Film: 24 FPS vs 48 FPS vs 120 FPS

[Darkpyro2]

It wasn't until long after I'd seen The Hobbit that I was told that it was shot in 48 FPS. Though I'm not a fan of the film itself, I certainly feel that it's crisper and cleaner than a lot of other movies. I quite like the aesthetic. I wanted to see if any other films had shot in 48 FPS in order to see if the effect would still be to my liking, and I was surprised to find that though no other film has followed suit, there WAS a film that was shot in 120 FPS. This film is Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk.

Just for fun, I figured I'd post a few videos of the different framerates in action so that we could discuss.

24 FPS: Lord of the Rings -- Fellowship of the Ring


48 FPS: The Hobbit -- Battle of the Five Armies


120 FPS (The video is 60): Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x091jfFFe9g

I would do side-by-side comparisons of the same clip, but obviously, each movie is shot in a different framerate, and there aren't 24 fps editions of The Hobbit, or 120 FPS versions of Fellowship of the Ring. I think the difference will be apparent. Watch them all in 1080p for the best comparison.

I personally really like the clear look of 48 FPS, but the 120/60 FPS video is a tad too unstylistic for my tastes. It seems almost as if new techniques in cinematography will need to be developed in order to make it work.

From what I've heard, though, the general consensus is that the 24 fps standard is preferred. Thoughts?

 

[Grexeno]

The prosthetic noses really pop off the screen at higher framerates.

 

[Azoor]

I would like nature documentaries to be at a higher frame rate, and I agree that 48 fps juat doesn't seem to fit films at all

 

[Darkpyro2]

The prosthetic noses really pop off the screen at higher framerates.

Click to shrink...

The makeup work doesn't seem to pop out any more to me in 48 fps than 24 fps.

 

[Neptonic]

I started with the 60 FPS clip and worked backwards and 24 FPS feels really stuttery for some reason even though I know it isn't

I think 48fps is a fine compromise between the two, and I like how the motion is clear but still some blur on it.

 

[Ecotic]

Is there an example of like, 36 fps? I see the 24 and 48 fps examples and feel like in between the two would be the sweet spot.

 

[Ottaro]

I do prefer the higher framerate myself. I'm sad it's not more common but I understand why.

Am I right in remembering hearing that the next Avatar will have a high framerate?

 

[Darkpyro2]

Is there an example of like, 36 fps? I see the 24 and 48 fps examples and feel like in between the two would be the sweet spot.

Click to shrink...

According to Wikipedia, only The Hobbit films and Billy Lynn were ever released at a higher framerate than 24

 

[Plaguefox]

Re: Hobbit. I like the idea of 48 fps, but either that trailer is inconsistently 48 fps, or my browser can't seem to keep it playing at that framerate (which would be shocking). Most of it was in HFR, but there were quite a few scenes that only played in 24fps and that was more jarring than the motion.

There's also the problem where I've spent the last several years trying to convince all of my friends that the interpolation feature on televisions makes everything look awful, but that's less about the frame rate itself and more about the fact that most displays just cannot interpolate even moderate motion without garbling the frames they generate. My distaste for that problem might've bled into properly recorded HFR content.

 

[thediamondage]

I grew up in a world of CRT tubes, trying to make out boobs at 1am on a encrypted Cinemax cable channel, and playing 8 bit games on Apple II's. Honestly after 1 minute for any visual medium I am more engrossed in the story and characters and don't really care that much about visual fidelty. I tried all 3 things and found myself just noticing the details and lights and sometimes weird makeup and stuff way more. I appreciate scenes shot in daytime, fight scenes that don't use a lot of quick cuts or shaky cams, more practical effects than CGI (makes Hobbit just so ... flat and uncanny valley), and the spectacle of the moment over the technical details.

So yeah, it all looks pretty good to me, I honestly wouldn't know which one was 48 fps, which was one 60, and which one was 24 unless I look at the Youtube video title. Its something I struggle with in games too, like I crank a game up to 60 fps, then 72 fps, then 144 fps and it all looks great to me and tweaking video graphic options rarely makes a noticable difference to me in most games.

I do run that FPS testing page, the one that shows an alien ship scrolling across the page, and can tell the diff between like 30, 60, and 120 fps so I guess my eyes aren't totally fucked up but the differences don't bother me in actual content.

Mostly playing two of those videos made me realize I don't think I ever properly see all 3 Hobbit movies (two on airplanes) so I should probably see them in 4k sometime.

