July 4, 2013

Do Higher Frame Rates Tell Better Stories, or Just Disconnect Audiences? Maybe it Depends

Does better technology mean better storytelling? The answer, of course, is yes. And no. And anywhere in between, depending who you ask. The Hobbit's use of 48fps has joined up with other recently adopted and revisited technologies (like 3D) in what could be considered the "resolution wars". The desire to better our storytelling tools is an honorable one, but that same question remains: What does it mean for storytelling itself? Are audiences more drawn in or engaged by HFR than traditional frame rates? A young filmmaker from New Zealand is asking such questions, and has actually shot a side-by-side comparison to investigate viewers' responses -- based on a shot-for-shot recreation of the opening of Brick.

Matt Fannin is that film student, and given the difficulties inherent to such a test, I think he's on to something very interesting. Having guest posted over at Red Shark based on the work on his own site. He poses the question, "What do frame rates have to do with telling stories?" He pushes the question a little further, asking if HFR images change an audience's experience. His original description of the project is as follows:

I decided to put together a test comparing two different frame rates for people to watch and get feedback from. I used a pre-existing story sequence and attempted to match it as identically as possible in both formats... [also creating] a good control to compare them based on connection and engagement with a story, rather than simply observing how 'smooth' or 'not smooth' the motion is. The frame rates used are 25p and 50p (very slightly different from the 24 and 48 standards) with a 180 degree shutter angle.

Matt did encounter some issues displaying the higher frame rate perfectly on an HDTV, but regardless gathered interesting feedback -- even from a modest sample size. Preference was almost evenly matched, with 25p just barely "winning". Some comments regarding distaste for 50p included an "unnatural" or "playing too fast" feeling. This is something filmmakers might expect, but it isn't necessarily obvious or intuitive to the untrained eye. I recommend checking out Matt's posts on Red Shark and his own site to see for yourself!

A question this difficult isn't easily answered, but I was pleased to read about Matt's work. His approach gauges what value HFR may have as a tool in the filmmaker's bag of tricks, versus adopting or condemning it outright without further discussion. I think he deserves recognition for even attempting to treat the subject in a way beyond the binary arguments we're used to hearing. Simply saying "it looks like [garbage], so [flush] it," may not be the most constructive way to think of a potential tool, even though that's something I've admittedly said of it myself plenty of times before. I'm still not convinced about HFR either way, but why limit the options available to filmmakers? It certainly seems too early to call the discussion closed.

What are your thoughts? Is HFR a technique that can be used to the advantage of filmmakers? How can tests like Matt's continue to illustrate when we should -- or maybe shouldn't -- employ its effects?

Links:

Your Comment

55 Comments

24 4 LYFE

July 4, 2013 at 8:03PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
avatar
Micah Van Hove
Writer
director, producer, dp

For me I think HFR is just another tool in the bag for filmmakers. There were parts of the Hobbit that I thought were done a disservice by the HFR and then others where I absolutely saw and believed in the potential of it as a tool. It ultimately comes down to the kind of story you're trying to tell and what HFR would bring to the table. I will say I wish that it had been tried on a new film instead of the Hobbit, but the 24fps version is out there anyway, so it works for me either way.

July 4, 2013 at 8:06PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
Coty

My issue with the hobbit was the bad special effects/obvious green-screened shots stick out like a sore thumb?

July 4, 2013 at 11:04PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
vinceGortho

Yes! I found it so distracting because in every scene, without even consciously thinking about it I was able to tell where the green-screen began.

July 5, 2013 at 9:13AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Wihelm

Don't know why I used a question mark.
!*

July 6, 2013 at 3:54AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
VinceGOrtho

48fps could be something like Fast/slow shutter speeds which the Honk Kong cinema masters learnt to use to accentuate fight sequences. That is, it could be used for dramatic effect. But let's be honest here Peter Jackson wasn't suggesting that - he was saying 24p was a historical artifact and that it should be abandoned in favor or higher frame rates. Like every gear junkie out there he saw a way to distinguish his work through expensive technology, which, being honest again, is just a form of rich man's elitism - the equivalent of buying a Leica and thinking your photographs are better than a kid with an IPhone. Surprise, they're not. You can achieve different things with these two tools and they are radically different, no doubt. But it's the images that matter.

