 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 05/01/2013 23:55, nemesis nous fit lire :
> 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?
Unlikely... old B&W might have been at 15 or 18 fps, so of course
playing then with an engine at 24 (for 18) was already a bit of speed.
The speed-up of 48 to 50 is unnoticeable (or all the European continent
is used to it, it's the same as 24 to 25).
If the display was 120Hz, it could be that instead of a nice 5 factor
(for 24fps), it is now an alternated 2 & 3 fixed images per frame.
(assuming no interpolation occurs between the frames). That might have a
bit of detection by some eyes/brain.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> 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...
I've read similar reviews. I actually went to see the movie in non-3D and at the
'standard' 24fps frame rate--to see if the movie *itself* stood up well, minus
the whiz-bang technology. Alas, it's no "Lord Of The Rings", but OK. (I've read
the book several times, BTW.) The movie just doesn't have the deep, developed
characterizations that LOTR had, IMO. Not a fault of the Hobbit book itself;
it's quite engaging and well-developed. My own main gripe is with the overly
'comical' performance of the movie's Bilbo Baggins. Plus, as neat as the special
effects are, we've seen them all before.
But I digress...
The 48-fps technology is, I think, an acquired taste. I'm not that crazy about
seeing the movie in that form. High-frame-rate movies are actually not that
new--special effects maestro Douglas Trumbull came out with something called
'Showscan' in the '80's (?), projecting film at 60 fps. I think it was installed
in some special venues, but never caught on generally.
IMO, the frame rate--combined with 'flicker' of one type or another (an
important aspect)--has a MAJOR influence on how we perceive moving images. The
overall 'feeling' that one gets when watching a film at a faster frame rate than
24fps is that it looks 'like a TV soap opera' (using the phrase I've seen
numerous times re: THE HOBBIT.) My own way of putting it is 'like live TV' (as
opposed to watching a film.) It's something I noticed a long time ago, when I
used to make Super-8 movies on film. (I had a motorized editing machine that
could play the movie back far faster than the normal 18fps speed--and with no
flicker, because it had a rotating prism rather than a shutter.) Projected film
in a theater has intrinsic flicker, no matter what fps it's at (because of the
projector shutter and the film pull-down mechanism.) There's a small time
interval of NO image and no light. Live video on a monitor doesn't have the same
'kind' of flicker. And a 24fps movie, seen on a monitor, has flicker
characteristics of a different kind yet. It doesn't look like 'live video,' but
it doesn't look quite like the film did when it was projected in a theater
either. (Discounting differences in dynamic range and color saturation between
monitors and film.)
And now we have yet another 'paradigm', a film projected in a theater at 48fps.
It's doubtful that we have anything in our experience to compare it to.
(Assuming that it *is* on film; perhaps it's all digital now. I wonder if
'digital' projection has eliminated the typical 'film' flicker altogether.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kenneth <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> My own main gripe is with the overly
> 'comical' performance of the movie's Bilbo Baggins.
The original book is for children, and if anything, the movie is
significantly darker and edgier than it.
> The
> overall 'feeling' that one gets when watching a film at a faster frame rate than
> 24fps is that it looks 'like a TV soap opera' (using the phrase I've seen
> numerous times re: THE HOBBIT.) My own way of putting it is 'like live TV' (as
> opposed to watching a film.)
I didn't get that feeling myself, which is why I find it strange. As I
commented, I got the same feeling as when playing a video too fast.
I also think that it has something to do with motion blur. When you film
something at 24 FPS, when there's rapid movement each frame gets more
motion blur than if you film it at 48 FPS. Thus it makes the movie look
sharper, but whether that's a *good* thing is another question. "Less
motion blur" does not automatically mean "looks better" to the human
brain.
But it's probably something that one gets accustomed to with time. I think.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
> The original book is for children...
Ooh, I disagree. I didn't read the book until I was an older adult, and it just
seemed *spot on* as to style and characterization. I never felt like it was
talking down to me, or that it was 'juvenile', so to speak. I also got a real
kick out of its droll humor. And, (at odds with the movie), Bilbo comes across
as a rather quiet and somewhat serious 'everyman'--if a bit eccentric--lacking
the overly-comic traits that are way overused by his film counterpart. If
anything, it seems to me that the film itself is more aimed at the kiddies than
the book is. Yet it does have a playful atmosphere, certainly more so than the
darker and more serious LOTR trilogy (which I've actually never read.)
