'Frameupscaling'?

[mikeymikec]

E.g. (view clip at 1080p60 - ie. 60 fps):

What I'm about to write is based on my assumption that most films have been recorded at 25fps with some exceptions like the 'Hobbit' movies, so if I'm wrong on the point of the Ultron film being distributed at 25fps (a quick search suggests I'm not), feel free to just correct me on that point.

Watching this clip (and some others like it) and my brain is telling me that there's something inherently wrong with what I'm seeing, but I can't figure out what it is. If it was just to do with a 60fps native rate then I'd expect the whole clip to look unusually smooth, but when I'm watching this clip it seems like every bit of CGI becomes that bit more obvious as if it's a really amateurish superimposition of content.

https://youtu.be/cg1rtWXHSKU?t=135

For example, there's a bit near this time index where Cap launches himself off an upended vehicle, and it seems to me that the frame rate for his character only does not match what's going on around him.

AFAIK YT only gives the user options to view clips at available resolutions and frame rates for that clip, so I don't think Google is doing anything with the clip.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

E.g. (view clip at 1080p60 - ie. 60 fps):

What I'm about to write is based on my assumption that most films have been recorded at 25fps with some exceptions like the 'Hobbit' movies, so if I'm wrong on the point of the Ultron film being distributed at 25fps (a quick search suggests I'm not), feel free to just correct me on that point.

Watching this clip (and some others like it) and my brain is telling me that there's something inherently wrong with what I'm seeing, but I can't figure out what it is. If it was just to do with a 60fps native rate then I'd expect the whole clip to look unusually smooth, but when I'm watching this clip it seems like every bit of CGI becomes that bit more obvious as if it's a really amateurish superimposition of content.

https://youtu.be/cg1rtWXHSKU?t=135

For example, there's a bit near this time index where Cap launches himself off an upended vehicle, and it seems to me that the frame rate for his character only does not match what's going on around him.

AFAIK YT only gives the user options to view clips at available resolutions and frame rates for that clip, so I don't think Google is doing anything with the clip.

Strange, I don't recall it looking that way last I saw it. I see what you mean, in this video it almost looks like the background/'real stuff' is filmed at 24fps, while the CGI is at 60, so they're doubling up on frames give or take. I cannot state why it looks that way, only that I don't remember it looking that way.

 

[Kaido]

Regarding the Hobbit, what bothered me the most was that you could TELL it was acting. It was like sitting on the set, watching them act. Gizmodo has a deep-dive on that effect:

https://gizmodo.com/5969817/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-48-fps-fails

And you're right, 60 FPS does look different:

https://www.reddit.com/r/60FpsGifs/

https://www.reddit.com/r/NatureIn60FPS/

This junk makes my brain hurt:

24 FPS 4 LYFE, lol

 

[snoopy7548]

Yeah, I don't know. It looks pretty cool, but it seems too real. It's like it adds to the realism but also completely takes you out of the movie at the same time. Give me 24fps or give me death.

 

[richaron]

E.g. (view clip at 1080p60 - ie. 60 fps):

What I'm about to write is based on my assumption that most films have been recorded at 25fps with some exceptions like the 'Hobbit' movies, so if I'm wrong on the point of the Ultron film being distributed at 25fps (a quick search suggests I'm not), feel free to just correct me on that point.

Watching this clip (and some others like it) and my brain is telling me that there's something inherently wrong with what I'm seeing, but I can't figure out what it is. If it was just to do with a 60fps native rate then I'd expect the whole clip to look unusually smooth, but when I'm watching this clip it seems like every bit of CGI becomes that bit more obvious as if it's a really amateurish superimposition of content.

https://youtu.be/cg1rtWXHSKU?t=135

For example, there's a bit near this time index where Cap launches himself off an upended vehicle, and it seems to me that the frame rate for his character only does not match what's going on around him.

AFAIK YT only gives the user options to view clips at available resolutions and frame rates for that clip, so I don't think Google is doing anything with the clip.

I'm not a video guy but I have pondered what you're talking about. And yes, watching this scene in isolation is a pretty bad showing for special effects. Are you sure this is the final cut? It just looks bad all round.