John Woo pretty much always shot with a tripod. Murnau used optical effects. Fritz Lang shot "The Big Heat" on such a crap budget you can almost feel the studio lights on top of the actors. Yet they made wonderful films. 48fps is just another nail in the coffin for cinema because it implies heavier prices and the "premium" experience that Lucas and Spielberg correctly described as the end of cinema as popular entertainment.

But alas this is but a rant. I love the content NFS brings and a bit more on content I believe the inventor of Showscan once ran the tests to see whether higher framerates were more affecting for the audience and found that 72fps was the sweet spot. I'll try to find the link and post it. I hope you don't delete this little comment here, even if most of it is a teeny off. Thanks

July 4, 2013 at 8:24PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Rafael Lino

Pretty sure a rich, successful photographer that has a lot of money sitting on him from investors is a lot more successful than a kid with a camera.

Someone here is a bit butthurt :/

July 4, 2013 at 8:55PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Tyler

Someone is having trouble reading...

He compared 'buying a leica' to 'kid with iphone', not 'rich succesful photographer' with 'x'.

July 4, 2013 at 9:52PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
TK

"the equivalent of buying a Leica and thinking your photographs are better than a kid with an IPhone." Obviously (under the context of the post, that being of Peter Jackson playing with big boys toys) if you can afford a Leica you are better than a kid with a camera.

July 5, 2013 at 9:42PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
Tyler

I disagree.

I was at a convention last summer and saw a man in a very nice designer suit walking around with a Nikon D3x (a $7000 full frame SLR) with a 18-55 DX (crop sensor) lens attached to it, shooting in automatic mode, not bending his knees, not crouching down, not approaching subjects, not pausing to take a shot, not squeezing the shutter softly between breaths to reduce handshake, he was just standing, zooming and shooting.

Not everyone with expensive gear knows how to make full use of it. Some people have too much money and use it to buy things to impress others hoping to gain elite social status.

July 15, 2013 at 1:37AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Kyle

What about Stanley Kubrick? Are going to shit all over his work as well because he loved to spend lots of money on new technology?

July 4, 2013 at 11:14PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gabe

He didn't worship new technology for its own sake. He never went over to video, for instance, when he could have; and he kept on shooting with an old fashioned Arri2C.

July 5, 2013 at 1:12PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
Rockwell

Kubrick died before digital cinema really got going. Had he lived to see stuff like the Red cameras, it's entirely plausible to think he would have at least tried them.

July 5, 2013 at 2:42PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Jake

For its own sake? How do you define that? Using motion control on 2001? Shooting large parts of The Shining on his new toy, the steadicam? Using super fast NASA lenses to shoot in natural light? He had tons and tons of lenses, he absolutely loved lenses.

I think this quote describes him well:

“Kubrick always reworked his material and mise-en-scène so that the technology became essential to the telling of the story and this defines his relationship to innovation,” says Patti Podesta, a Hollywood production designer who’s worked on films such as Memento and Bobby and designed the LACMA installation. “He sought out new technologies but also had a kind of technological patience, the discipline to wait until innovation caught up to his imagination.”
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-11/8-stanley-kubricks-grea...

July 5, 2013 at 5:41PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
Gabe

It´s getting hilarious. Comparing Kubrick with Jackson...Jackson just was lucky, his movies and his style is laughable at best and while Kubrick knew exactely how to use the innovative techniques to film his vision which took him years to plan and research, the other guy is just stacking technologies on whatever crosses his mind...

July 6, 2013 at 8:02AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
Mariano

@Mariano

Perhaps you should pay attention to the entire discussion. The OP made a ridiculous generalization that I was proving false.

July 12, 2013 at 5:18PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gabe

The Fuji X100 makes much better pictures than the iPhone. The kid's screwed! ;-)

July 5, 2013 at 12:11AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

I've been playing around with shutter speed a lot recently and I think this makes a noticeable difference. at 24fps you can shoot at a SS of 48/50, but when you go up to 48 or 60 fps, then the shutter speed gets much faster and makes the movement look more unnatural. I think in some situations, like fight sequences, or with music (which is when I break the shutter speed rules) fast shutter speeds can work, but when you just have a normal dialog scene with a fast shutter speed, then things start to look really weird. The foreground background relationship seems disconnected and everything is too smooth.

