POLL: Vote On Whether You Like the High Frame Rate Cinema feel or 24fps feel.

POLL: Vote On Whether You Like the High Frame Rate Cinema feel or 24fps feel.

  • I like the look of HFR Cinema.

    Votes: 11 13.3%

  • I will keep an open mind towards HFR Cinema.

    Votes: 20 24.1%

  • Cinema should only be 24fps.

    Votes: 21 25.3%

  • I'm undecided on HFR Cinema.

    Votes: 10 12.0%

  • HFR Cinema sucks!

    Votes: 21 25.3%
  • Total voters
    83
PappasArts

PappasArts

Veteran
[size=+0]Vote on how you feel about High Frame Rate Cinema.[/size]


I started this poll since there is such passionate opinions about High Frame Rate Cinema like
Peter Jackson's The Hobbit has been shot in 48FPS.

Also visit this thread to read about HFR and discuss your opinions on it, and whether you feel it
is something you want to see happen, and are willing to work with.

48FPS Footage & High Frame Rate Cinema Info Thread
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...arison-Shot-with-RED-Realtime-Not-slow-motion



For Updates: MIKOS • MLPappas on Twitter
http://PAPPASARTS.WORDPRESS.COM
http://TWITTER.COM/PAPPASARTS
http://MIKOSarts.wordpress.com


[size=+1]BlackMagic Digital Camera Info:[/size] http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.p...mera-Technology-Announcements-amp-Latest-Info
 
Last edited:
I'll take the poll after I see the film in a movie theater. I'm not going to judge it based on the trailers (which look fine to me) or any video posted online, but as a finished product. And that won't be until December, 2012.
Isn't your poll is a bit premature, since we can't see the movie until the end of the year?

And I wil not get drawn into a debate on 24fps vs 48fps with people who haven't even seen a true 48fps film. There was a thread on this very subject last year, and it went nowhere fast.
 
vanvideo said:
I'll take the poll after I see the film in a movie theater. I'm not going to judge it based on the trailers (which look fine to me) or any video posted online, but as a finished product. And that won't be until December, 2012.
Isn't your poll is a bit premature, since we can't see the movie until the end of the year?

And I wil not get drawn into a debate on 24fps vs 48fps with people who haven't even seen a true 48fps film. There was a thread on this very subject last year, and it went nowhere fast.
Click to expand...

It's hardly premature from where I stand. HFR is hardly new. I've been exposed to the multiple flavors of it. Showscan, Iwerks, MaxiVision and something that I can't even explain in terms of beauty- ImaxHD which was Imax at 48fps ( I've been told Soarin' Over California" at Disney's California is Imax 48- however I've never seen it, so I don't know ). Nothing wrong with being a ahead of the curve, even in topics or polls. As for debate. It's not a debate, it's a Poll, and discussion to follow. Nobody should get all fired up over it. Most people can surmise what 48fps and 60fps feels like even if they haven't seen it on a big screen. The motion characteristics are the same with RED at 48, or 60P. I guess the best way to describe it- is it's like watching plays shot live. Just with the production ascetics/techniques of cinema.




Pappas
http://PAPPASARTS.WORDPRESS.COM
http://TWITTER.COM/PAPPASARTS

[size=+1]BlackMagic Digital Camera Info:[/size] http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.p...mera-Technology-Announcements-amp-Latest-Info
 
Last edited:
Grug said:
we can hardly debate the matter before we've seen how it actually looks.
Click to expand...
Professionals who've seen the screening(s), have called it crappy frame rate. I believe in what I've read along their reasoning. Call me a non-believer : D I can live with 24fps, no need for anything else ;-)

Even in 3D, which I think it brings something to worthy notice (3D, not HFR! I am very likely one of the few who sees the 3D to bring intimacy to drama). I did see Hugo among others. Curiously or maybe not, the only one I could not appreciate so much was the animation (Jackson's Tintin), perhaps 'cause Spielberg is used to 2D and action runs better without new gimmicks since The Great Train Robbery -- they already had tested the best stuff some time ago... LOL
 
I don't know if I'll like it. I expect I won't. At first anyway. When I got my first digital hdtv last year I hated it. I was so disappointed, I wanted my CRT back. It was too big, the picture was terrible - all I could see was blocky pixels and digital artifacts everywhere. TV was awful, DVDs awful, bluray a little better. After spending hours fiddling with all the settings I improved it somewhat but for a good two weeks or so all I saw was blocky pixels. Everything was unwatchable and I was determined to take it back. But I was busy and didn't get round to it.

