The Hobbit movies

[AcidLameLTE]

https://movieline.com/2012/04/25/the-hobbit-48-fps-preview-divides-audiences-at-cinemacon/

[BlobVanDam]

It probably looks like those 100hz/120hz televisions, which most people seem to think looks weird (although this is shot natively, and not faked).
Why is though that film shot at a more realistic frame rate would look strange? Is it simply that we're not used to it yet and associate the 24fps look with cinema? And if so, how can we not be used to something that is closer to what we actually see every single day with reality?

[Super Dude]

I think it's because we've been conditioned to process movies specifically at that frame speed. Like our eyes watch something filmed at that speed and our brain interprets it as "Oh, this is a movie."

[hefdaddy42]

I think that is it exactly. 

[BlobVanDam]

24fps has been the cinema standard for over 80 years, so it's basically all we've ever known for movies, and TV is either 25/30 depending on where in the world you are. Maybe it is just familiarity and association.
It will be hard to break that habit if people are that opposed to it from the start.

[yorost]

How many of those complainers are going to be criticizing 24fps movies for an outdated look once they've seen two or three full movies at 48?  They saw all of 10 minutes of it, and their complaints were only on a part of that time.  Besides, the best comparison is the exact same movie at both 24 and 48.  Some of those complaints might have nothing to do with the 48fps.

[rumborak]

I will actually watch this for the 48fps specifically. I can't watch many movies in the theater because of the 24fps. Every time there is a big white scene, it's one giant flicker fest.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

I have no problem with this really, but if I get it on DVD I'll probably just watch it on my standard 24fps TV. Unless that doesn't affect anything, in which case forget what I said.

[BlobVanDam]

I have no problem with this really, but if I get it on DVD I'll probably just watch it on my standard 24fps TV. Unless that doesn't affect anything, in which case forget what I said.

DVD only supports the standard TV framerates of 25/29.97fps, so they couldn't release it 48fps on DVD even if they wanted to, so it will just look like a regular old movie on DVD. I'm not even sure if Bluray supports 48fps at this stage, and if/when it does, I'm fairly sure it couldn't handle both 48fps and 3D simultaneously due to the data rate. Might be a while before 48fps trickles down to the home viewer, even for movies that were natively shot that way.

[Super Dude]

My dad has a TV in his bedroom that supports 48fps. I know it does because that's the only framerate it does playback with.

[yorost]

My dad has a TV in his bedroom that supports 48fps. I know it does because that's the only framerate it does playback with.

The question is if a dvd player can even decode 48fps data.  If the format doesn't support 48fps then the standard dvd wouldn't even have the data to allow true 48fps playback.

[Pols Voice]

I was wary of the 48fps from the beginning. At least some screenings will be in 24fps, I believe.

[senecadawg2]

I'm probably setting the bar a bit too high, and will only disappoint myself... but this is going to be the best movie I ever see.

[MetalJunkie]

I think it's because we've been conditioned to process movies specifically at that frame speed. Like our eyes watch something filmed at that speed and our brain interprets it as "Oh, this is a movie."

This was in the comments. I don't know if it's legit or not.

The eye sends information to the brain somewhere between every 1/48th of a second to 1/60th of a second. Which, surprise, surprise, is the same as shooting 24 fps to 30 fps. These frame rates have a shutter speed of 1/48 and 1/60 respectively so the motion and motion blur is very similar to our own eyes. Shooting at 48fps has a shutter speed of 1/96th. Which I clearly stated above. That is why the motion captured at 48 fps looks UNNATURAL. Because it's not what our eyes do.

[slycordinator]

I will actually watch this for the 48fps specifically. I can't watch many movies in the theater because of the 24fps. Every time there is a big white scene, it's one giant flicker fest.

rumborak

If it's a flicker-fest, then you need to change theaters. I've worked at plenty of places that had no flicker even when running a pure-white test pattern...

I'm not even sure if Bluray supports 48fps at this stage, and if/when it does, I'm fairly sure it couldn't handle both 48fps and 3D simultaneously due to the data rate. Might be a while before 48fps trickles down to the home viewer, even for movies that were natively shot that way.

The specs for Blu Ray only allows for 1080p up to 24 fps. But they could easily make a disk in that frame rate by simply dropping frames, which I assume is what they're going to do for the few film theaters still out there at release date (and probably what they'll do for DVD as well).

And they'd have to also do an update in the HDMI specs for 48 fps.

[BlobVanDam]

I think it's because we've been conditioned to process movies specifically at that frame speed. Like our eyes watch something filmed at that speed and our brain interprets it as "Oh, this is a movie."

This was in the comments. I don't know if it's legit or not.

