CGTalk > Main > General Discussion
Login register
Thread Closed share thread « Previous Thread | Next Thread »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01-07-2013, 11:30 PM   #286
og_reborn
full uh beans
 
og_reborn's Avatar
Adam Singer
USA
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 334
Just thought I'd chime in, I've seen it in both 3d-48fps, and 2d-24fps.

Enjoyed the 2d 24 SO MUCH MORE. Nostalgia or not, it felt like a real movie (almost

One of the (many) things that bugged me about 48 was that every little bump and hitch in the camera moves was 10x more noticeable. I'm not talking steadycam or anything, I'm talking about the slight imperfections in the cam operator's panning/tilting movements with mounted cams. Made the "real" camera work look unintentionally shoddy.
The same movements looked perfectly fine in 24.

I hope at least if 48 does take over, theatres will still offer 24fps showings for us old fogies, and by old fogies I mean anyone born before the year 2000
__________________
adamator.com
 
Old 01-08-2013, 12:44 AM   #287
Duncan
Expert
 
Duncan's Avatar
Duncan Brinsmead
Principal Scientist
Autodesk
Canada
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by leif3d
The whole point of going to the movies is to watch a cinematic experience through the eyes of the director, not yours.
Simulating real life and forgetting cinematic language is not what the movie going experience is about.


48 fps is just another tool the director can use. If that were a standard there is nothing to stop a director from blending every two frames together. When shown on a 48fps system the result would look exactly as if it was filmed at 24fps...if that provided some sort of magic. I'm hard pressed to believe however that the response to this is anything other than conditioning. 48 fps is just an improvement in fidelity, like better resolution, larger screen size, higher contrast ratio, better color saturation. A director has a broader pallet to draw on with these things.

Also to literally see through the eyes of a director would require frame rates greater than 48, better than imax resolution and some kind of holographic 3D that fills one's view. (unless the director had eye problems) To be able to truly create an intimate experience of seeing through another's eyes will take technology we don't have yet, but one can be assured that directors would use such capabilities to take storytelling to places it has not been.

I watch mostly movies made before 1950, and am not bothered by the lack of color, resolution and surround sound. My wife actually prefers black and white to color in a movie. However a movie like Avatar would not be much of an experience in B+W mono on a tiny old TV set in part because of the way the story is told. It really requires a big screen.

Duncan
 
Old 01-08-2013, 03:08 AM   #288
DanHibiki
Expert
 
DanHibiki's Avatar
portfolio
- -
Senior 3d Animator
Invivo communications
Richmond Hill, Canada
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,802
you're saying it like 48 FPS is some brand new sensation that no one's ever seen. Don't know about you but I've been playing games at 48 fps and higher most of my life and I can tell you that for cinematics 48 fps sucks.
At 24 you get an illusion motion that makes movies look great and for a lack of better word 'real'. When you go higher then that you break that illusion and you start to notice that the thing you're watching is not real and you start to notice that the thing you're watching is not real. In order to bypass that you'd have to get to frame rates that are much higher. At around 90 or so FPS you stop noticing this again, so until then this is just crap, good for watching football but not much else.
 
Old 01-08-2013, 07:55 PM   #289
Duncan
Expert
 
Duncan's Avatar
Duncan Brinsmead
Principal Scientist
Autodesk
Canada
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,995
Quote:
you're saying it like 48 FPS is some brand new sensation that no one's ever seen


People have seen higher frame rates in general in games and video, but not movies. It could be that the association of watching thousands of high quality films with good production values creates an inherent illusion of quality from the lower frame rate. The production values in game cinematics are much lower than for CG in big budget hollywood features so it could be that the frame rate is triggering an association.

One effect of a lower frame rate is that when an object moves and your eye tracks it the object becomes blurry. For example if one takes a pencil and moves it back and forth in real life the eyes can track it and can read the text, while at 24 fps in a movie the motion blur will wipe out the text. If the eye were not tracking the pencil then the motion blur at any frame rate would be OK, but the problem is that when the eye is actively tracking the motion there should be no blur. Perhaps this blurriness creates a warm cinematic feel(not unlike depth of field) that people like, but it is less like reality than a high frame rate. It reminds me of people who complained that CDs provided a cold sterile sound while vinyl was warm and human( like sitting next to a crackling fireplace), despite the fact that vinyl was not as accurate a reproduction of sound.

I would be more willing to believe that there is a real problem with 48 fps if someone could provide a scientific explanation as to why. So far the arguments I've seen do not fit what I understand about the way the eye works. It would also be useful to have proper double blind experiments (users rating subjective experience of a films without any knowledge that frame rate is being varied). I suppose there must be some studies on this but I've not found any that deal with this specific issue.

I have a related experience where I used to play an old digital piano setup(circa 1991) and then upgraded the piano sound I was using to one that was clearly better... better recording quality, higher bit depth, more velocity levels. If listening to a recording of it the sound was clearly superior and sounded exactly like a recording of a real piano. However when playing interactively on the piano I was surprised in that it initially felt less real when playing on it. This effect lasted for about a month until I got used to it, and now I find it infinitely more satisfying to play than the old sound.

Again I'm reminded of my old uncle... when listening to music he would turn the treble control all the way down because the old stereos he grew up with could not produce high frequencies and he found them disturbing... even though it was a more accurate reproduction.
 
Old 01-08-2013, 10:28 PM   #290
EricM
Expert
Eric Marodon
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,294
Showscan (70mm at 60fps) was invented 40 years ago, 3D was already a craze... in 1953 (watch Dial M for Murder in authentic 3D from Alfred Hitchock to see a 3D movie with a good story) but both only remained "theme parks" attractions.