>
> I also think that it has something to do with motion blur. When you film
> something at 24 FPS, when there's rapid movement each frame gets more
> motion blur than if you film it at 48 FPS. Thus it makes the movie look
> sharper, but whether that's a *good* thing is another question. "Less
> motion blur" does not automatically mean "looks better" to the human
> brain.
Yeah, I agree completely. It's interesting that in the article you mentioned (or
in one of its links), the film's director/cinematographer/effects supervisor all
have the opinion that motion-blur is a *bad* thing, to be eliminated.
Personally, I think that's ill-advised. If we hadn't already had a century of
films to look at (at 24fps), and 48fps filmmaking arrived full-blown on a naive
public, maybe we would all *hate* motion blur; but that legacy has helped form
our overall 'picture' of what films are supposed to look like, for better or
worse. Yet, I suppose that argument is essentially the same that lovers of
classical art once used, when 'modern art' came along after centuries of
representational painting: almost a visceral dislike of so radical a change.
Personally, I'm hoping that this 48fps 'experiment' goes no further than THE
HOBBIT--but we have two more installments to look forward to! :-/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 06/01/2013 14:35, Kenneth nous fit lire :
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > The original book is for children...
> Ooh, I disagree. I didn't read the book until I was an older adult, and it just
> seemed *spot on* as to style and characterization. I never felt like it was
> talking down to me, or that it was 'juvenile', so to speak. I also got a real
> kick out of its droll humor. And, (at odds with the movie), Bilbo comes across
> as a rather quiet and somewhat serious 'everyman'--if a bit eccentric--lacking
> the overly-comic traits that are way overused by his film counterpart. If
> anything, it seems to me that the film itself is more aimed at the kiddies than
> the book is. Yet it does have a playful atmosphere, certainly more so than the
> darker and more serious LOTR trilogy (which I've actually never read.)
>
>
Different times, different approaches. It did have to be childish to be
for children.
Previously, "for children" was aimed at making them grow and move to
adulthood. Children are excellent at adopting the underlying
expectation: If you treat them like worthless bandits, they will turn
into worthless bandits. If you expect them to be gentle & fair, so would
they evolve.
You can elevate the expectation from your childish readers, and it was
so at the time of the Hobbit, or you can lower your language to reach
the lowest possible level.
Look at the Harry Potter saga. It was not using simple words because it
was for children... and it did not describe a beautiful pinky fluffy
world either. Children needs a bit of darkness in their stories, it
makes the happy ending brighter. (now, the 2 last tomes of the HP series
are just not on the same level as the previous ones... it feels "end of
service-get me out of there": one main line, few side tracks)
Same goes for "political": it's easier to have a "simple" yes/no
position... but the world is never that black or white.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 06/01/2013 14:59, Le_Forgeron nous fit lire :
> It did have to be childish to be
> for children.
It did *not* have to be childish to be for children.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kenneth <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > The original book is for children...
> Ooh, I disagree. I didn't read the book until I was an older adult, and it just
> seemed *spot on* as to style and characterization. I never felt like it was
> talking down to me, or that it was 'juvenile', so to speak.
Just because children are the main target audience for something doesn't
mean it has to be patronizing or childish. Something can be quite profound
yet still be very child-friendly and easy for a young child to follow and
be entertained about. However, it *does* mean that you have to avoid
certain things (such as having too much complex drama, subject matters
that are too difficult for a child to understand and would therefore bore
them, too violent gore or events that could be too scary, a storytelling
pace that's too slow, and so on.)
You are probably not a brony, but I think that the current (ie. so-called
4th generation) series of My Little Pony is an excellent example of this,
compared to the previous series (the so-called 3rd generation and earlier.)