Then after about two or three weeks something changed within my perception and all of a sudden the tv was too small, the picture was great and the only artifact that still bugs me is occasional banding in the sky or in the skin during close ups (can't stand this - sacrificed some sharpness and fixed this with some blur). Now I when I watch a CRT it offends me in exactly the same way as my digital did. A long winded story to illustrate that if 48fps becomes standard, in time it will become part of our visual vocabulary. Whether or not it is better or worse will be irrelevant. Personally I like the characteristics of 24fps and cinemas ability to transport you into another world not quite like our own. If 48fps looks more real it will be a shame. I prefer fantasy to simulation. But we'll see.

James Cameron may have invented the current incarnation of 3D technology but is one of the worst I've seen at using it. As with most the early entries it seemed to me to be framed and edited to a 2D paradigm. Other filmmakers have since done much better at composing in 3D and exploiting its benefits and avoiding its pitfalls. I expect it will be the same with 48fps and it will be those that follow that figure out how to make it look good. Even just from the stills it is doubtful whether the Hobbit will blow me away. It looks like LARP/cosplay with a budget instead of a lush fantasy world. But judgement is reserved and this might not even be the right film to introduce the format. On the other hand how much of the final treatment has that trailer received, it looked pretty flat and may not represent the final look. I imagine a high octane movie like fast and the furious or crank would look pretty good in 48fps.
 
A better poll might be: How many people have actually seen footage in a theater at other than 24 fps? If you haven't seen it, then you can't form an opinion -- all you can do is speculate.

I suspect that I'd like 48 fps, or 60 fps, or 72 fps. But my speculation is worthless to anyone else.
 
I've seen HFR footage on lots of TVs and computer screens, and it always looks the same: like a cheap soap opera. Others have seen those 10 minutes of The Hobbit on "the best projection system built by man", and thought the same. And now that we're telling stories... People don't get used to the HFR look, they don't grow to like it. I've recently been to the home of a 40-year-old elementary school teacher who's never worked with video and doesn't know what 24p is (you can't get much closer to "regular viewer" than that), and she was amazed at the difference when I (who can't stand the HFR look) changed her TV settings. She bought that TV nearly a year ago, and had always thought "I don't know what it is, but these new TVs look like crap". Not anymore.
 
Egg Born Son said:
Then after about two or three weeks something changed within my perception and all of a sudden the TV was too small, the picture was great and the only artifact that still bugs me is occasional banding in the sky or in the skin during close ups (can't stand this - sacrificed some sharpness and fixed this with some blur). Now I when I watch a CRT it offends me in exactly the same way as my digital did.
Click to expand...

I was just noticing something similar last night when viewing my old LCD monitor. I had bought it for non photo use and didn't mind it's relatively poor photo rendering. Later I moved it to another PC and started using it for viewing photos. Last night, I noticed photos don't look bad on it. How can this be? It didn't improve with time. The only explanation I have is my brain learned to convert its poor renderings into something useful. I suspect when I replace it with a good monitor, photos will look weird until I unlearn the old monitor viewing adaptation. On the other hand, I have a good monitor in the other room and photos don't look weird on it.

It reminds me of when I used to drink clear sodas like 7up. At a restaurant, I once accidentally drink from my water glass instead. The 'soda' tasted quite bitter yet it was just water. I suspect the water tasted bitter because my mind was anticipating the sweetness of the soda. When we watch a feature movie, or prime time drama, our minds anticipate 24fps and process what we see differently. That's why seeing movies at a higher frame rate looks weird. We anticipate the lower frame rate that isn't there. Once we unlearn 24fps movie adaptation, higher frame rates will look fine.