So yeah, high frame rates look weird, but it's because of the shutter speed required for that kind of fps.

July 5, 2013 at 7:55PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

5
Reply
Julian

I think like anything, you can use it as a tool depending what you are trying to tell. but I don't think slapping HFR onto a film output because its new or "better" technology is where its goes wrong. If it were used as a technique to add emphasis to something or visually describe things in motion, that is where it can become a powerful tool. for instance, if you wanted someone using drugs, the HFR could be enough to give each shot a different edge, helping drive the story of the drugged person.

And immersion, I believe isn't necessarily the technical elements, for instance, in my final year of post-production study, I made an instructional video of detailed motion graphic animation with a lot of effort, style, and consideration inputted into over a few weeks worth of work. Everyone agreed is was well done and somewhat enjoyable. Another student, mucked around for 90% the time, whipped up some very quick basic animation (such as a pan, where I had run cycles and physics), both similar in their visual style, but everyone enjoyed their one because it had a story with a character they could feel for. And they got a reaction and people remembered their one, mine was left to the side. And their video was compressed and low res aswell. Its like how we can love an old movie, without the need for 3D or HD to enjoy it, sometimes the movies date on a technical level, but we still are captured by the characters and plot. I mean Tron was a perfect example, best technical stuff and visual style, way ahead of its time, and it wasn't all that popular...

July 4, 2013 at 8:26PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
Tepene

Like others here, I see HFR as another tool in the film maker's repertoire. It's up to the film maker to determine if they want to use it and why. There are still many directors who prefer to work in various film formats rather than digital, and I don't see HFR changing that.

Personally, my one experience with an HFR film left me pretty divided. Seeing 'The Hobbit ' in HFR 3D, I did find the faster frame rate greatly improved action scenes, making it much easier to track the motion and not feel lost as to what was going on. On the other hand, during slower scenes I did experience the feeling that things were moving in fast-motion, especially in the scenes at the beginning of the film in Bilbo's house. I also found (and I'm not sure what specifically was to blame) but that the sets felt like sets. Something about the visuals took me out of the film and made me quite aware that I was looking at sets (again, this was especially prominent in Bilbo's house).

I can see there are uses for HFR (like most technologies). So far my experiences with both IMAX and 3D have made those technologies a draw for me - I'll take an IMAX or 3D version of a film over the traditional 2D if offered the choice. However, based on my (limited) experience thus far, I wouldn't see the offering HFR as a major draw to see a film, and it may very well be a turn-off from seeing a film (or at least seeing it in that technology). I won't see 'Desolation of Smaug' in HFR, for instance.

July 4, 2013 at 8:47PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

You may hear lots of hate when it comes to HFR, but ask yourself...how many of those haters are filmmakers? My father, who is NOT a filmmaker, said that the HFR experience when he saw the Hobbit was absolutely incredible. He is a huge fan of movies, and he can't wait for another HFR movie to come out. Maybe we're all hating on HFR because us filmmakers have adapted 24p as the "film look", and aren't looking at it from the fresh perspective of a casual movie goer.

July 4, 2013 at 8:58PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

5
Reply
TehRandax

Yeah, the "filmic" look is a sort of smoke screen to innovations in video. It seems judging a video by a "filmic" standard is a holding onto something you're accustomed to, something that was part of a thing you fell in love with over the years--your favorite movies. What is un-"filmic" in a Red, GH, or GoPro NOVO will be what is "filmic" to the generation growing up with the Red, GH, and GoPro NOVO. I think talkies had the same effect on people accustomed to silent movies---they really missed that Mighty Wurlitzer!