Both of them are primarily targeted at very young girls, but if you compare
a typical 3rd generation episode to a typical 4th generation one, the
difference is enormous. The earlier series were clearly made with the
mentality of "children are simple-minded, so they need simple-minded
cartoons", while the current series is far from being that patronizing.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> MichaelJF <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> > I think you address two main topics here. First the 3D issue.
>
> What issue?
>
> --
> - Warp
I thank you for your frank answer,
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> I also think that it has something to do with motion blur. When you film
> something at 24 FPS, when there's rapid movement each frame gets more
> motion blur than if you film it at 48 FPS. Thus it makes the movie look
> sharper, but whether that's a *good* thing is another question. "Less
> motion blur" does not automatically mean "looks better" to the human
> brain.
yeah, it simply can't get in our heads that movies should do without motion
blur, lens flare and other artifacts of a device more limited than our own
eyes...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
> >
> > The original book is for children...
>
> Ooh, I disagree. I didn't read the book until I was an older adult, and it just
> seemed *spot on* as to style and characterization. I never felt like it was
> talking down to me, or that it was 'juvenile', so to speak.
Elves are cheerie and brat-like in the book, even Elrond! The dwarves are
barely disguised stereotyped jews in their traits, including greed and
cowardice. Their funny names are written with kids in mind. And a hobbit hole
is teasing children about rabbits and then entirely introducing them to a new
concept.
It was written for kids.
Silmarillion is much more tasteful, although possibly originating from juvenilia
from Tolkien, no doubt his most mature work.
> have the opinion that motion-blur is a *bad* thing, to be eliminated.
> Personally, I think that's ill-advised. If we hadn't already had a century of
> films to look at (at 24fps), and 48fps filmmaking arrived full-blown on a naive
> public, maybe we would all *hate* motion blur; but that legacy has helped form
> our overall 'picture' of what films are supposed to look like, for better or
> worse.
that's it precisely. but people also thought B&W and silent was what movies
were supposed to look like.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 06/01/2013 21:09, nemesis nous fit lire :
> Elves are cheerie and brat-like in the book, even Elrond! The dwarves are
> barely disguised stereotyped jews in their traits, including greed and
> cowardice. Their funny names are written with kids in mind. And a hobbit hole
> is teasing children about rabbits and then entirely introducing them to a new
> concept.
>
My interpretation is different. the elves/human/dwarves/hobbit are a
social stratification of the UK at the exit of first WW, a bit similar
to the cast system of India... the revolution of first WW is in progress
and perturbing the social consensus.
Dwarves are industrial/factory. Elves are the previously religious
elite... human are the law-enforcement-military of the great empire (and
land owners), and that's why the disappeared king is from that specie
(in LOTR)... hobbits are the small expendable people, previously
invisible and which get a real importance in the modern world.
About "One ring to rules them all"... the explosion of wars in first WW
was due to a mechanical application of treaties.
> It was written for kids.
The Hobbit, yes. LOTR, that's another target.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/01/2013 8:09 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Elves are cheerie and brat-like in the book, even Elrond! The dwarves are
> barely disguised stereotyped jews in their traits, including greed and
> cowardice. Their funny names are written with kids in mind. And a hobbit hole
> is teasing children about rabbits and then entirely introducing them to a new
> concept.
>
> It was written for kids.
I have read, many moons ago, that the story was originality told to his
children. He then formalised it into "The Hobbit..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien#Publications
One sign of a good children's book is that it can be read by adults and
has several levels. Children hear/read the uppermost level while adults
can understand the inferences. Speaking of which I think that you are
wrong thinking that Dwarves are a metaphor for Jews. Dwarves in Nordic
and Germanic mythology are as he describes them. That comes from a time
before Christianity came to Northern Europe.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/01/2013 10:05 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> My interpretation is different. the elves/human/dwarves/hobbit are a
> social stratification of the UK at the exit of first WW, a bit similar
> to the cast system of India... the revolution of first WW is in progress
> and perturbing the social consensus.
Astute, but then the class system in Britain is all pervasive. It is
never far from the surface. IMO The French had the right idea in the
18th Cent.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 08:35:00 -0500, Kenneth wrote:
>> The original book is for children...