The eye sends information to the brain somewhere between every 1/48th of a second to 1/60th of a second. Which, surprise, surprise, is the same as shooting 24 fps to 30 fps. These frame rates have a shutter speed of 1/48 and 1/60 respectively so the motion and motion blur is very similar to our own eyes. Shooting at 48fps has a shutter speed of 1/96th. Which I clearly stated above. That is why the motion captured at 48 fps looks UNNATURAL. Because it's not what our eyes do.

First of all, the human eye does not work neatly in fps, it's a continuous stream of visual information. Humans can detect flashes even as brief as 1/200 of a second, but can be fooled into seeing smooth motion at much lower framerates (eg the 24fps of cinema)

I believe what this person is referring to is the subjective reasoning that most people can't differentiate between framerates higher than about 50-60fps, a figure derived from gaming where it starts to look jerky roughly below that point, but keep in mind that's because there's typically no motion blur to compensate for the inbetween motion to fool the eyes. If this figure is infact derived as I suspect (which I'm fairly sure it is, as I've found no other evidence supporting it), then it would actually ironically prove the opposite point, as a video game at 60fps has a shutter duration of 0, even shorter than the "unnatural" 1/96 like he's suggesting.

Even if we take this figure of the brain registering 1/48 - 1/60, this does not equate to the shutter speed of a camera. FPS =/= shutter duration. Both 24fps video and 48fps video generally use a 180 degree shutter, so the shutter duration works out to half of the video frame for both systems. This has no direct correlation with framerate though, as the shutter speed can vary, and you're still only getting 24 discrete frames, not 48. A lot of action scenes use a much shorter shutter time (a look which just looks stuttery to me at 24fps).
Even ignoring the flaws in his logic, it would only work if you had 48 discrete frames with a full shutter duration, not 24 discrete frames with a half shutter duration (which both work out to a shutter duration of 1/48 of a second for the sake of the discussion).

I'm not sure if that post makes any sense to anybody but me. Sorry.

[slycordinator]

I saw several reports from people who saw the 48 fps showcase and a somewhat common complaint was that the fact that it made stuff look more like real-life made them focus more on the image and notice all the little flaws in stuff and it made it harder to just be brought in to the story from focusing on the image so much...

[Super Dude]

I think it's because we've been conditioned to process movies specifically at that frame speed. Like our eyes watch something filmed at that speed and our brain interprets it as "Oh, this is a movie."

This was in the comments. I don't know if it's legit or not.

The eye sends information to the brain somewhere between every 1/48th of a second to 1/60th of a second. Which, surprise, surprise, is the same as shooting 24 fps to 30 fps. These frame rates have a shutter speed of 1/48 and 1/60 respectively so the motion and motion blur is very similar to our own eyes. Shooting at 48fps has a shutter speed of 1/96th. Which I clearly stated above. That is why the motion captured at 48 fps looks UNNATURAL. Because it's not what our eyes do.

Oh, I wasn't talking neurology, I was talking psychology. I mean that all our lives our brains are conditioned to interpret 24fps as being "movie speed." So when we see some visual moving at 24fps or some equivalent, our brain tells us "movie." If we see a movie at other frame rate, it confuses us because of our psychological conditioning to equate 24fps with "movie."

[orcus116]

https://movieline.com/2012/04/25/the-hobbit-48-fps-preview-divides-audiences-at-cinemacon/

People on Twitter have asked if it has that soap opera look you get from badly calibrated TVs at Best Buy, and the answer is an emphatic YES.

That's exactly what I was afraid of. I can't tell you how much that AutoMotion crap that is standard on TVs bothers me. What a shame.

[unklejman]

It's funny. People who couldn't afford film for years tried to get their 60i and then 30p footage to look like 24p. Now that there are a vast selection of digital cameras that have the 24p option, some in the industry want a higher frame rate. Go figure. Count me as one who prefers 24p over higher frame rates.

[rumborak]

I will actually watch this for the 48fps specifically. I can't watch many movies in the theater because of the 24fps. Every time there is a big white scene, it's one giant flicker fest.

rumborak

If it's a flicker-fest, then you need to change theaters. I've worked at plenty of places that had no flicker even when running a pure-white test pattern...

The problem isn't the theater, the problem is my eyes. I can see the color wheel effect on projectors (i.e. I move my head and see the primary colors because the projector doesn't display them all at once)
Theaters displays are designed with 95% of the population's visual cortex in mind. Mine sadly falls out of that bell curve, and so it's pretty much a flicker fest.

rumborak

[unklejman]

That would be fixed by a faster color wheel not frame rate, although a faster frame rate would demand a faster color wheel or a technology other than dlp.