July 4, 2013 at 11:51PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

I produced and directed in the 80th two shorts with the pioneering system called Showscan. Showscan was invented by veteran SFX director Doug Trumbull. The process was simple. Shooting in 65mm @ 60 fps and the projection was also @ 60fps with projectors equipped with a 180° shutter and not a Malte Cross like in any other 24 fps projector.
The system died during the 90th because of its costs. Only Imax survived, but clearly Imax wat not the best HD Cinema format.
Nowadays I would encourage to shoot @ 50 fps in Europe and 60 fps in the US. There are unfortunately two much filmmakers thinking the 24fps is the key for the cine look. That's wrong. I hate to see when a pan or tilt or crane move is strobing just because of the 24 fps.

July 12, 2013 at 2:37AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
Roger Wielgus

Asking it's point is like asking "why use a Arri over a 5D?"

-It looks better

Now lets start our bitch over if it really does look better.

The end.

July 4, 2013 at 8:59PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Tyler

I would argue that the Alexa looks better than the 5D. It depends. You just can't emulate the full frame look. Anyway, getting away from the point of the article.

July 4, 2013 at 9:31PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
Hubert

Of Course it looks better, I was just making a point about how this argument is personal preference. It depends how it's used and what its used for, like everything else in film.

July 5, 2013 at 1:06AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

10
Reply
Tyler

At the moment higher frame rates are simply for the sake of FX. Look at the Hobbit and compare it to the Rings trilogy - it looks horrible. So much so it takes you out of the story.

Furthermore, proponents of higher frame rates seem to be of the attitude that it should be the standard, rather than have it be a creative choice by the director.

July 4, 2013 at 9:26PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
moebius22

48fps with people in costumes looks like a bunch of little kids in home-made costumes reenacting an RPG video game in their mom's backyard.

July 4, 2013 at 10:18PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Robert

Do these new 4k televisions come with higher frame rates?
I bet audiences will get use to HFR, then complain about the strobing from 24p if utilized more.
All these purist who complain "it doesn't look like film" are the same ones that ran towards the convenience of digital, letting it die.

July 4, 2013 at 10:57PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

4
Reply
vinceGortho

Well to me HFR works really well for 3D. Though, I still prefer 24fps for regular 2D movies. So to keep it simple, HFR 3D is a yes, HFR 2D is a nono for me.

I watched The Hobbit both in 3D and HFR 3D. The HFR 3D just blows the 3D version into pieces. The amount of details and the immersion experience you're able to see just makes you appreciate the work behind the movie. Of course there's room for improvement, as in set vs real life shots are noticeable and etc etc, but considering this is the first movie shot in HFR 3D and was planned to be recorded with HFR 3D in mind. I'll say PJ and his team did a wonderful job. Can't wait to watch the next Hobbit in HFR 3D.

July 4, 2013 at 11:18PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Adam

The next Hobbit, "The Desolation of Smaug", is due out December 13. I think he should have gone for 96fps and really gave em something to talk about. :-)

July 4, 2013 at 11:29PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

Technically, it is 96 fps.

July 5, 2013 at 3:35AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
Wayne

HFR is new. People are used to seeing blur in movement in movies. Seeing less blur looks "plasticy". I think the generation growing up seeing higher rates will say it looks better than what we are accustomed to now. Seeing HFR to people accustomed to 24fps takes them out of what they're used to, makes them have an 'uncomfortable feeling'. It all depends on your perspective.

If it's an action movie I want no blur. Peter Jackson should really go for it and shoot at 96fps. He'd need a wheelbarrow for the memory cards. But if you're going for a faster frame rate why hold back.

July 4, 2013 at 11:23PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

Just watch Saving Private Ryan. No motion blur (Very high shutter) but still, 24fps.

July 5, 2013 at 6:26PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply

If a 48fps, or 96fps existed and you saw it a side by side with the 24fps you'd see a clear difference. The blur in the 24 would stand out.

July 5, 2013 at 9:08PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
Gene

A couple of days ago, there was an article on "The Register" on that topic. Essentially, if I understood the author right, he argued that in order to aleviate a flicker perception at 24 fps (which for most people really is insufficient to avoid recognising flicker), the shutter angle had to be set to longer exposure times. Which results in lower optical (over the course of time) resolution. With higher framerates, the exposure times can be reduced without too much risk for flicker, thus resulting in a significant improved perceived resolution, liek going from 2K to 4K or so.