>
> Ooh, I disagree. I didn't read the book until I was an older adult, and
> it just seemed *spot on* as to style and characterization. I never felt
> like it was talking down to me, or that it was 'juvenile', so to speak.
> I also got a real kick out of its droll humor. And, (at odds with the
> movie), Bilbo comes across as a rather quiet and somewhat serious
> 'everyman'--if a bit eccentric--lacking the overly-comic traits that are
> way overused by his film counterpart. If anything, it seems to me that
> the film itself is more aimed at the kiddies than the book is. Yet it
> does have a playful atmosphere, certainly more so than the darker and
> more serious LOTR trilogy (which I've actually never read.)
It may have been mentioned by now, but the Hobbit films are not just
culled from The Hobbit, but are set in a much larger "historical" context
of middle earth. Tolkien had built about 1,000 years of history around
Middle Earth, and the films actually try to take that history into
account, which does give it a darker edge. As one review I read put it,
the difference between LOTR and The Hobbit (all three films) is that
Sauron was looking for the one ring in both, but in The Hobbit, he was
looking in the wrong place. His intention had been perceived to be to
recruit Smaug to his cause; Sauruman was becoming evil (he wanted the
ring for himself), etc.
It helps to be familiar with more than just The Hobbit to understand what
Jackson is doing with these films - he's getting into a lot more of the
overall history of Middle Earth and the goings-on while the Dwarves were
trying to take back Erebor (something that's not really part of The
Hobbit per se, but was a part of the "historical" reasons for them
wanting to return home).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> Speaking of which I think that you are
> wrong thinking that Dwarves are a metaphor for Jews. Dwarves in Nordic
> and Germanic mythology are as he describes them. That comes from a time
> before Christianity came to Northern Europe.
For some reason dwarves tend to have Scottish accents in fiction.
I wonder where that comes from.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/6/2013 5:35 AM, Kenneth wrote:
>> I also think that it has something to do with motion blur. When you film
>> something at 24 FPS, when there's rapid movement each frame gets more
>> motion blur than if you film it at 48 FPS. Thus it makes the movie look
>> sharper, but whether that's a *good* thing is another question. "Less
>> motion blur" does not automatically mean "looks better" to the human
>> brain.
>
> Yeah, I agree completely. It's interesting that in the article you mentioned (or
> in one of its links), the film's director/cinematographer/effects supervisor all
> have the opinion that motion-blur is a *bad* thing, to be eliminated.
Actually, its bad advice for a much more specific reason. Our own eyes
produce motion blur, and for a long time, its been "intentionally"
introduced into some video, so that it doesn't look wrong, when viewed.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/01/2013 1:02 AM, Warp wrote:
> For some reason dwarves tend to have Scottish accents in fiction.
> I wonder where that comes from.
Is that true? I’ve never noticed but then I don’t watch many films.
It might come from the WW I nickname of a certain Scottish regiment,
“The poison dwarves”. And it is true that until recent times, the men
from my area were under sized.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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.
Almost undoubtedly because you are used to the 24fps framerate for
films. I bet if you watched at 48fps for a few years then went back to
24fps it would look horrible. This is an interesting effect though, I
wonder if you watched something at 100 or 200 fps how that would seem?
> 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.
There are several possible explanations for that effect, apart from the
framerate difference. You'd need to do a proper experiment to confirm that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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.
That's not really true, below about 24 fps it doesn't look like fluid
motion, rather a sequence of images changing quickly. IIRC up to about
100 fps (obviously it varies from person to person) your brain can still
get more information and make the motion look smoother and more
real-life-like. It's relatively easy to demonstrate the difference
between 30 fps and 60 fps on a normal PC, and if you have a new LCD or
old CRT capable of 120 Hz you can demonstrate that too.
But, above 100 fps does make a difference for fast moving parts when
your eye is tracking the motion. In real life if an object is moving
very fast your eye tracks the movement very accurately and you can see a
perfectly sharp image of the fast moving object. If you try the same on
a film/video/tv it looks blurred (even if you have infinite resolution
and zero response time) because the image is only being updated every X
metres (where X is the distance moved by the object within one frame).
Your eye is continuously moving but the object is moving in finite steps
- this is what makes it look blurred.