 

[C4lukin]

I cannot speak for myself, because I am not sure if I saw any of the Hobbit films at 48 frames. But I do recall a lot of people complaining that in certain scenes it would look like characters were zipping around the screen like the Flash.

 

[Psamtik]

The CG elements look ghastly in HFR, and everything else looks like what it is: a bunch of dudes on a set.

 

[ry-dog]

Higher frame rate is objectivity better, the only reason 48 seems off is because we are accustomed to watching everything in 24. If every film switched to HFR, we would look back at 24fps like we do with black and white pictures

 

[Window]

I feel like filmmakers should feel free to play around with the frame rate just like any other film technique. However they are bound by what frame rates are supported by theatre projectors and TV displays which is why you end up with campaigns touting 48/60/120 FPS is better to gain enough support for these technologies to be commercialized and deployed for actual use. I guess it's ultimately about how much value do higher/variable frame rates provide to films and is it worth investing in deploying it across the industry? I do feel like action films and summer blockbusters could benefit from its use.

 

[Deleted member 2171]

I feel like filmmakers should feel free to play around with the frame rate just like any other film technique. However they are bound by what frame rates are supported by theatre projectors and TV displays which is why you end up with campaigns touting 48/60/120 FPS is better to gain enough support for these technologies to be commercialized and deployed for actual use. I guess it's ultimately about how much value do higher/variable frame rates provide to films and is it worth investing in deploying it across the industry? I do feel like action films and summer blockbusters could benefit from its use.

Click to shrink...

Well for one thing, higher framerate allows for actual panning shots without massive judder.

 

[Peru]

Higher frame rate is objectivity better, the only reason 48 seems off is because we are accustomed to watching everything in 24. If every film switched to HFR, we would look back at 24fps like we do with black and white pictures

Click to shrink...

No, but color isn't objectively better than black and white either, for some movies black and white is the right choice and there are still black and white movies being made. FPS may be choice along the lines of color manipulation vs natural color, natural vs aritificial lighting, digital vs film, and so on. Higher FPS is an effect to be used or not used.

 

[KillerAJD]

I watched the first two Hobbit films in HFR 3D, and yeah, although I didn't find the films themselves all that great, I actually really liked the HFR. It took a minute or two to adjust, but after that, I didn't really have a problem with it at all. The soap opera-ness of it wore off quickly, and any of the "dudes on a set" effect I would blame more on the movie itself than the HFR. I saw the third Hobbit movie on a regular 2D screen, and with it, any bit of redeeming uniqueness the HFR gave it was removed, leaving just a completely dreadful movie in the end. I had not heard of the Billy Lynn movie in the OP, but the 60fps footage actually looks kinda awesome. It's not as rough and dirty as real combat footage, but it gets pretty close, and I could definitely see how an entire movie like that would be interesting to watch. Other than my Vive, I've not used high refresh-rate displays, so I'm interested to see what that footage looks like at 120fps.

 

[AtticusFincher]

Hobbit trailer looks jank but Billy Lynn actually looks good.

i wouldn't mind 48 on panning shots and 24 on everything else.

 

[Window]

Well for one thing, higher framerate allows for actual panning shots without massive judder.

Click to shrink...

I know, but lower frame rates have a certain aesthetic quality to them as well. Higher FPS is probably better suited for filming fast movement, action and quick camera movemements which is why I think it makes sense for action films and sports broadcasts. Outside of that, I think it's a matter of artistic choice. Or even have variable frame rate in the same film based on the scene? Of course, this depends on displays and projectors which can support such cases.

 

[Einchy]

I wish I could've seen the Hobbit in 48 FPS on the big screen just to have seen how weird it looked. I feel like I'd have gotten used to it after a few minutes but who knows.

 

[99Luffy]

Its weird that cg animation hasnt adopted 60fps. Youd think that would be the first genre to test it out.

 

[FireSafetyBear]

It is clear Ang Lee only made Billy Lynn to do some stupid marketing about the way it was filmed because man that was some garbage.

 

[Robin]

The Hobbit movies still look really bizarre to me, I found it incredibly noticable and actually jarring. I'm not sure if this is a "we just aren't used to it, but really, it's better!" situation but the entire time watching it in theaters the first time it gave me the weirdest vibe, like I was watching a video that the actual video was twice as slow and it had been sped up, it just felt hella weird.

 

[Googleplex]

I saw the Hobbit in 48FPS in Imax and it was fantastic. It was like watching a insanely high budgeted stage play.