I mean, we are already OK with 60fps for other types of TV shows and camcorders. It's a matter of expectation.
 
dwhite601 said:
It reminds me of when I used to drink clear sodas like 7up. At a restaurant, I once accidentally drink from my water glass instead. The 'soda' tasted quite bitter yet it was just water. I suspect the water tasted bitter because my mind was anticipating the sweetness of the soda. When we watch a feature movie, or prime time drama, our minds anticipate 24fps and process what we see differently. That's why seeing movies at a higher frame rate looks weird. We anticipate the lower frame rate that isn't there. Once we unlearn 24fps movie adaptation, higher frame rates will look fine.


I mean, we are already OK with 60fps for other types of TV shows and camcorders. It's a matter of expectation.
Click to expand...
Yeah, all of us are used to this when there's a new girlfriend to adapt : D However, you'll never be able to make anyone else to convince towards an ugly face if you have a pretty face next to you... LOL ;-)
 
dwhite601 said:
I was just noticing something similar last night when viewing my old LCD monitor. I had bought it for non photo use and didn't mind it's relatively poor photo rendering. Later I moved it to another PC and started using it for viewing photos. Last night, I noticed photos don't look bad on it. How can this be? It didn't improve with time. The only explanation I have is my brain learned to convert its poor renderings into something useful. I suspect when I replace it with a good monitor, photos will look weird until I unlearn the old monitor viewing adaptation. On the other hand, I have a good monitor in the other room and photos don't look weird on it.

It reminds me of when I used to drink clear sodas like 7up. At a restaurant, I once accidentally drink from my water glass instead. The 'soda' tasted quite bitter yet it was just water. I suspect the water tasted bitter because my mind was anticipating the sweetness of the soda. When we watch a feature movie, or prime time drama, our minds anticipate 24fps and process what we see differently. That's why seeing movies at a higher frame rate looks weird. We anticipate the lower frame rate that isn't there. Once we unlearn 24fps movie adaptation, higher frame rates will look fine.


I mean, we are already OK with 60fps for other types of TV shows and camcorders. It's a matter of expectation.
Click to expand...

It's conditioning for sure. I remember a daytime Soap Opera I believe it was on ABC, was at 24fps. It looked so weird, being in the daytime around 11ish-am You naturally expect 60i feel, however here was a soap at 24fps. Looked weird, felt weird for daytime tv. However in prime time it feels normal. That's the conditioning part, at least IMO it is.



Pappas
http://PAPPASARTS.WORDPRESS.COM
http://TWITTER.COM/PAPPASARTS

[size=+1]BlackMagic Digital Camera Info:[/size] http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.p...mera-Technology-Announcements-amp-Latest-Info
 
people who don't know the motion compensation in their TVs is the factor that is ruining the image don't get used to it after a year: they still think it looks like crap
 
I think I'll learn to like the 48fps and I'm DYING to see it in 3D, because it could be a completely different story in that realm.
I also wish the sample had some more motion blur in it (comparable to the 24fps).
 
I think shooting and projecting some types of movies at 48fps would actually be very good. I remember getting a nice headache watching The Expendables in theatres and thinking that a higher frame rate would've alleviated some of the problems in the shaky-cam action scenes.
 
hendosan said:
I think shooting and projecting some types of movies at 48fps would actually be very good. I remember getting a nice headache watching The Expendables in theatres and thinking that a higher frame rate would've alleviated some of the problems in the shaky-cam action scenes.
Click to expand...

It will definitely improve motion in 3d. It's going to be interesting to see if this goes anywhere in a whole.

Pappas
http://PAPPASARTS.WORDPRESS.COM
http://TWITTER.COM/PAPPASARTS

[size=+1]BlackMagic Digital Camera Info:[/size] http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.p...mera-Technology-Announcements-amp-Latest-Info
 
hendosan said:
I think shooting and projecting some types of movies at 48fps would actually be very good. I remember getting a nice headache watching The Expendables in theatres and thinking that a higher frame rate would've alleviated some of the problems in the shaky-cam action scenes.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it would be a good thing or bad thing if it does improve shaky-cam. On the one hand you don't want to encourage it, on the other it isn't going away. It can be used effectively, especially in action and POV shots but I hope it a few years time it is used as sparingly as zoom is today. It is so annoying when the camera is bobbing around during a simple framed head shot.
 
I'd say, HFR would be fine (better at least) for 3D releases. As it can always be "downscaled" to 24p after...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top