We've relaunched as a full community! Get the scoop:

April 26, 2012

Peter Jackson Shows Off 10 Minutes of 'The Hobbit,' 48FPS Isn't Looking Good

Ten minutes of glorious 48fps footage from The Hobbit was recently shown at CinemaCon in Las Vegas. It's unfortunate that RED couldn't show any footage at their NAB booth, but I'm sure fans of the series were delighted to get a glimpse of Peter Jackson's new epic film (pun intended) shot on RED Epic in 3D at 48fps. We've talked a little bit about frame rates before, and what they mean for our industry, but this is the first time a film of this scale is going to be filmed and exhibited at 48fps in 3D. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like the 270 degree shutter is helping things, as the results aren't impressing many of those who watched it.

Update: Looks like Peter Jackson has responded - he wants people to see the entire film before passing judgment.

While there were some positive comments, many were put-off by the hyper-realistic nature of the footage. The LA Times Blog had this to say:

Indeed, the footage shown did seem hyper-realistic. An opening aerial shot of dramatic rocky mountains appeared clearer than the images in most nature documentaries. But the effect was different when applied to scenes with actors dressed in period costume, whose every move -- and pore -- was crystal clear. Such realism put off some trade show attendees, who complained the footage didn't feel enough like a traditional film.

If you wanted to expose the digital sensor exactly the same as if it was shot at 24fps, and get more similar motion characteristics, you'd have to shoot at 360 degrees, or completely open. Usually with digital 24fps, we are shooting at a 1/48 of a second (1/50 with DSLRs) or 180 degree shutter. 270 degrees should actually have a more staccato feel to it, because it's being exposed less and thus there is less motion blur than 24fps at 180 degrees. I haven't tested any of this, but it actually might feel more filmic at 180 degrees and 48fps, because part of what makes higher frame rates feel so strange is that there is a lot less motion blur with the added frames. (Update: Marden Blake in our comments posted a great example of 24fps vs 48fps using the same settings as Peter Jackson)

IGN Movies was also there to cover it, and here's a quote from that review:

I didn't go into CinemaCon expecting to write anything less than great things about The Hobbit, but the very aesthetic chosen by Peter Jackson has made me very nervous about this film. It just looked ... cheap, like a videotaped or live TV version of Lord of the Rings and not the epic return to Tolkien that we have all so long been waiting for. I still have hope for The Hobbit, but I'd be lying if I didn't say my expectations for the film have now been greatly diminished.

If this is what's in store for 48fps then I'm not really sure it's the way of the future. People are unconsciously trained to know what TV looks like and what movies look like, mostly thanks to frame rate. It seems like many could not get over the massive difference between the motion characteristics of 24fps and 48fps, and the lower shutter doesn't seem to help much. This doesn't bode well for what James Cameron might be trying to do with the new Avatar, because 60fps is an even further jump from 24fps. The good thing about 48fps is that a great-looking 24fps master can be pulled from the original material, so all hope is not lost that the film can still look like we've always expected it to.

If this movie ends up looking like people are saying, the best place to see it might be in a 2D theater with a film projector. It's hard to change what people feel when watching a film, and 24fps for a movie just feels right, because we're used to it. The fact that 24fps is slower than the way our eyes see makes a film feel less real and more distant from reality. In a way, 24fps actually allows us to become more engaged and drawn into a film because the distancing effect gives us more time to savor all of the details. Unfortunately, it's looking like 48fps doesn't allow for that distancing - and it's very hard for viewers who've been watching movies the old-fashioned way on film projectors at 24fps to handle the change.

A lot of this talk reminds me of the sheer hatred that was thrown the way of Michael Mann when he released his film Public Enemies. That film was shot at 24fps, but because Mann wanted the film to feel more like live TV coverage, most, if not all, of the film was exposed at a 1/24 of a second or 360 degree shutter. This made the film feel more present, exactly what Mann was hoping for, but it actually disengages the viewer quite a bit because there is no distance - no time to allow the viewer to absorb what is happening.

