilner - One extra issue with games is that you are outputting an image sampled from a single point in time, whereas a frame of film / TV footage is typically an integration of a set of images over some non-infinitesimal time. This is something that, once stated, is blatantly obvious to me, but i…

Game renderers do sample time too, for per-object motion blur[1] and sometimes full-scene blur or AA. To push the idea further, research has been done around 'frameless' renderers, where you never render a complete frame but sample ~randomly at successive times and accumulate into the frame(sic)buffer. At low resolution it feels weird but very natural, computed persistence of vision : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=…

Fantastic technique. Can’t believe it’s been almost 10 years since this video. Do you know if there are is any follow-up research being done?

Re: Why movies look weird at 48fps, and games are better at 60fps

#75

Post by eridius »

bhauer wrote: post #4

This article is detailed and scientific. However, anecdotally speaking, the concern I have with evaluating high-frame rate in film is that we have very little context—most of us have only ever seen Peter Jackson's Hobbit films in HFR. In other words, I have never seen how other directors' work would be affected by HFR. Speaking exclusively about the Hobbit series in HFR, I too observed an uncanny valley that traditio…

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I thought HFR dramatically improved the Hobbit films. The first 5 minutes of each movie felt very odd, as if everyone was moving in fast motion without actually moving any faster (sorry, that's the best way I can describe it), but after those first 5 minutes, the movie looked completely natural and amazing. Especially the 3D, it looked so good that I want every single 3D movie to be produced in HFR now, and I lament the fact that there's no way to get HFR at home.

As for feeling like a play, I guess I didn't pay attention to the background characters much because I never noticed any of this nonsense mumbling that you're talking about.

Re: Why movies look weird at 48fps, and games are better at 60fps

#76

Post by emp_zealoth »

corysama wrote: post #15
bhauer wrote: post #4

This article is detailed and scientific. However, anecdotally speaking, the concern I have with evaluating high-frame rate in film is that we have very little context—most of us have only ever seen Peter Jackson's Hobbit films in HFR. In other words, I have never seen how other directors' work would be affected by HFR. Speaking exclusively about the Hobbit series in HFR, I too observed an uncanny valley that traditio…

I think that you are spot-on regarding how The Hobbit comes off more as a play than a movie. Another important issue is the unwitting association we have built up that inversely correlates frame rate and production quality. The movie tradition started as soon as video technology became just barely capable of supporting the medium. The enormous cost of moving beyond that ancient standard has kept movies at 24Hz for mo…

All you need as a proof HFR looks weird is to watch first Capitan America (from the new series of Marvel films)

I personally think most of the issues come from clear motions - you can see they are using props just because they are too light and don't move like a real object would. There isn't enough blur to fool your brain.

Re: Why movies look weird at 48fps, and games are better at 60fps

#77

Post by hackinthebochs »

pedrocr wrote: post #47
Qiasfah wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's some discussion of it at the beginning of this article: http://www.ni.com/white-paper/10669/en/

What that whitepaper is saying is that "if you only sample 2xMaxFreq and then connect the dots with straight lines it doesn't really look like a sine wave so buy 5x as much instrument from us". That's a total cheat as that sawtooth graph they show is only possible if you allow higher frequencies. If the signal is bandwidth limited at the frequency of the sinewave the points you sample at 2xFreq only have one possible…

I just finished going through a Fourier Transform course. The technical answer is that you don't interpolate the samples with lines, but with the sinc function. The sinc function is sinusoidal and so it more naturally approximates waves. In this case 2xMaxFreq is enough to reproduce it exactly. Using linear interpolation in the whitepaper is a blatant lie.

>So if our eyes really are 100Hz we can't see anything above 50Hz.

I'm not sure this follows as we're not perceiving waveforms when light hits our eyes, but we're perceiving intensity of energy hitting our receptors.

Re: Why movies look weird at 48fps, and games are better at 60fps

#79

Post by henkboyd »

dperfect wrote: post #22

The most interesting point made in the article (for me) is that the presence of noise/grain - which effectively reduces real detail in an individual image - can actually improve the perceived detail across time with high frame rates. At first, I thought this extra "detail" could be explained as an illusion (since noise/grain can mask a lack of resolution), but then I read the abstract quoted near the end of the artic…

Did you just explain why some people experience visual snow? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_snow

Re: Why movies look weird at 48fps, and games are better at 60fps

#80

Post by wodenokoto »

baby wrote: post #24

I personally love HFR and have went out of my ways to watch the three The Hobbits in HFR (I traveled to Paris, the only place in France where they have it in HFR). When people complain about 48fps being weird I just feel like they're just not used to it. It does look weird but after 20 minutes it looks amazing. I'm personally tired of not understanding anything in action movies that uses 24fps. It is kind of a luxury…

People are extremely defensive about the 24 frames, so I feel for you trying to take a stance.

When I watched the Hobbit I thought to myself that some of the breathing movements in the CGI were amazingly fluent and they kind of reminded me of a computer game.

And then I thought, what a loss to Hollywood, that beautiful fluent movements have come to be associated with computer games and not films.

Post reply on HN