 

[nekkid]

It might be YT but that Hobbit trailer looks really inconsistent.

 

[Smash-It Stan]

I can't have a good opinion on HFR unless I see it properly in a theater or some sort of visual setup where it's displayed properly as intended. That youtube video had judder and ghosting and other strange stuff that I don't believe should be there. I didn't want to pay the extra ticket cost for HFR as tickets are already absurdly high imo, plus I think the nearest theater was in NYC anyway. I feel like with 3D you just forget about it after like 5 minutes.

 

[HTupolev]

Higher frame rate is objectivity better

Click to shrink...

Unless there's some situational qualification, that's an oxymoron. How "good" something is is a subjective value judgement. Telling someone that something they prefer is "objectively worse" is effectively equivalent to telling them that their opinion is false. Or approximately the same thing as saying "shut up;" perhaps less rude on the surface, but subtler, since many people don't recognize it for what it is (usually not even the people saying it).

Higher framerate is objectively capable of conveying visual information at greater temporal precision. Make of that what you will.

 

[StuBurns]

24. The Hobbit and Billy Lynn look like shit.

 

[SK4TE]

Its weird that cg animation hasnt adopted 60fps. Youd think that would be the first genre to test it out.

Click to shrink...

You would be trippling the animators workload.

 

[Deleted member 10612]

Man Brain has been conditioned for close to three decades to interpolate stuff it sees from "screens" to fill in the blanks of 24fps. Now my brain still tries to do that with HFR content. So it seems speed up. For it to go away I would need to condition my brain with a lot of HFR content. That I don't have nor is available. So HFR will always look wrong to me. My kids may grow up with 120fps video and be totally fine with it. I am a man of an certain era and it's okay that way.

 

[iksenpets]

High framerate Hobbit made is feel like I was watching a play, and made all the costumes and make up and sets feel way less convincing. Even the acting felt more off. I think it could maybe be a more useful technique in more naturalistic films, but it did not work for the Hobbit for me.

 

[ChrisR]

I enjoyed the HFR Hobbit, didn't like the 3D though so I only saw the first movie and only saw it once.

Bring on 120+

 

[copelandmaster]

That Hobbit trailer you posted is an up conversion from 24fps and a poor one at that.

I saw the first two movies twice and the last one once in 48fps. In terms of motion, it looks closer to that Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk clip. Story was one thing, but the visuals were insane. Everything was so smooth and clear. The "High budget stage play" description is incredibly apt, and I loved every minute, although the mandatory 3D did cause a lot of fatigue that 2D 48fps viewing would not have.

I really want to see Billy Lynn at 120fps on principle now, but apparently there are only a handful of 120fps theaters in the world, and the home release is cut down to 60fps. That said... you can tell that the film had a small budget.

Total bummer when I've been using 120fps monitors since 2011. Come on movies (and mass produced cheap storage methods), catch the hell up.

 

[lightchris]

As a general rule: The higher the better. The best analogy is using higher resolutions than before.

Of course there can be exceptions for artistic choice, just like filming in black and white or using blur in specific scenes.

 

[ry-dog]

Unless there's some situational qualification, that's an oxymoron. How "good" something is is a subjective value judgement. Telling someone that something they prefer is "objectively worse" is effectively equivalent to telling them that their opinion is false. Or approximately the same thing as saying "shut up;" perhaps less rude on the surface, but subtler, since many people don't recognize it for what it is (usually not even the people saying it).

Higher framerate is objectively capable of conveying visual information at greater temporal precision. Make of that what you will.

Click to shrink...

Unless for stylistic purposes, which I'm struggling to think of what that would be, if given a choice between 24 or 48/higher, I don't understand why you would choose to see "less" of a film. You're getting a clearer image, more frames per second. I can't think of what 24fps offers, aside from being something we're use to

 

[Pottuvoi]

Shutter time is one of the things that threw people off on Hobbit.

I'm quite sure that if they would have shot it with 1/48 like most movies it would have felt better, conversion to 24fps would have been removal of half frames giving frame same result as shooting 24fps with 180degree shutter.

 

[big_z]

the hobbit looks like shit no matter what frame rate is used. that trailer in particular looks like its variable speed similar to motion smoothing in tvs
I think movies need to move to 30fps at least. 24fps was only selected as its the minimum number of frames they could get away with to save film cost.
higher frame rates might work but for some reason the motion looks unnatural even compared to real life and im not really sure why.