Many films that have been shot on Panavision Genesis have used a more open shutter - usually around 270 but occasionally at 360. Part of it is the look, since some DPs don't like the staccato or stroby feel of the Genesis, but many also like having another 1/2 to full stop of light. It seems that most films shot on Genesis have been shot with something other than 180 degrees. This is something I've really never seen with films shot on RED or Alexa, thankfully. Even though some are bothered by strobing, it's a natural occurrence with 24fps material if the camera is moving too fast.

Personally I don't have a problem with what 24fps looks like, and I'm only slightly bothered when the camera is panning or tilting too quickly. Stu Maschwitz had a great post on his blog not that far back about new TVs ruining movies because they feature all sorts of smoothing algorithms. Even with those smoothing and anti-judder options turned off, 120hz and 240hz televisions feel different than 60hz. Technically a better 24fps picture can be derived from 120hz or 240hz since it doesn't require a pulldown, but I still prefer what films look like on a 60hz TV at 24fps.

I would imagine that the new Hobbit film might feel something like one of these 120hz televisions with all of the anti-judder and smoothing settings turned all the way up. If that's the case, count me out, and I'll stick to watching it at 24fps in a non-digital, non-3D theater.

Can The Hobbit succeed at 48fps, or will audiences be turned off by the hyper-real feeling a higher frame rate creates? What do you guys think? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section.

[LA Times Blog & IGN Movies]

Your Comment

124 Comments

I'm reminded of those TV sets in Sears with the "Smooth motion" enhancement turned on that would up 24p to like 120p. They would play Pirates of the Caribbean and it looked really bizzare. I would always try to change them back to normal mode.

I used to shoot a lot of documentaries at 1280x720 in 60p... it had an interesting look- very very smooth and real. But not filmic at all.

April 26, 2012

0
Reply

Dunno why they need to change everything these days. Get back to the good old 35mm movie cameras, with the proper 24fps frame rate. It was good for long long decades, and will be for decades to come.

April 26, 2012

0
Reply
Vodka Orange

Yeah who the hell needs improvement? I mean it´s not like the film industrie became the way it is now by people who tried out new things lol.

April 26, 2012

0
Reply
Gjdakin

YEAH! I can't wait for that 13K footage to be playing at 578 fps on my nanotech TV of the future! Law of diminishing returns be damned!

Of course, the stories will be complete shit like always, but my eyes will bleed with pleasure...

April 26, 2012

0
Reply
Dan

You don´t get my point...

The Movie Industry evolved for the past 100 years. If there haven´t been any people who were trying out new things we would still be shooting 16FPS Black and white pictures with no sound...

We need poeple who try out new things and who improve filmmaking by trying out new crazy things.

;)

April 27, 2012

0
Reply
Gjdakin

Shooting on digital is a lot cheaper and easier than shooting on film, so that makes total sense. I'm all for trying new things with frame rates etc... but I think we all like "films" or "movies" for that "movie look". And that I don't want them to change.

April 26, 2012

0
Reply

You're right on, granpa!

April 27, 2012

0
Reply
Álex Montoya

People need to get over the "film has to look like film".
Just because we grew up looking at 24p, doesn't mean we can't change and learn to look at something that's better. I remember when flatscreens came out. People rebelled at them. Then widescreens came out, and people rebelled at them too.

I for one, can't wait to see how realistic and shart this movie looks

April 26, 2012

0
Reply
Tim

People rebelled at flatscreens? Really? Where? Everyone I know took one look at those flat screens that weighed nothing and took up no space and couldn't wait to get one!

April 26, 2012

0
Reply
bguest

Yeah....I.....don't.......remember any rebellion against flat screens either. All of my friends and I were excited.

April 26, 2012

0
Reply

I believe Tim is referring to the flat CRT sets, not the LCD sets.