However, the author also stated that this was not done with the Hobbit, since there was also a 24 fps version to be released.

July 5, 2013 at 1:58AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
Thyl Engelhardt

Well The Hobbit used a slightly higher shutter speed of 1/64 vs the typical 1/48. However 1/64 is still within the realm of normal movies, and I've come across some film cameras that used 1/64 as their standard shutter speed for 24fps.

July 5, 2013 at 2:40AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

4
Reply
Gabe

I am doing my thesis about HFR right now and during research I read about showscan digital (http://showscan.com). Douglas Trumbull is probably the real pioneer of HFR and he tried to introduce showscan (70mm projected at 60fps) already in the 70`s. Now he has a new patent called showscan digital. This technique mixes different Frame rates during the Film. It´s shot at 120 fps and can be projected at 24, 48, 60 or 120 fps. The directer has the opportunity to decide the frame rate of each scene afterwards.
I think it sounds like a real good solution when you can choose for example 60 fps for the action scene and 24 fps for a dialogue. I didn´t see a showscan digital film yet but i hope he has more succes then in the 70`s.

July 5, 2013 at 5:42AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

9
Reply
Roman

I watched the 24fps version in 2D, 3D, and the 48fps version in 3D... I found the 48fps 3D version to enhance the film ten fold in my opinion, I loved how it looked... The enormous landscapes, the heli shots, the sheer scale of the film worked really well with 48fps... it seemed to my eye I missed so much wonderful detail in the 24fps version, the flickering made the huge swooping shots of landscapes etc seem less 'grand'.

48fps is a tool, just like a certain camera, it works for some projects and not for others.

July 5, 2013 at 6:58AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

5
Reply

48 fps is stupid, just another gimmick for movie enthusiasts, the generic audience doesn't care about detail or whatever in a movie, they care about the entertainment aspect of it.

Also, to the guy who says he liked 48 fps more because it made him appreciate all the work that was done behind it: do you actually enjoy watching films, or do you watch them to enjoy the work behind it?

Seriously, some of you just outright don't make any sense to me. You guys seem more like tech buffs than moviegoers in my opinion...

July 5, 2013 at 8:48AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
zeke

Wow, since when is it wrong to enjoy watching the film and at the same time appreciate the work behind to make it happen.

July 5, 2013 at 3:35PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
Adam

Somewhat abrasive, but not untrue either. Many folks here DO seem like techies rather than filmmakers or even film buffs. But, it IS the internet after all. Tends to invite certain folks depending on the sites' themes.

July 5, 2013 at 7:55PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

A painter should care about and understand their paint and brushes.

July 5, 2013 at 10:23PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
Gabe

So you agree with racing to bottom and appealing to the lowest common denominator, i.e. the generic audience?

July 5, 2013 at 10:26PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gabe

I saw the 3D High Frame Rate version of The Hobbit here in Kansas City in the AMC ETX theater with Dolby Atmos. First off, the Dolby Atmos sound was truly enveloping and amazing! I counted over 30 speakers. The 3D seemed very smooth and was easy on the eyes. I noticed throughout the movie that quick character movement was overly sped-up and obviously unnatural. I also noticed every stutter and camera rock from most panning shots. It just seemed that every little detail or error was vividly apparent. I liked the story and movie for the most part, but at the end of the movie I didn’t hear a single person saying how awesome it was. The only crowd reaction we had was when the Dolby Atmos logo and sound theme appeared in the beginning; you heard a lot of oohs and awes over that. I think the average person will naturally shy away from 48 fps.

July 5, 2013 at 11:39AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Razor

You mean like the way the average person shys-away for television??

July 5, 2013 at 3:02PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
c.d.embrey

What?

July 5, 2013 at 3:58PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Razor

I've been shooting motion since the 1970s. I first becamed annoyed with 24fps while watching westerns, when I was young (stagecoach wheels turned backwards).

The higher the Frame Rate, the more realistic the result ... whats wrong with that??