What has really changed? You still have to wear glasses, you still have mostly cheesy movies in 3D, and even 4k HFR is actually worse in quality than showscan was.
 
Old 01-08-2013, 10:50 PM   #291
Duncan
Expert
 
Duncan's Avatar
Duncan Brinsmead
Principal Scientist
Autodesk
Canada
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,995
One thing that's changed is that digital data is a lot cheaper than actual film. 70 mm at 60fps is incredibly expensive. Digital is really the innovation that makes high frame rates feasible, I think.

However there are lots of old innovations that have yet to hit it big. The old Cinerama was pretty cool in its day and in some ways better than 70 mm. They projected onto a curved screen, but unlike the more modern omnimax format the screen was made of thousands of skinny flat forward facing strips. This avoids washout where part of the screen illuminates other parts killing the blacks( clearly visible if you see omnimax on a bright scene).
 
Old 01-08-2013, 11:02 PM   #292
eodeo
random acts of kindness
 
eodeo's Avatar
Petar Stamenkovic
Novi Sad, Yugoslavia
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricM
Showscan (70mm at 60fps) was invented 40 years ago, 3D was already a craze... in 1953 (watch Dial M for Murder in authentic 3D from Alfred Hitchock to see a 3D movie with a good story) but both only remained "theme parks" attractions.

What has really changed? You still have to wear glasses, you still have mostly cheesy movies in 3D, and even 4k HFR is actually worse in quality than showscan was.


What changed? Technology changed. A LOT. Not a lot- a LOT. Computers roughly doubled in speed every two years since 1958. You may not feel like that is much, but today's movies are light years better in tech quality compared to ones from 1960s era. Saying otherwise is just ignoring all the data.

You may be able to debate that story telling was better off on analog in poorer resolution, color and dynamic range or that merely directors and scripts were both examined in greater detail back then. Even if so, none of it is relevant to the fact that today's quality of moving images you see when you visit your local theater has improved a LOT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duncan
Also to literally see through the eyes of a director would require frame rates greater than 48, better than imax resolution and some kind of holographic 3D that fills one's view. (unless the director had eye problems)


Very eloquently put.
__________________
EoDEo

Ideas drift like petals on the wind. You need only to lift your face to the breeze.
 
Old 01-09-2013, 12:14 AM   #293
CHRiTTeR
On the run!
 
CHRiTTeR's Avatar
Chris
Graphic designer extraordinaire
Belgium
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 4,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricM
Showscan (70mm at 60fps) was invented 40 years ago, 3D was already a craze... in 1953 (watch Dial M for Murder in authentic 3D from Alfred Hitchock to see a 3D movie with a good story) but both only remained "theme parks" attractions.

What has really changed? You still have to wear glasses, you still have mostly cheesy movies in 3D, and even 4k HFR is actually worse in quality than showscan was.


Ppl who like to read books used to say the same thing about movies... they are just "theme park attractions". And depending the way you look at it, they are right, 3D or no 2D. Its just a 'ride' anyway.
 
Old 01-09-2013, 12:59 AM   #294
CKPinson
Expert
 
CKPinson's Avatar
portfolio
CK Pinson
Network ADMIN
Govt
West Palm Beach, USA
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,967
Send a message via MSN to CKPinson
I love visuals and love movies but I will say that a well written novel will offer me more entertainment than a well made movie. At least in most cases that I can think of at this moment.

And kicker is that I don't even read that much- don't have the time. Also sucks to invest a lot of time in a book to find out it sucked.
__________________
CK Pinson
 
Old 01-09-2013, 01:29 AM   #295
CKPinson
Expert
 
CKPinson's Avatar
portfolio
CK Pinson
Network ADMIN
Govt
West Palm Beach, USA
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,967
Send a message via MSN to CKPinson
Also @ DUNCAN- all this inovation to make movies completely immersive and in the eye of the maker to lead to making yet more remakes and sequels/prequels.

But I do agree with the point you are making if it is ever achieved.
__________________
CK Pinson
 
Old 01-09-2013, 07:35 PM   #296
DanHibiki
Expert
 
DanHibiki's Avatar
portfolio
- -
Senior 3d Animator
Invivo communications
Richmond Hill, Canada
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRiTTeR
Ppl who like to read books used to say the same thing about movies... they are just "theme park attractions". And depending the way you look at it, they are right, 3D or no 2D. Its just a 'ride' anyway.
And people use to say that Disco will never die and that Beta is a format to end all other formats.
 
Old 01-10-2013, 09:16 PM   #297
TrexGreg
Know-it-All
 
TrexGreg's Avatar
portfolio
Greg
Senior Generalist
Greece
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 300
Better late than never; just came back from the theater...

48FPS was just plain awful. Looked like a live actual theater screen, or like a high-end BBC documentary, completely "lifeless" from the "cinema movie" look we're accustom to.

The visuals were top notch though, making Avatar look like a Sunday morning cartoon and the 48FPS were augmenting that, but at the expense of the "feature film look" we know and expect.

I'm sure in time they'll get better on how they "treat" the 48FPS movies, to bring back the lost magic...
__________________
My Vimeo Videos
 
Old 01-10-2013, 09:17 PM   #298
CGTalk Moderation
Expert
CGTalk Forum Leader
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,066,478
Thread automatically closed

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.
__________________
CGTalk Policy/Legalities
Note that as CGTalk Members, you agree to the terms and conditions of using this website.
 
Thread Closed share thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.