Jackson's "Hobbit" = Fail.

[dennilfloss]

Seems people are stuck on technology that is 70 years old.

Time to get with the times people.

Why aren't we using 60 or 120 fps? If the technology exist, then use it.

Because the spools of film the projectionist needs to tend to would become really huge as you triple/quintuple the frame rate and need 3-5 times the celluloid? It would be like Imax film spools. Those are gigantic.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

When I got my new Samsung TV a couple years back, I was fiddling with the settings trying to get everything configured to my liking. I was messing around with the frame interpolation settings, and watching a scene from The Dark Knight where the camera is panning around a rooftop meeting. With the frame interpolation on, it felt like the camera was panning twice as fast as before (even though it's really just doubling the number of frames in a given time period), and it was distracting, disorienting and unpleasant.

FPS is important when you're playing video games. I'm not so sure it's important for film. It seems that more people dislike high FPS video than like it.

 

[blankslate]

Complaining about footage that is missing effects?

wow.

As for the FPS I'm sure they could adjust it for different scenes in the movie. lower fps for slower non action scenes... boost it to ~35+ for action scenes.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Thread title will turn to stone when sunlight touches it.

 

[Ns1]

Because the spools of film the projectionist needs to tend to would become really huge as you triple/quintuple the frame rate and need 3-5 times the celluloid? It would be like Imax film spools. Those are gigantic.

IMAX platters range from 1.2 to 1.83 meters (3.9 to 6.0 ft) diameter to accommodate 1 to 2.75 hours of film. Platters with a 2.5 hour feature film weigh 250 kilograms (550 lb).

LOL

 

[alent1234]

Because the spools of film the projectionist needs to tend to would become really huge as you triple/quintuple the frame rate and need 3-5 times the celluloid? It would be like Imax film spools. Those are gigantic.

in the USA we use computers to show movies in the theater

 

[Ns1]

in the USA we use computers to show movies in the theater

LOL

 

[dennilfloss]

Well I still see dust/scratches/hair and other film artifacts at the cinema so I assume here it's still done the old mechanical way in many places.

 

[foghorn67]

Well I still see dust/scratches/hair and other film artifacts at the cinema so I assume here it's still done the old mechanical way in many places.

Cinema? Lol.

 

[foghorn67]

For all you guys calling cranking up your 24fps movie in 120/240hz tv progress, you guys are idiots.
It wasn't shot that way.
It's like taking a photo and cranking up sharpness until the skin looks fake.
Nobody wants that except for clueless morons that were tragically born without taste.
Actually, that's what's going on. You're just seeing the tv effect of cranking up sharpness.

 

[CPA]

For all you guys calling cranking up your 24fps movie in 120/240hz tv progress, you guys are idiots.
It wasn't shot that way.
It's like taking a photo and cranking up sharpness until the skin looks fake.
Nobody wants that except for clueless morons that were tragically born without taste.
Actually, that's what's going on. You're just seeing the tv effect of cranking up sharpness.

who pissed in your cheerios?

 

[Triumph]

OP is an asshole for misleading thread title, but I can't stand any sort of smoothing effect that a lot of TV's will add to the image to make it look "better". I will still be seeing the Hobbit as soon as it comes out, though.

 

[ch33zw1z]

So is this just about the 3D frame rates? How's the f'in movie?>!?!?

 

[Anonemous]

sounds like the 240hz setting on an LCD. i can't stand looking at that.

Yea it's the 'soap opera' effect. Makes things from CG movies look like a 3D model from a video game.

I remember seeing Avatar on the 240hz tvs at Frys and they looked like 3D models from a video game. When they had people on screen it looked like the video came from a soap opera.

 

[Jaepheth]

Wouldn't it be trivially easy to take a 48FPS video file and only display every other frame at half speed getting an effective 24FPS if that's what you prefer?

 

[sigurros81]

Wouldn't it be trivially easy to take a 48FPS video file and only display every other frame at half speed getting an effective 24FPS if that's what you prefer?

Yes, if you shoot digital it's very easy if you have a camera that's capable of shooting highspeed. That's the reason why I had to call out the idiot that saying it's pretentious and overcomplicated to shoot at high FPS. From my experience, most videographers would shoot in high FPS so that way they have the option to either play their video back in normal speed or if it calls for it in post production, they can have complete control over slow motion (like the movie 300).

 

[AznAnarchy99]

People dont like change.

Although I cant stand those high hz TVs..

 

[zinfamous]

He probably got the soap opera effect on the screen just like the 240hz LED LCDs...

that's what I'm thinking.

It is so damn dreadful.

 

[AMDZen]

OP is an asshole for misleading thread title, but I can't stand any sort of smoothing effect that a lot of TV's will add to the image to make it look "better". I will still be seeing the Hobbit as soon as it comes out, though.

Agreed. This has nothing to do with the movie, just technology in the studio which Jackson is pushing for, and used his new movie to help sell it.

Jackson is right.

The cheapo's that disagree are wrong.

I hope more people get on board and help sell this.

Or ... pirate the shit out of Hollywood and their greedy asses.

 

[QuantumPion]

Gaming is different, because you are in control and the framerate is fluctuating.

If you want to nitpick, the number is actually in the 70 FPS range where your eye cannot tell the difference between higher numbers at all. But it matters if that FPS is changing and if you're in control.

Actually no, the human eye is capable of distinguishing motion of around 200-300 fps for images, and 500-1000 fps for high-contrast light.

 

[QuantumPion]

The good thing about frame rates though is if you think they are too high you can always just wait for the blu-ray to come out and downsample it to 24 fps with no loss of quality.

 

[AMDZen]

Actually no, the human eye is capable of distinguishing motion of around 200-300 fps for images, and 500-1000 fps for high-contrast light.

Hardly. Although there is some disagreement

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

 

[KeithTalent]

He probably got the soap opera effect on the screen just like the 240hz LED LCDs...

This is what I was thinking as well. I freaking hate that.

KT

PS: thread title is very misleading.

 

[Cerb]

Another statement that's completely full of shit. If you're a gamer, try locking your FPS of a game at 40FPS vs. 60FPS vs. 100+ FPS. The eye can still discern easily the difference between 40 vs 60 vs 100.

No, full of truth. You need more FPS to brute-force good motion blur, because the game is rendering a perfectly crisp image every frame, which is not like seeing motion. A well-shot video will have a good balance between perceived detail and blur (99% of Hollywood action movies screw this up, today). It helps that peripheral vision doesn't usually get involved, too.

Seems people are stuck on technology that is 70 years old.

Time to get with the times people.

Why aren't we using 60 or 120 fps? If the technology exist, then use it.

I'll take expensive storage and cameras for $1000, Alex. 24 FPS movies have regularly been in the range of terabytes. If it enhances the audience experience, expect it to be used...or if a handful of movie producers think it's the next thing since sliced bread.

 

[sigurros81]

No, full of truth. You need more FPS to brute-force good motion blur, because the game is rendering a perfectly crisp image every frame, which is not like seeing motion. A well-shot video will have a good balance between perceived detail and blur (99% of Hollywood action movies screw this up, today). It helps that peripheral vision doesn't usually get involved, too.

I'll take expensive storage and cameras for $1000, Alex. 24 FPS movies have regularly been in the range of terabytes. If it enhances the audience experience, expect it to be used...or if a handful of movie producers think it's the next thing since sliced bread.

You also need to consider how long of an exposure each of those frames have, but to say that the eye can't discern anything higher than 40FPS is full of shit.