April 27, 2012

0
Reply
nullbert

People did rebel against flat screens because the earlier LCD screens were bot as bright as or as sharp as a picture tube and they they broke down (inverter) after three years. They were forced into buying them because they put Digital OTA tuners in them and stop making picture tubes. I still have tube TV's in my bedrooms because I they still work. I however had to put my plasma on Low Energy setting to stop the Burn In from the Fox logo because we watched the news all the time.

April 27, 2012

0
Reply
DOFNICOM

I noticed this with the first teaser they released; I found myself completely distracted by the obvious costuming, makeup and rubber prosthetics. I'm sure I'll be able to suspend my disbelief come theater time, but I'm not holding my breath.

April 26, 2012

0
Reply

Just my opinion but I think hollywood should be pushing 30 fps if anything. It gives you that "enhanced reality" without sacrificing the traditional film aesthetic. In the early 1900's we slowly transitioned from 18fps to 24fps. I think when it comes to movies people need to be eased into change. Literally doubling the standard frame rate will likely be a splash of cold water for most people.

April 26, 2012

0
Reply
Joe

I disagree TV series are shown in 30 fps and it is soooo distracting to me I always wait to watch them on DVD. It does not have the motion blur we are used to seeing

April 26, 2012

0
Reply
carlos

Amen.

May 4, 2012

0
Reply
Daniel Mimura

I'm a big fan of seeing a movie as close to how the filmmakers intended as possible. That's one of the big reasons I hate SmoothAutoFluidMotion+: it adds frames that aren't there in the source material. So in the spirit of honoring the creative vision of the filmmakers, I can't wait to see The Hobbit in 48 fps 3D (possibly projected at 4k?).

I'm a big proponent of 24p precisely because we have roughly 100 years of training that Cinema = 24 fps and News/Sports/Soaps = 30 fps. It's not necessarily that there's something inherent to 24fps that makes movies more artistic (although there might be), it's just that it's part of the accepted language of what makes a moving picture "cinematic."

But I'm definitely willing to give The Hobbit a fair shake at 48 fps and make up my own mind with my own eyes. It can be fun to stretch our boundaries on the "rules" of our art.

April 26, 2012

0
Reply

I have tested this with a RED to see the comparison of 24fps @1/48 and 48fps @1/64. This is the result. http://maximum-attack.com/basement_red_fps.zip

April 26, 2012

0
Reply

Thanks. Very interesting test.

April 26, 2012

0
Reply

Interesting, thanks for posting the 24fps vs 48fps from the RED. Weird, but the 24fps does look a lot better to me. The 48fps really does have a crappy "video-y" feel to it. I guess I just prefer motion blur.

April 26, 2012

0
Reply

Thanks for that. I did find the 48 fps a bit weird.

April 26, 2012

0
Reply
Casey

I think a lot of people are missing the whole point of shooting at a higher framerate (Peter Jackson and Co included); this is understandable, because it is a complex matter. From what I understand, the original idea of shooting higher rates (among other things) was to reduce blur; since the image is being recorded faster it will/should be able to capture faster-moving subjects with less artifacts. Essentially the concept is that you are capturing more image and motion data to do what you wish with in post (VFX, image clarity, etc); very similar to the concept of exposing your footage as "flat" as possible for more grading flexibility in post. This seems simple enough, right? Cinema is traditionally projected at 24fps (frames per second) so, once a crisper or smoother image is captured; the goal is to still project/display at 24fps. Douglas Trumbull, one of the forerunners of higher framerate acquisition (with his Showscan), demonstrates this principle (using 120fps capture) here- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkWLZy7gbLg

The "basement_red_fps" test linked above (and apparently the Hobbit) is a great example of 48fps "capture-and-display" (with no conversion being done)... which, as many people who have seen the footage, have pointed out, "looks cheap". In a way this process is, in my opinion, kind of a cheap (though expensive) knockoff of an idea the big D-Trumbull had back in the 70's ...