Film makers at 24 fps purposely have to avoid objects moving quickly
relative to the screen exactly because of this effect. It's the same
reason why you get LCDs running at 480 or 600 Hz to reduce motion blur.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I also think that it has something to do with motion blur. When you film
> something at 24 FPS, when there's rapid movement each frame gets more
> motion blur than if you film it at 48 FPS. Thus it makes the movie look
> sharper, but whether that's a *good* thing is another question. "Less
> motion blur" does not automatically mean "looks better" to the human
> brain.
At 24fps the director can use motion blur as a tool to force the
audience to concentrate on a certain part of fast moving scenes. At
higher frame rates this becomes harder, so really it's just about how
much control the director should over what the audience should be
looking at.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2013-01-05 16:01, clipka a écrit :
> 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.)
>
Naah.. They just put more ads.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2013-01-05 17:34, Le_Forgeron a écrit :
> 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 ?
>
STD: 480i (NTSC) or 576i (PAL).
HD: 720p or 1080(i or p).
Unless, of course, they use the abbreviations to mean something
completely different.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > 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.
> There are several possible explanations for that effect, apart from the
> framerate difference. You'd need to do a proper experiment to confirm that.
Nah. Extrapolating from one or less examples has always worked perfectly.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/6/2013 11:13 AM, Warp wrote
>
> You are probably not a brony, but I think that the current (ie. so-called
> 4th generation) series of My Little Pony is an excellent example of this
Agreed, it joins the likes of Avatar the Last Airbender, Invader Zim,
Powerpuff Girls, Samurai Jack, and Spongebob Squarepants asa show aimed
at kids which can appeal to adults as well.
Even so, I continue to be surprised at how robust the Brony fandom is.
I'd guess that 25% to 50% of the time I do a google image search for
anything something pony related shows up in the results. It's almost as
if by this point there's a rule-34 analogue, but with ponification: "if
it exists, there's a pony version of it". Honestly, it most makes me
think of what Trekkies probably would have been had the internet been
popular when TNG was airing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
> I also think that it has something to do with motion blur...
I've been thinking about this in a more 'modern' context.
Most of the consumer camera technology available now (cell phones,
low-to-midrange cameras etc) have video modes that actually don't produce much
motion blur at all. So users, especially young ones, are beginning to get
accustomed to a different viewing experience than 24fps film. Perhaps this is
another reason for Jackson's thinking concerning 48fps.
For example, when shooting video at the US standard of 30fps (well, 29.97), in
order to get 'film-like' motion blur (or something similar, since 30fps isn't
24fps) the exposure should be 1/60 sec. That would correspond to a typical
'shutter angle' of 180-deg on a film camera. And would produce motion blur
approaching the *look* of a typical standard theater film, more or less. But
modern cameras shoot with a much higher exposure time/shutter speed--probably
1/200-sec or higher when in direct sunlight. (You can see this by examining the
video frame-by-frame.) The process seems to be completely automated on lower-end
cameras, varying the ISO and the shutter angle depending on the light levels.
(Lower light automatically produces more blur, in other words.) The result is
that there is really no 'standard' motion blur anymore. Only higher-end cameras
allow some manual variation of the ISO speed/shutter angle, to *introduce*
motion blur.
So it looks like we are all being 'weaned off' the experience of 24fps film
whether we like it or not, just by virtue of modern video technology.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Wampler <nob### [at] nowherenet> wrote:
> Even so, I continue to be surprised at how robust the Brony fandom is.
> I'd guess that 25% to 50% of the time I do a google image search for
> anything something pony related shows up in the results. It's almost as
> if by this point there's a rule-34 analogue, but with ponification: "if
> it exists, there's a pony version of it". Honestly, it most makes me
> think of what Trekkies probably would have been had the internet been
> popular when TNG was airing.
Some memes last a lot longer than others. Some memes die almost immediately
after they appear ("don't tase me bro!" would be a perfect example; it
became old almost the same day it appeared on the nets), other memes last
significantly longer, but still die sooner of later (for example l33t
sp34k was really k3wl for a long time in the 90's, but by now it has more
or less died completely, even among the very people who used it back then.)