The reason that sound movies switched to 24fps was that was the slowest spped they could use with Optical Sound. In other words 24fps was adopted because it was CHEAP!! And producers love CHEAP. Back in-the-day the cost of film prints made HFR too expensive. Now that movies are delivered to theaters as 1s & 0s, cost isn't a big concern.

July 5, 2013 at 3:27PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
c.d.embrey

I wish they would just do it in 120fps. Supposedly the human eye doesn't see a difference after 60fps. But I'm certain it does. A side by side comparison would show the difference. Not too many with access to cameras with the various rates we're talking about in this thread seem to have the time, or desire, to use 4 cameras shooting side by side at various frame rates, and put them together in the editing room so they are in 4 quadrants on the screen, and we could all have a look to see the clear difference. I like not only the less blurred picture of higher frame rates but also the more solid look in colors. I think it's a WASTE of a Red's potential to shoot in anything less than 96fps, and preferably it should always be 120fps. The owner of GoPro, Nick Woodman, recommends using GoPro cameras at either 1080p @ 60fps, or 1440p @ 48fps. The results are awesome.

Here's a good example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LRFPo6pymY

July 5, 2013 at 9:29PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
Gene

For me, there is no need for a four camera test. I've been doing this professionally for a long time (1970s), and I prefer 60fps.

If you need a test, then do it yourself. No-one elses test will be shot the way you work. If it's not shot the way you work, then the results will tell you little or nothing. For me watching a test shot WFO with paper-thin DOF will tell me nothing about how it will look at f/3.5 to f/5.6.

July 6, 2013 at 2:42AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
c.d.embrey

I don't have access to four of the same cameras to shoot the same thing at once at 24fps, 48fps, either 60fps or 96fps, and 120fps. So I can't do it. It was just wishful thinking.

July 6, 2013 at 1:06PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

I like all the videos on the GoProCamera YouTube channel because they ONLY use higher frame rates. It's at this link---select "1080p" in the view quality button for best quality:

http://www.youtube.com/user/GoProCamera/videos

I also enjoy all the Red Epic 4k videos Jacob Schwarz makes because he only uses higher frame rates. He makes the most beautiful videos I've come across.Here's the link to his YouTube channel---you have to click on "Original" in the view quality button under the videos and wait for them to download before starting to watch so they don't stop as you are viewing:

http://www.youtube.com/user/jacobschwarz/videos

July 6, 2013 at 1:15PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

5
Reply
Gene

HFR is polarising, and I've met those who didn't mind it, and those who didn't know just what it was about that they didn't like, but still didn't like it.

For me, it ruins the suspension of disbelief. The fact that 24fps looks different from reality is a good thing, helping us to put the film in a separate headspace. When it looks more "real" then we can see its artifice much more easily. Especially in 3D, where the distant background look like matte paintings (because they are) and notice the lighting (it's a set!) much more too.

If those things don't bother you, sure, it's "more real", but that's not always a good thing. It's a little like seeing a movie before it's graded — it doesn't quite look like a movie yet.

July 6, 2013 at 2:08AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Once HFR use is mastered it will be the norm for most films. Also, once audiences see more of their content in HFR, it will not seem weird. Right now there are few methods, even on a computer, to see HFR content. Sorry, but anyone who thinks 24fps will remain dominant forever is delusional. It's like saying black and white will be dominant forever back in 1930, or that film (as opposed to digital) will be dominant forever 5 years ago.

July 12, 2013 at 1:54PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
vanlazarus

I downloaded the files, and although there are times the 50p ("b" movie) looks a "video-ish" to me, it handles motion better than the 25p ("a" movie). The stutter/judder effect in 25p (and 24p) makes me seasick. On my monitor, the guy's glasses (00:42) has some nasty aliasing, and the girl's legs (00:46) has pronounced banding with the 25p movie. Maybe these are encoding issues that are related to the frame rate. I can't tell because this is the first time I have seen this type of test.

Regarding the Hobbit, there were many parts that looked like daytime soap opera shots. This really took me out of the viewing experience, and convinced me that HFR doesn't work 100% of the time. That said, I don't think there is a single frame rate that works for everything.

July 12, 2013 at 5:09PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Dave