Back on point. What I've done with the video below is take the 48fps footage from the test by Marden Blake (which I claim no rights to), conformed it to 24 frames per second in After Effects, then "stretched" or speed it up to play at double speed; which (since it was captured at 2 x 24) being played double speed in a 24fps timeline makes it appear to display at "normal" speed. Now you may say, "Why shoot it at twice the framerate, only to display it at twice the speed; effectively nulling the effect of shooting at double speed!!!?" Well, the point of shooting at a higher framerate (as mentioned above) is to render a smoother/crisper/sexier/whatever image right? Right. Just because you are displaying the 48fps footage at 24fps does not mean that you are going to lose all of the benefits (or downfalls) of a higher framerate; the frames themselves were still captured at 48fps, and will have characteristics as such; most notably less blur.

I have never been paid large sums of money to make "How should we shoot this" decisions, or any decisions for that matter, so my opinion will most likely go completely un-acknowledged. Mr Trumbull, however knows what he is talking about, and I encourage you to look into his Showscan Digital concept. I will admit that Showscan has not completely sold me on high framerate acquisition, and I am not pushing the technology; I am merely presenting the facts on the matter (to the best of my knowledge and ability), and offering a bit of reasoning behind the higher framerate "craze".

here's the conformed video- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkWLZy7gbLg

April 27, 2012

0
Reply

my bad. HERE is the conformed video- https://rapidshare.com/files/495999967/basement_final.mp4

April 27, 2012

0
Reply

I definitely prefer the conformed version.
The original reminds me of the "soap opera" look.

April 27, 2012

0
Reply
Rafael

The Showscan video is definitely worth a watch. One thing I'd add is that a large part of the push toward higher frame rates is linked to stereo 3D: supposedly giving the brain more information (double with 48fps compared to 24fps) on separation helps relieve some of the negative issues people watching in 3D experience. That troubles me: I'm not a fan of 3D but am ok with it as long as I can ignore it and watch films in 2D. Changing how films are made and viewed to benefit a way of watching in order to benefit 3D, which has gone back to being the minority way of viewing and generating revenue, after Avatar had briefly reversed that trend, seems counter-intuitive to me.

April 27, 2012

0
Reply
Adrian

Sorry but I think you are mistaken. Correct me if I am wrong but pulling 24fps from 48fps would be the same as doubling the shutter speed...right? so the objective is not to pull frames but to actually display all the frames. In 3D (or 2D) when you pan quickly especially against patterns you get flickering, strobing or w/e you call it. Its a common phenomenon in signal processing, for which the solution is to increase the sample (or frame) rate.

the problem as I have said before is our eyes discriminate. Similar to the AGC of an audio recorder, our eyes change their refresh rates given factors like adrenaline, movement, etc. because our bodies are reacting to an environment. But put us in a theater where our environment is constant and our eyes dont discriminate anymore...so we are left with hyper reality.

April 27, 2012

0
Reply
mike

I imagine that the effect of a faster shutter speed would render a similar image, but the funny thing is that when shot at 120fps, they were using a 360 degree shutter, which is to say "no shutter". I know that a 360 degree shutter when shooting 120fps is a much faster (both chronologically and light gathering-wise) duration than 180 degree shutter for 24fps. An advantage though, of having those extra 96 frames a second is that you always have the option for slow-mo, "normal", or the heightened reality 48fps playback. One can always ad motion blur back into footage, but it is neigh impossible to remove it, and retain a clean looking image. I'm assuming you watched the conformed footage and compared it to the original test; you would/might have noticed that the effect of the heightened reality was for the most part lost on the conformed version, but the footage itself was clearer and less blurry (than standard 24fps), all without the "stressful" effect. If you haven't I recommend watching the linked to video (showscan) as it demonstrates this point to a higher degree and at faster framerates.

April 27, 2012

0
Reply

48 fps looks very good here.