There probably aren't many "eternal" memes that never die off (or at the
very least get relegated to a very small niche.)
It's curious (although in no way surprising) how technology affects the
type and spread of memes. The wide availability of free blog services,
and especially the availability of free video sharing services (YouTube
being by far the #1), something that was completely unthinkable in the 90's,
has changed the mem landscape considerably.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kenneth <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Most of the consumer camera technology available now (cell phones,
> low-to-midrange cameras etc) have video modes that actually don't produce much
> motion blur at all. So users, especially young ones, are beginning to get
> accustomed to a different viewing experience than 24fps film. Perhaps this is
> another reason for Jackson's thinking concerning 48fps.
I'm not completely sure that the amount of motion blur in a movie
having an effect on how "natural" or "distracting" it looks like is
completely a question of being accustomed to one or the other.
The original choice of 24 frames per second was most probably dictated
by practicality (it's about the minimum framerate that makes the movie
look fluid to the human brain, and back in the day it was hard enough
to create such cameras to be trying anything significantly higher), but
it might turn out to be a case of serendipity: Maybe it's not only just
a question of economy (ie. the minimum framerate you can get away with
so that you don't have to make your camera more complicated and thus
expensive), but it just happens to be that the motion blur that it causes
is close to *perfect* for the human brain because it might be close to
what the brain sees when you move your eyes/head around.
When you get rid of that "natural" motion blur, there's a dissonance
between what you see and what your brain normally expects to see when
things move.
Of course this is pure speculation from my part because I haven't read
any actual studies on this.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/8/2013 10:37 AM, Warp wrote:
>
> It's curious (although in no way surprising) how technology affects the
> type and spread of memes. The wide availability of free blog services,
> and especially the availability of free video sharing services (YouTube
> being by far the #1), something that was completely unthinkable in the 90's,
> has changed the mem landscape considerably.
>
One of the things I've found interesting about it is that the extremely
rapid creation and propagation of memes allowed by the internet has led
(so it seems to me) to a change is the style of the memes. In
particular, memes which are extremely quick to digest (like image
macros) seem to have a really high fitness in this sort of environment,
and you seem them everywhere.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2013-01-08 13:45, Warp a écrit :
> The original choice of 24 frames per second was most probably dictated
> by practicality (it's about the minimum framerate that makes the movie
> look fluid to the human brain, and back in the day it was hard enough
> to create such cameras to be trying anything significantly higher), but
> it might turn out to be a case of serendipity: Maybe it's not only just
> a question of economy (ie. the minimum framerate you can get away with
> so that you don't have to make your camera more complicated and thus
> expensive), but it just happens to be that the motion blur that it causes
> is close to *perfect* for the human brain because it might be close to
> what the brain sees when you move your eyes/head around.
>
I don't think "make the camera more complicated" was the main driver...
"Minimized the amount of film needed" was probably more important.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Wampler <nob### [at] nowherenet> wrote:
> One of the things I've found interesting about it is that the extremely
> rapid creation and propagation of memes allowed by the internet has led
> (so it seems to me) to a change is the style of the memes. In
> particular, memes which are extremely quick to digest (like image
> macros) seem to have a really high fitness in this sort of environment,
> and you seem them everywhere.
Indeed. It's not like it was difficult to create image macros in the 90's,
it's just that back then there was no efficient distribution channel, even
for people who had internet connection and their own web pages.
Back then there were little to no centralized forums or blogs (not to
talk about wikis) that were popular. By far the most popular was usenet
(which is nowadays dying a slow death), but it was not the optimal way
of distributing images nor have them widely seen.
It's funny to think that back in the mid-90's it was actually a rare
privilege to have internet access. Nowadays you have to try very hard
to *not* have access.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/01/2013 03:45 AM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> One of the things I've found interesting about it is that the extremely
> rapid creation and propagation of memes allowed by the internet has led
> (so it seems to me) to a change is the style of the memes. In
> particular, memes which are extremely quick to digest (like image
> macros) seem to have a really high fitness in this sort of environment,
> and you seem them everywhere.
Memes which are easy to copy, you mean. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
