51–60 of 62 posts
The human eye can process about 60fps. I love the idea of more frames, but 60fps might be better, and eliminate the "fast-forward" jittery look.
I think the arbitrary choice of 48fps is the problem. I know it's easier to down-convert to 24, but it seems 48 just isn't right for our eyes. The human eye can process about 60fps. I love the idea of more frames, but 60fps might be better, and eliminate the "fast-forward" jittery look.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that there is no uncanny valley, but I believe that critics' complaints (and perhaps your own) stem not from independent comparisons of both 24 and 48 FPS to some ideal format, but rather from an assumption that 24 FPS is the ideal form. If you believe that the purpose of a film format is simply to convey moving images to the viewer with as much fidelity and control as possible, as I do, then 48 FPS is object…
>If you believe that the purpose of a film format is simply to convey moving images to the viewer with as much fidelity and control as possible, as I do, then 48 FPS is objectively better As used in the current film, 48FPS diminishes selectivity of detail , one of the most important attributes of any artform. In this film it is ALL detail, ALL the time. For an analogy, think of it in literary terms: 48FPS is akin to…
If you up the amount of detail the viewer can see, and the details are flawed and phone looking, I wouldn't say the problem is necessarily that you allowed the viewer to see clearer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are so many ludicrous arguments in The Verge article. > For some [filmmakers], HFR will be a potential new tool in their arsenal for telling certain types of stories in a new and exciting way, while others will be reminded of why the 2D format at 24 fps has stood the test of time for so long. Just like dial-up for Internet and horses for transportation stood the test of time for so long. This is such an unabash…
> Here's why: because there are really high odds that of all the people across the world that watched the movie in both formats, at least one person would experience this. What a BS explanation of what the author describes. This "law of big numbers" non-explanation could be used to dismiss tons of relevant and non random events. > Oh boy. The author seems unaware that all or nearly all modern theory about suspension…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The other opinion, which is that 24 FPS has some inherent artistic merit that makes it the ideal format for cinema, is bizarre and incomprehensible to me Well, it depends. For one, it coincides better with the ~1/25 rate of which a retina persists an afterimage, which might give it a better perceptual look over a higher frame rate. And perhaps it's not the "as much fidelity" part that is asked of the film medium, b…
Take note peoples, this guy knows what he's talking about. The ~1/25th of a second retina persistence is exactly why 24 frames per second looks better. The higher frame rates actually "excite" and then "exhaust" our visual and perceptive systems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Here's why: because there are really high odds that of all the people across the world that watched the movie in both formats, at least one person would experience this. What a BS explanation of what the author describes. This "law of big numbers" non-explanation could be used to dismiss tons of relevant and non random events. > Oh boy. The author seems unaware that all or nearly all modern theory about suspension…
Are you sincerely arguing that, since this author experienced an HFR showing with little laughter and a non-HFR showing with plenty of laughter, this is valid evidence that the HFR format is less engaging on average? If so, that is completely preposterous, and I'm curious how you explain that both of my audiences laughed? Perhaps I'm the outlier, and nitrous oxide was pumped into my HFR showing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that there is no uncanny valley, but I believe that critics' complaints (and perhaps your own) stem not from independent comparisons of both 24 and 48 FPS to some ideal format, but rather from an assumption that 24 FPS is the ideal form. If you believe that the purpose of a film format is simply to convey moving images to the viewer with as much fidelity and control as possible, as I do, then 48 FPS is object…
>If you believe that the purpose of a film format is simply to convey moving images to the viewer with as much fidelity and control as possible, as I do, then 48 FPS is objectively better As used in the current film, 48FPS diminishes selectivity of detail , one of the most important attributes of any artform. In this film it is ALL detail, ALL the time. For an analogy, think of it in literary terms: 48FPS is akin to…
However from accounts here, it seems the CGI didn't have the appropriate amount of motion blur to make it look natural.
I think the arbitrary choice of 48fps is the problem. I know it's easier to down-convert to 24, but it seems 48 just isn't right for our eyes. The human eye can process about 60fps. I love the idea of more frames, but 60fps might be better, and eliminate the "fast-forward" jittery look.
I don't have the relevant links available to me currently, but suffice to say the eye can pick up on far, far more than 60 fps.
The fast forward look is just an adjustment period, you experience the same watching videos of games at 60fps (even though they're played in 60fps normally, it's a very odd thing).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you sincerely arguing that, since this author experienced an HFR showing with little laughter and a non-HFR showing with plenty of laughter, this is valid evidence that the HFR format is less engaging on average? If so, that is completely preposterous, and I'm curious how you explain that both of my audiences laughed? Perhaps I'm the outlier, and nitrous oxide was pumped into my HFR showing?
Or perhaps we need MORE tests with control groups in both showings to reach a conclusion, instead of getting to the NON-explanation of the "law of big numbers" that it was ..."bound to happen somewhere, man".
I'm not familiar with this "law of big numbers" term you keep using, but my proposed explanation of the author's anecdotal evidence is valid. Like I said, it's probably very likely that at least one viewer in the world would see both formats and experience audience laughter in only the non-HFR showing, even if a very large percentage of audiences in all formats laughed. It is not evidence that, among all showings, there was less laughter in one format than another.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not a purist trying to make the argument that 24fps is the best thing since cheese for movies. Thats like the folks that say vinyl offers better sound than digital. I'm not an audiofile so I never noticed. About a week ago I was at the Microsoft campus in Redmond and had a chance to watch an action scene from the last Batman movie in one of their living room studios. The TV was pretty new and was showing the movi…
The interpolation feature of modern TVs is a completely different issue, because the information for the extra frames simply is not there. I believe the video processors only look at two consecutive frames in order to generate the frame in between them. That obviously causes major motion inconsistency when the interpolation algorithm doesn't generate a frame close to what would have actually been there (which is most…