April 27, 2012

0
Reply
Álex Montoya

Pretty sure everyone saw this coming. Peter Jackson's beard isn't magic, neither is James Cameron's, or Lucas, and sometimes these guys lose their way. Stupid beards. Actually come to think of it if you want to be successful as a director, grow a beard as a safe bet. But I digress....

I'm looking forward to paying less to see a better looking movie in a non-3D 24fps setup. The whole 3D thing is, in my opinion, a way to charge more for movies a la smell-o-vision. As an avid movie-goer it's been obnoxious if for no other reason than because my hipster rimmed glasses need to be worn beneath my $10 pair of disposable 3D glasses. Dumb. Beyond that all the "my eyes hurt after seeing one of these things" and "this feels more like an 'attraction' than film" bothers me as well. But ultimate the pecisimist in me hates it the most because it's ultimately turning film into, in large part, an echo-chamber of studios, accountants, and gear manufacturers selling the newest 3D whatever in the name of higher costs and bigger profits for those at the headwaters of the cashflow.

Bah. Bah I say!

April 26, 2012

0
Reply

Saw this coming, the first time I watched a 120Hz (or 240Hz) TV image I nearly vomited at how horrendous it made previously stunning footage (in that case, the Dark Knight). I'm really surprised Jackson isn't as turned off by 48+fps footage as most film lovers seem to be. It gives motion an extremely cheap soap opera feel, 24fps just feels right. If the film goes to theaters this way, at least I know I can enjoy the film properly on Blu-Ray later at home... I think?

April 26, 2012

0
Reply
Agent55

Look at the aaton solution to change shutter angle without change 1/48 motion blur. Aaton use it to down up 800 to 100 iso but I think it's possible to use this type of shutter for shoot in 48 fps.

http://www.aaton.com/products/film/delta/index.php
Click on the delta leaflet and look at the multi slot shutter.

April 26, 2012

0
Reply

We'll see if Aaton ever releases that camera - pretty disappointed it's been in development for so long.

April 26, 2012

0
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Editor-at-Large
Shooter/Writer/Director
227

I saw Beauviala presents the first pictures shoot with Dellta in february at the Paris's micro show AFC. The Delta work fine. I think Beauviala don't want to sell a beta version of the Delta Penelope.

April 26, 2012

0
Reply

Yes I understand that, but they missed the release date by a year - they said it was going to be released last summer. I'm excited for it, and I'm sure it works - I'm actually concerned that they don't think they can compete on a price level with Arri, RED, and Sony. It's going to be tough to break into Arri's share of the rental market.

April 26, 2012

0
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Editor-at-Large
Shooter/Writer/Director
227

Beauviala annouced a price of 80000 euro. But Delta can record internal raw. No need to a external recorder. I think you know the price of a codex for shoot in Arri Raw.

April 26, 2012

0
Reply

That's over $100,000 American - so I think they are pricing themselves out of certain markets, but I really want that camera to succeed. Yes, absolutely on your external recorder point, but look at something like the AJA Ki Pro Quad that we covered here on NFS, it can do 4K and only costs $4,000.

April 26, 2012

0
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Editor-at-Large
Shooter/Writer/Director
227

Hey Marden, thanks for posting that test. There is definitely a very noticeable difference between 24fps and 48fps. Although I do prefer 24fps as there is much more motion blur, I didn't hate 48fps as much as I thought I was going to before I saw your clip.

The funny thing is that 48fps is suppose to be better for action, but with soccer ball kick, I actually preferred the motion blur of the slower frame rate.

April 26, 2012

0
Reply
Gene Sung

Let me get this straight... people are complaining that a film looks too realistic.

Really? Are you kidding me?

This is simply pathetic. Can't more realism only be a good thing? Just because there is a supposed "look" to films that some people are accustomed to shouldn't get in the way of forward progress.

April 26, 2012

0
Reply
Pete

Not necessarily - subconsciously there is a feeling associated with footage shot at different frame rates, and anything 30fps or above is very closely associate with news footage. Immediately when watching something with higher frame rates, the part of us that's been trained on movies being 24fps finds something off-putting about it. A lot can be hidden in motion blur, and part of that is what gives film its feel. There is a psychological distance that is created by movies because they are shot at a frame rate that is below anything else we watch on TV.