 

[brainchild]

High framerate Hobbit made is feel like I was watching a play, and made all the costumes and make up and sets feel way less convincing. Even the acting felt more off. I think it could maybe be a more useful technique in more naturalistic films, but it did not work for the Hobbit for me.

Click to shrink...

Same for me. Ideally, that level of realness is what you want in a video game for immersion, but with a movie, there needs to be a few layers of abstraction in order to uphold the suspension of disbelief. As much as I love HFR for video games, it simply doesn't work for me when watching movies.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

I always felt like more = better. I've never had any issues with higher framerate video.

 

[copelandmaster]

Real-time VR experiences sort of fill in the gap of HFR 3D cinema, with the added bonus of actually being "in the action".

I just completed Farpoint on PSVR a couple of hours ago. I does a mostly great job with its cinematic cutscene presentation, but you can tell that there's a lot of experimentation still left to be done (like the early days of film all over again). When we have more hardware grunt to throw at rendering power and higher resolution screens, we might come to a point where people might wonder why they "look" better than actual movies themselves.

 

[pikachief]

Saw the hobbit in HFR IMAX and it was strange. It was like, as someone above me said, watching a high budget play. I could see the fake noses on everyone and it looked like a set with actors in costumes and not at all like I was there in middle earth.

Eventually I got used to it and it didn't make a big difference to me in the end, except the cgi looked like a videogame lol

 

[HTupolev]

Unless for stylistic purposes, which I'm struggling to think of what that would be, if given a choice between 24 or 48/higher, I don't understand why you would choose to see "less" of a film. You're getting a clearer image, more frames per second. I can't think of what 24fps offers, aside from being something we're use to

Click to shrink...

The simplest argument is that if there's not a good way to represent something explicitly at the precision afforded by the output, it can be beneficial to represent it at lower precision and let the desired effect just sort of happen.

The same thing is debated with spatial phenomena, i.e. how to port pixel art to higher-resolution sprites.

 

[Prolepro]

That war scene was pretty cool in effectively 60 fps, would be very interested to watch a whole film like that in 120 just for the experience.

 

[Hamster Plugin]

the hobbit looks like shit no matter what frame rate is used. that trailer in particular looks like its variable speed similar to motion smoothing in tvs

Click to shrink...

I'm pretty sure that's because the 48 fps video is converted into 60 fps which makes some frames get played twice, adding stutter to the image.

 

[Xe4]

Unless for stylistic purposes, which I'm struggling to think of what that would be, if given a choice between 24 or 48/higher, I don't understand why you would choose to see "less" of a film. You're getting a clearer image, more frames per second. I can't think of what 24fps offers, aside from being something we're use to

Click to shrink...

Similar to games (but for an entirely different reason), movies that run at 24 FPS look significantly better. Because most effects have to be done frame by frame and post processing is expensive, you can put much more impressive effects on only 24 frames ever second.

Now you could say "yeah, but what if everything looked the same and cost the same but ran at 48 fps instead of 24", but that's a false argument that does not and will never apply to reality. There are good reasons movies play at 24 fps and not just the history of doing so. It's impossible to ignore those reasons if you're going to have a discussion on whether to make films at one frame rate or another.

 

[Koukalaka]

I always thought the Hobbit movies were really odd choice to test higher framerates. I'd love to see a mid-budget action movie with a bunch of stunt work shot in HFR.

 

[Vulcano's Assistant]

Nothing says they can't all work for cinema. But it just so happens that right now 99% of best of the medium that we can reference as examples is of one of them only.

But the soldiers one is absolutely taking advantage of the frame-rate in a way that is purposeful rather than just adding more information per second and being more smooth. Its use makes it feel more spontaneous and uncinematic, this would totally work for guerrilla style mokumentariues adding one more element to emphasize it not being regularly staged cinema, and I can't imagine there would be a complain for certain types actual documentaries. But also for straightforward narratives with uncommon visual approaches like Hardcore Henry, that one first person view film of a guy doing park our and action. A lot of times cinema is trying to be uncinematic on purpose.

 

[Koukalaka]

Edit: double post, apologies

 

[HaNotsri]

Watching the Hobbit was more like watching theatre than a movie. Problem was that the actors and make up really didn't live up to it.

I would like to see a well directed movie in high framerate.

 

[sirap]

HFR was dope, but nowhere near as mind blowing as (real) 3D.

Avatar 2 is going to be nuts.