[rumborak]

Well, LCD projectors don't have that problem, but I don't think they can handle the light intensity required for a theater.

Eh, honestly I'm not a movie buff anyway. I do other stuff instead.

rumborak

[slycordinator]

He said he saw a "color wheel effect" rather than "something caused by a problem with color wheels." I mention this because most theaters out there aren't using 3D systems that use a color wheel at all, so moving up the color wheel speed on the few that do (such as Dolby's system and the similar newish one from Panasonic if memory serves me right) would likely have no effect on what he's seeing. And incidentally, the color wheels on Dolby's system at least spin *insanely* fast.

And if he saw a 3D feature at a place that used a 2-projector/dual-lens setup (such as one of the few film-based IMAX's left or one from a single Sony projector), this effect being commented on may be reduced since those do have the two eyes literally displayed simultaneously.

Well, LCD projectors don't have that problem, but I don't think they can handle the light intensity required for a theater.

Not only that, but we'd be talking about a panel that would need to be up to ~60-70 feet wide...

[AcidLameLTE]

Peter Jackson unsurprised by critics of Hobbit footage

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-17885833

[yorost]

Peter Jackson unsurprised by critics of Hobbit footage

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-17885833

Once films start coming out in 48fps for awhile and people get used to it many will start criticizing 24fps.  What he says isn't anything mind blowing, people hate change.

[orcus116]

I highly doubt people will get used to 48fps as some kind of norm. It looks that unrealistic.

[yorost]

Right, seeing as complaints were it looked too realistic.  If it becomes the norm people will not only get used to it but filmmakers will get better and better at their techniques for filming for it.  Just because 24fps has been the standard for so long doesn't mean it was chosen because that's what the best choice for fps is.

[orcus116]

Heading towards the uncanny valley is a problem, though. From what I've read it's difficult to immerse yourself in a story because it's so jarring. That's not something people can just get used to, the brain is just not calibrated to process it. Frankly there's a reason 24fps is considered the standard for 90 or so years and it's not due to lack of technology. It's pretty irksome when people like Cameron and Jackson take it upon themselves to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist in the first place.

[MetalJunkie]

Erm, not sure the uncanny valley applies to frame rate.

[yorost]

...so pushing boundaries is bad?

Maybe it will turn out worse than 24fps, but until the industry has a few years worth of time to explore it and fans a chance to adjust to it, how would anyone really know?  Being a standard makes us accept something as right, but that's terrible justification since we've never experienced anything else for film in any significant amount.

[BlobVanDam]

Heading towards the uncanny valley is a problem, though. From what I've read it's difficult to immerse yourself in a story because it's so jarring. That's not something people can just get used to, the brain is just not calibrated to process it. Frankly there's a reason 24fps is considered the standard for 90 or so years and it's not due to lack of technology. It's pretty irksome when people like Cameron and Jackson take it upon themselves to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist in the first place.

I also get annoyed when these guys just decide they can single handedly change a standard like that, but it very well may just be a matter of getting used to this and wiping out that mental association we have with higher framerates. I think that TVs that use 100/120hz interpolation look weird as hell, but since I haven't seen anything shot natively at 48fps, I'm going to reserve judgement for now, although I love the 24fps look simply because of that mental association with cinema.

And to be fair, the standard of 24fps was created at a time when they had only barely just figured out how to sync audio with video properly, so a much higher framerate would have been beyond the tech of the time. I wouldn't place much importance in how they derived the figure of 24fps beyond it being a minimum acceptable standard they could consistently manage for shooting and projecting a film.

[rumborak]

Frankly there's a reason 24fps is considered the standard for 90 or so years and it's not due to lack of technology.

It's a very prosaic reason, the same why telephones in the years 2012 still transmit its signal in a 3kHz band, despite it not sounding good. It's plain market inertia (i.e. once people didnt get epileptic seizures in the theater they stopped improving it), not some magical sweet spot of technology. Btw, the epileptic seizure is only half-jokingly. They used to have city-ordained mandatory breaks in movies in order to protect the public from massive headaches and seizures due to the low frame rate. (I.e. < 24 fps )

[senecadawg2]

I'm looking forward to seeing it in 48 fps, although I can imagine that it will polarize the audience. Also, rumborak! WHERE DID YOUR SIGNATURE DISAPPEAR TO?

[unklejman]

It has been possible to shoot film at higher frame rates for a while, but it generally hasn't been done, except for over-cranking. There are some instances like Star Trek: The Next Generation where it was shot at 30fps for a quicker more hassle free work flow for television. But there is an aesthetic to 24fps that is great for narratives. An almost fantastic feel. I am ALL for 48fps for documentary applications, but not for narratives.