April 26, 2012

0
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Editor-at-Large
Shooter/Writer/Director
227

our eyes refresh at around 12 fps, there is something called nyquist's theorem of sampling which says we should sample at at least double what we perceive which is where 24fps comes from (and 44Khz for audio sampling). now the trouble comes because, although we can see the clear difference between 24fps and 48fps, we dont actually see the world that way. in real life when we move around our eyes discriminate (just like our ears do when listening to things) and we are left with a feeling of motion closer to 24fps. but sit us infront of a screen and show us the world at 48fps, and its going to feel hyper real because our eyes are no longer discriminating. At least thats my theory.

heres a test, shake your head back and forth and look at something. now take out your camera, set it to 60fps and move the camera in the same way. The camera will look smoother and faster than you simply shaking your head...hence, hyper real and VERY distracting.

April 26, 2012

0
Reply
mike

By that way of thinking, we should get rid of paintings and switch to photographs of things only. Or get rid of animation in favor of live action.

Just because it looks "More realistic" (or, like a soap opera) doesn't mean it's better. I think we've stuck with 24fps (it's actually 23.98 fps) because it looks good, higher frame-rates have been available for a really long time, but narrative filmmakers haven't utilized them because 24fps works best...

April 26, 2012

0
Reply
Ryan

Agreed, i think 48fps has its place. 3D IMAX documentaries would be awesome and everyone agrees the mountain shots were breathtaking. Even sporting events i dont mind high fps, but narrative film making needs to stay at 24

April 26, 2012

0
Reply
mike

I completely agree with you as well, ha ha!

At first when I heard of 48fps for 3D, it made since... I figured it would look correct with 3D cycling between both eyes, I figured it would be like 24fps per eye, you know? So I though "2D is both eyes looking at a single 24fps image, so 48fps 3D would be each eye individually seeing 24fps images..." Guess I was wrong lol

April 26, 2012

0
Reply
Ryan

I'm definitely not some radical purist who resists change, but I'm also not for changing something just because we can. I've seen 48fps clips. They look ugly. And it's not because we've gotten used to some Hollywood convention. There are a couple reasons I think 48fps is a bad idea.

1. The human eye's frame rate is variable, but there are only so many "pictures" the eye can take each second. When our autonomic nervous systems are engaged, we see at a higher frame rate; when we are relaxed, our eyes relax a little bit and the frame rate drops. While I haven't read any studies on this (although I did work in a cognitive psychology lab experimenting on vision) I wouldn't be surprised if one of the reasons people feel unsettled watching 48fps is because our eyes feel the need to catch up, which creates tension in us.

2. The more realistic things look, the further we delve into the uncanny valley. The movies aren't reality. They aren't meant to recreate reality, and subconsciously we don't want them too. A lot of people think that the ultimate goal of cinema should be to portray reality the way we see it on the screen. I don't think that's the point of film, it's an artistic medium, some of the magic of film lies in our distance from it. If can chew through some of Christian Metz's theories, he deconstructs this.

3. And this is more personal; 48fps is one more nail in the coffin of actual celluloid film. Digital is great, and it makes distribution more accessible for independent filmmakers, but actual film will always have advantages. At the risk of sounding archaic, I am a firm believer that film looks better. Because it does.

Anyway, I like 48fps as a tool for filmmakers. I don't think it should become a standard. Directors and cinematographers should be able to decide what format and frame rate is best for the project.

