 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
As you might have heard, The Hobbit was filmed not only in 3D, but with
High Framerate, ie. at 48 frames per second instead of the traidiontal 24.
I had read a lot of criticism about 48 FPS making the movie look odd and
detracting from the experience, and I was curious to see this for myself.
I was dubious about the claim, and was thinking that it's simply a case
of "they changed it, now it sucks". After all, what possible harm could
showing a movie at a higher framerate do? (After all, in videogames 60 FPS
is a standard minimum framerate, especially nowadays that it's the de-facto
standard for LCD displays. Any lower than that, and it quickly starts to
look jittery.)
After seeing the movie at 48 FPS, I cannot help but agree. It was
distracting, and it made the movie look odd. The most prominent effect
was that I got the really strong feeling that the movie was being played
back too fast (even though all the movements were normal.) That might
sound amusing, but it's true. Especially in the beginning, but also at
other parts, I constantly had the same feeling as when you play a video
too fast. It somehow felt unnatural, in a way that's very difficult to
describe. (It was also an odd dissonance in perception, because all the
movements were at normal speed, yet felt like being played too fast, at
the same time.)
It's very possible that if I watched several dozens of 48 FPS movies for
an extensive period of time, I would quickly get accustomed to it, but
the point in this case is that it *was* indeed distracting, and made
following the movie harder. (After all, when you watch the movie you want
to concentrate on the contents of the movie, not on the feeling that it's
playing back too fast.)
I did a rather unusual thing, and went to watch the normal 2D version the
next day, just to compare. This decision was partially prompted by this
article:
http://gizmodo.com/5969817/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-48-fps-fails
It writes the following:
"In the opening hour of The Hobbit shown in 3D HFR I don't recall hearing
a single sigh, or laugh. Not one. When I went to see the exact same scene
with an audience of the same size on a 2D projection - I heard regular
chuckles and laughter... why? Again more on that in a bit - but this was
palpable and very interesting for me to witness. All of the jokes seems
to be falling flat or being missed in the HFR projection."
I was curious to see if I would experience the same, and what do you know,
that exact same thing happened here too! I had read this article before
going to see the movie, and was trying to see how the audience reacted to
the humor in the movie, and there indeed was signicantly more reaction in
the 2D version than in the 3D HFR version.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think you address two main topics here. First the 3D issue. I'm not the
psychiatrist from Twin Peaks who wears 3D-glasses usually. 3D is a hype that
occurs every some years and disappeares soon. The other issue is the increased
frame rate. As all I learned the human brain is only capable to recogise a frame
rate from 24 to 26 per second due to individual differences. So 48 frames per
second must be like looking at a wheel recorded with the usual lower frame rate
but being a little bit faster. I think you know this effect.
Best regards,
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/01/2013 10:23 AM, Warp wrote:
> After seeing the movie at 48 FPS, I cannot help but agree. It was
> distracting, and it made the movie look odd. The most prominent effect
> was that I got the really strong feeling that the movie was being played
> back too fast
For the past several months, my PC has been running day and night,
rendering a large animation.
Initially when I looked at sequences rendered at 50 FPS, it looked
weird. It looked wrong - like it was playing too fast.
However, several months later, I can honestly say the 50 FPS sequences
look perfectly normal, and the 25 FPS ones look jerky and juddery. So
yes, I think it's just a case of what you get used to.
Given that 100% of all video you will ever watch is at low framerates, I
guess this problem won't go away any time soon.
Required XKCD quotation: http://www.xkcd.com/732/
PS. Where the hell uses 24 FPS? I thought everything was 25 FPS...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 05.01.2013 20:53, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
> PS. Where the hell uses 24 FPS? I thought everything was 25 FPS...
Movies. All of them. Everywhere in the world (AFAIK).
25 fps was the effective framerate of the old European analog TV
standard (50 fps interlaced), probably chosen due to the 50 Hz mains
frequency. The US never had 25 fps anywhere - their analog TV standard
had 60 fps interlaced (30 fps effective).
Fun fact: On European analog TV, it was customary that movies had a
slightly shorter play time than in theaters. Not because they left out
anything, but because for practical reasons they played them back at 25
fps instead of the original 24 fps. (In the US, the customary way to
adapt the framerate was to show each original frame for 2 or 3 half
frames, alternatingly, resulting in no change to the play time.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 22:01:07 +0100, clipka wrote:
> The US never had 25 fps anywhere - their analog TV standard had 60 fps
> interlaced (30 fps effective).
29.97 IIRC, "officially".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/01/2013 09:01 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 05.01.2013 20:53, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>
>> PS. Where the hell uses 24 FPS? I thought everything was 25 FPS...
>
> Movies. All of them. Everywhere in the world (AFAIK).
>
> 25 fps was the effective framerate of the old European analog TV
> standard (50 fps interlaced), probably chosen due to the 50 Hz mains
> frequency. The US never had 25 fps anywhere - their analog TV standard
> had 60 fps interlaced (30 fps effective).
Just to clarify: By "old European analogue TV", you mean the thing they
only switched off a year or so ago, and which is still the standard
framerate for (at least) region-2 DVDs?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> On 05/01/2013 09:01 PM, clipka wrote:
> > Am 05.01.2013 20:53, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
> >
> >> PS. Where the hell uses 24 FPS? I thought everything was 25 FPS...
> >
> > Movies. All of them. Everywhere in the world (AFAIK).
> >
> > 25 fps was the effective framerate of the old European analog TV
> > standard (50 fps interlaced), probably chosen due to the 50 Hz mains
> > frequency. The US never had 25 fps anywhere - their analog TV standard
> > had 60 fps interlaced (30 fps effective).
> Just to clarify: By "old European analogue TV", you mean the thing they
> only switched off a year or so ago, and which is still the standard
> framerate for (at least) region-2 DVDs?
Just use the terms "PAL" and "NTSC". Easier that way.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
MichaelJF <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> I think you address two main topics here. First the 3D issue.
What issue?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 05/01/2013 22:57, Warp nous fit lire :
>> Just to clarify: By "old European analogue TV", you mean the thing they
>> only switched off a year or so ago, and which is still the standard
>> framerate for (at least) region-2 DVDs?
>
> Just use the terms "PAL" and "NTSC". Easier that way.
>
Well... there was also Secam & Nicam... (nicam introduced "stereo"!)
And for the place here, now it's, for DVB-T: mpeg-2 for free
STD-resolution, mpeg-4 for HD-resolution & pay-with-decoder
STD-resolution...
STD: 720i, I presume.
HD... something like 1080, i or p ?
Not counting the "overscan" of the display, boosting the frequency to
100, 200 or even 400Hz... or something else like 120, and the eventual
support of 3D (not for air-broadcast... yet ?).
Some movement's compensation are even run at 1600Hz... when the display
hardware is natively at 200Hz.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
can't wait to watch it, but only after I get my kid to watch "Wreck-it Ralph"
(or actually she gets me to watch it :)
I've got no 3D issue (even with glasses-free gaming on 3DS) and have been
watching lots of 24fps movies "upscaled" to 48fps or more in a modern 240Hz or
something TV set, so I don't think I'll see the issue. when I watch it, I'll
post to tell you guys how it went...
BTW, my sister used to tell me the new TV made movies look like mexican soap
opera... I quite remember some of these having this distinct kind of movement.
I'd say, more natural and life-like...
BTW 2, can it be indeed a problem with projections running the feature film a
bit faster to some other standard? like old B&W Charlie shorts that look like
everyone was on speed?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
