RED Digital Cinema posts a great article about 48 FPS and High Frame Rates

Even though the 24fps video and the 60fps video both show a real brick wall, the smooth movement in the 60fps video simply makes the scene look "TVish." There is something deeply unappealing about that, on a visual level, and I don't find it to be an aesthetic improvement.

Why this is being hailed as revolutionary, on the order of B&W and sound, is beyond me...
 
Nice examples and simple explanation. FWIW, I did need to download the strobbing and motion examples and play them directly from my computer to get the actual intended results of the higher frame rate versions...


ron
 
Very interesting!

I like the look of the videos at 60 fps. Much smoother, clearer...actually seeing the 60 fps video for a while, make sthe 24 fps video look much older and dated...



http://www.red.com/learn/interviews

Have you guys seen the PJ interview? Very interesting, particularly how clarice enabled him to do things he would not be able to do with 35 mm and the 700 mm comparison with 4k...

And Soderbergh's interv too...how did i not see this before?[crazy]
 
Last edited:
That the frame rate of "TV" is only 30 fps itself and just slightly higher than the 24 fps used in standard cinema right? In other words "TV" looks nearly the same as movies do in regard to frame rate, displaying almost the same amount of judder and motion blurring. Your whole ongoing argument about higher frame rate looking first like "soap opera" and now "TV" is simply invalid. These uneducated arguments poffered by film lovers are nothing more than weak attempts to try to associate higher frame rates to something considered "low rent" and they don't even pass the sniff test. Just admit it... be a proud film lover. You simply like the studdery, blurry traditional look of 24 fps film [cool]. Just don't try to discredit higher frame rates by trying to say it looks like TV.

Personally, motion blur is far from optimal but I can handle it. And film grain is seriously ugly to me but I can understand how people have become used to it and now simply associate it with a "film look". But judder? It's just plain nasty and I seriously can not understand how anybody could actually think it's appealing in any way. Do you really think watching things incrementally jump across the screen is actually nice and a good thing some how?


ron
 
Last edited:
All this kind of stuff goes over my head, so it's nice to have it all there in front of me. And it's so much easier to (visually) understand the differences with examples. Thanks for posting. [:)]
 
while I think the higher frame rate one is alright, I see nothing wrong with the 24fps to be honest. I don't see where its enough of a change to invest millions of dollars in it. But that's just me. But it was interesting to see videos of both and judge them for ourselves. But again like I said I don't think IMO its worth millions of dollars.
 
People who can't understand why a 24 FPS motion blurred equivalent version is and looks inferior to 48 FPS version, fall into the "that's the way we always did it category". Closed minded is what they are. Everybody raise their hand if they want their eyeglasses and/or contacts to show 50% less of what they can see now. That is basically what 24 FPS people are defending. No No! Show me half of what I am capable of seeing, I like my blurry cataract like vision the way it is! [;)]
 
Last edited:
PRO VIDEO COALITION - NAB 2012 where there is some comments about the amount of data the Hobbit is producing everyday (from about 6 min in). The whole interview is interesting so it's definitely worth checking out.
 
My only complaint so far, because I'll reserve judgement for when I actually see a 48 FPS film, is the term High Frame Rate. It's a bit of hubris about ones own times as being the ultimate that no one else will exceed. "High" is also awfully subjective and highly prone to showing a naivety about technological progress. Today's high is tomorrow's primitively low and "high" becomes laughable in retrospect. I have the same thoughts about HDTV because technology wont stand still. "Higher" might be a little better than the absolute claim of "High." Of course, EHDTV comes next - Even Higher Definition TV.
 
__________________________________________________
People can call me a film purist or whatever they like, I don't care. But that higher frame rate footage is NOT the look I want for movies. Especially not these movies. [unsure]
 
"When compact discs were first unveiled, the initial reaction by record connoisseurs was that the music had too much clarity and lacked the familiar and characteristic sound of a vinyl record."

also, in regards to the quote above I never really thought about it that way, but they are absolutely right.
 
compared to vinyl they lack that warm tone that vinyl has. Sure the sound quality is great but its lacking something the older method had. That's why lots of new bands (Pearl Jam , Metallica and many others)are releasing their new material on vinyl again as well as cd because the sound tone is better. [;)][:)][;)]
 
Super High Frame Rate, Ultra High Frame Rate and Hyper Frame Rate, for those order of magnitude different frame rates.

Kidding aside, it's taken so long, and is requiring such heavy lifting to slowly move the industry just a few incremental frames per second, that 48 to 60 or say up to 72 FPS could all be classified in the HFR category.

Faster rates, that may have scientific applications in the future, could be classified using the other categories.
 
Last edited:
Once the standard of 24 frames per second was established in the film world, shooting at anything higher was considered shooting in "high speed" or "over-cranking".

1 second is the control or factor that does not change. The variables are the number of frames that can occur within that second. Since 24 has been accepted for some time we are now looking at a higher/greater quantity of frames that occur within that second.

The real key in understanding this is that film makers have always been able to shoot in higher frame rates. They just haven't projected them at higher frame rates.

Any time you watch slow motion you are seeing something that was shot at a higher (greater than 24 frames per second) frame rate.

The term "high" came from shooting in high speed.
 
Does you no credit.

Look, the lack of motion artifacts gives 48 and 60fps a TV or ESPN feel to me. That's what it looks like, again, to me.

And you are wrong that 30fps is the highest frame rate on TV. ESPN has studio cameras operating at 60fps.

Frankly, I'm sick of being told that I'm closed-minded and wrong about this.

To me, 48fps has a cheap straight-to-TV feel to it. That is the truth of how I see it. And I'm certainly not alone.

This isn't the theory of relativity. It's aesthetics. And I say that aesthetically, the 48fps motion gives the impression of being on TV studio.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top