April 26, 2012

0
Reply
John

I agree with this 100%, i didnt read it before posting my comment above and we arrived at the exact same conclusion. Just like our ears, our eyes discriminate. Also think about when we pan our head, our eyes are going all over the place trying to focus on something, when watching a screen we cant do that.

we dont want the be in the movie, we want to be watching it. If we wanted to be in the movie we wouldnt have music, slow motion, narration, or even camera cuts. you can hold one thing to a level of hyperrealism but keep everything else the way it was. That said, 48fps would be an awesome 6flags ride :D

April 26, 2012

0
Reply
mike

"Even with those smoothing and anti-judder options turned off, 120hz and 240hz televisions feel different than 60hz. Technically a better 24fps picture can be derived from 120hz or 240hz since it doesn’t require a pulldown, but I still prefer what films look like on a 60hz TV at 24fps."

I strongly agree with leaving all forms of motion interpolation OFF when using these 120hz sets; however, 120hz should be *truer* to the 24fps image because of the common multiple it shares with 30 and 60 respectively. The judder associated with 60hz display is similar to the judder we see from 3:2 pulldown, as the frames in a 24fps film cannot be multiplied evenly. Take cinema projection, which often uses 48 or 72hz (2-3x the FPS) to display for sake of flicker; the same cannot be done with televisions until you hit 120hz, because it is a common multiple of both 24, 30, and 60fps. For The Hobbit's 48fps, we would technically need 240hz displays to get a common multiple.

In short, to prefer a 60hz-displayed 24fps image is to prefer something that is flawed. Don't get me wrong, I'm not judging you, but to really enjoy 24fps, one should not be viewing it on a 60hz display.

April 26, 2012

0
Reply

I'm so used to pulldown that when I watch 24fps on a 120hz TV, it looks very, very strange. But you're right, it is flawed - but pulldown has been a way of life for so long - we've never been watching anything at true 24fps except in a theater or on a computer screen.

Either way I'll gladly move to 120hz TVs with no motion interpolation - I'm just saying there's a huge difference in how the footage feels to me personally.

April 26, 2012

0
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Editor-at-Large
Shooter/Writer/Director
227

It's interesting you're used to pulldown — I personally can't stand it. Here in Australia (and in other PAL/SECAM places like Europe, NZ, etc.) we've never seen it. Our DVDs are sped up by 4%, playing 24fps at 25fps, so we're used to true progressive pictures.

Blu-ray is odd, though. They're all 24fps world-wide, and at least with the PS3, if your TV doesn't support true 24fps, it won't play it at 25fps, but instead uses pulldown to play it at 60fields per second. To me, pulldown looks awful.

Still, we have the same awful smooth motion problem here. I can't understand why people aren't bothered by it, but I couldn't understand why people would put up with stretched and distorted 4:3 analog images on their new widescreens either.

April 26, 2012

0
Reply

The 3:2 pulldown here in America is not as destructive - you're not really changing anything (and you're not changing the speed of the action). I think I would hate pulldown if it had to speed up the picture like in the UK - that's a totally different feeling.

It's also one of the reasons people tend to think British shows feel cheap, because 25fps does not conform well to 30fps.

April 27, 2012

0
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Editor-at-Large
Shooter/Writer/Director
227

Wow...yeah, Aussie tv looks weird. I was channel flipping with my dad, passing by Friends or Seinfeld or some American TV. It looks so weird...it's a very uneven blur/stutter. I kept pointing it out to my dad, who was with me ever time there was movement in the frame. "Did you see that!? There! Again!".

It was frustrating b/c my dad couldn't see what I was seeing... Sigh...I guess it's sort of like when people watch TV in Jabba-vision (ie:, when TV's are stretching 4:3 to 16:9 and people all look like Jabba or like the grandma from Who's The Boss in Brazil where the doctor is stretching her face.)...if people can watch it like that and not get annoyed...there's almost no point in even pointing it out to them.

I agree w/ Joe about that perceived quality of UK TV (here in America). Thankfully with HD and the Internet, it's more or less a thing of the past...watching BBC/Sky F1 coverage on my iMac looks amazing! ...unlike old Fawlty Towers/Dr Who reruns.

May 4, 2012

0
Reply
Daniel Mimura

Pages