Sometimes I see CGI where I'm pretty sure they pulled an anime trick of only rendering every second or third frame to cut costs. And even if they did render at the full 24fps(?) that doesn't mean the live action camera also filmed at that fps. Maybe at some point the splicing of the two streams at different frame rates causes judder or something we can notice.

But again that clip you linked looks super bad to me and I'd be surprised if it was the final cut. It's just nasty, not just the frame timing but something about the feel in general. It looks more like "big budget TV" rather than "Hollywood blockbuster".

 

[Kaido]

Yeah, I don't know. It looks pretty cool, but it seems too real. It's like it adds to the realism but also completely takes you out of the movie at the same time. Give me 24fps or give me death.

Film is an interesting thing because while the tech that goes into making the picture is always progressing, most people are pretty happy just watching a 2D image. There's just no commitment required with 2D at 24 FPS...you don't have to get eyestrain from watching 60 FPS, you don't have to put on glasses for 3D, or for those newer no-glasses displays, you don't have to concentrate on the 3D portions, you don't have to watch a semi-transparent display like all of the movies that are set in the future seem to have, etc. You just plunk down & watch a movie.

Like, I absolutely love my VR system, but you have to pop on a headset to use it. That's just not as easy & convenient as plopping on your couch and turning on the tube. TV works because it's the McDonalds of entertainment...convenience is king!

 

[mikeymikec]

A ~25fps version of similar content from the above scene (shame it's 720p but anyway):

I think I know what the problem might be: Motion blur. I think Orisis's post gave me the idea. Btw Osiris, I don't think the theatrical version of the film looked anything like the OP clip in terms of what I'll coin as 'upscale artifacts'.

Logically, at ~25fps, it is more likely to trigger motion blur than at ~60fps. Something does not need to move as quickly across the viewpoint at a 25fps rate in order to trigger motion blur as something being filmed at 60fps. The problem isn't inherently with 25 or 60fps, the problem just like in 3D gaming, is consistency. Gamers hate it when they experience a significant frame rate drop because it upsets the continuity and fluidness of the experience.

So if it is harder to trigger motion blur, an actually filmed scene at 60fps is less likely to have it in, but the CGI insertions are artificial so they have to obey the same rules of when motion blur is triggered in order to maintain the illusion. If the CGI doesn't obey the same rules, then even if the viewer gets over the fact that the whole thing is playing at 60fps, the CGI giveaway becomes that much more obvious.

It's kind of like the strobe effect, but then seeing an object pass through a strobe-lit setting while not exhibiting the same 'strobe' visual effect as it passes through the viewpoint. Brain instantly says 'fake'.

- edit - I wonder whether I've simply reworded Osiris's post

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Btw Osiris, I don't think the theatrical version of the film looked anything like the OP clip in terms of what I'll coin as 'upscale artifacts'.

I think these clips are actually upscaled for 60fps viewing on youtube/whathaveyou.

 

[mikeymikec]

I think these clips are actually upscaled for 60fps viewing on youtube/whathaveyou.

I agree. I suspect the uploader did it rather than something odd about YouTube or it would be more widespread. If so, I'm just surprised that the uploader didn't notice the problems it caused (or perhaps they thought it was their imagination).

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Regarding the Hobbit, what bothered me the most was that you could TELL it was acting. It was like sitting on the set, watching them act. Gizmodo has a deep-dive on that effect:

https://gizmodo.com/5969817/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-48-fps-fails

I normally like Gizmodo but that article was stupid. The guy watched HFR Hobbit like it was a science experiment. He's busy watching the audience and analyzing the lighting and visual quality, then blames the framerate for why he wasn't immersed in the movie.

The movie is a novelty. The public isn't used to HFR and it will appear "off" to them. That will change if it becomes commonplace.

 

[TheELF]

I agree. I suspect the uploader did it rather than something odd about YouTube or it would be more widespread. If so, I'm just surprised that the uploader didn't notice the problems it caused (or perhaps they thought it was their imagination).

The butler did it.
It's called Smooth Vide Project (SVP) if you want to look it up,it's an automated process so errors/low quality are unavoidable.

 

[IronWing]

This junk makes my brain hurt:


24 FPS 4 LYFE, lol

That's a 186 meg gif!

 

[AdamK47]

The main thing that's distracting to me is the artifacting caused by the frame interpolation.

 

[Thebobo]

Eh I can't tell any difference, maybe on a larger screen?