-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Will higher framerate video and film content ever take off? Because it should
- Thread starter wafflebrain
- Start date
I can't disagree with you, here. As a wannabe filmmaker running around with a handicam in the early 2000's, this was precisely the look I spend all kinds of time and effort trying to avoid. Back then it had to be done in post with plugins. All this time later, as an old fart that works in video production professionally, it's...still a look I want to avoid. The only time I want anything shot HFR is for slow-mo/hero shots. Everything else is 24 or 30p. Nothing higher. I don't want it. Clients don't want it. Basically, almost nobody in the industry really wants this.
I think the best application for HFR would be live sports. Would love to see NFL/NBA/NHL, etc. go to a 120fps live feed.
Yep. I remember upgrading from a Sony Pd-150 to a Panasonic DVX-100 in that same timeframe. It was such a game changer because we could finally do 24fps video in the prosumer space for indie projects. People wanting to go to 60fps like it is some new thing have no idea what they are talking about.
I'll never forget when I first saw one of my contemporaries with a DVX back when they came out...
Didn't help that he was an insanely talented shooter who has (deservedly) gone on to much bigger and better things. Everything he shot with that camera came out the other end looking like 16mm film. Everything I shot still looked like a crappy home video...
This wouldn't look the same as shooting at 24 fps with a shutter speed of 1/48. Shutter speed is usually different for different frame rates.
I think they're being tongue in cheek. 120fps is, objectively, "greater"/> than 24fps.
I really feel like a big problem with it is that most of the films that use it have a lot of moving and panning shots that can come across as relentisly sickly and unnerving in hfr. The Battle in five armies use of cgi was also uglier in hfr to me as it came across as clearly more fake than usual compared to the actual actors.
It sadly makes movies look cheap. And 'television' like.
I saw all the HFR films at the cinema and as a thing it was interesting. But a lot of improvement is needed.
I'd like to see a found footage or cloverfield style movie shot in HFR at least the movie being supposedly shot on a video camera would make sense.
I saw all the HFR films at the cinema and as a thing it was interesting. But a lot of improvement is needed.
I'd like to see a found footage or cloverfield style movie shot in HFR at least the movie being supposedly shot on a video camera would make sense.
This is the best answer in the thread.
HFR - thus far - has looked poor because no one has used the advantages of HFR well.
HFR unlocks all kinds of amazing potential - but you have to completely scrap everything and all the "old ways of doing things," all the way down to, as mentioned, the camera movements.
The difference between 24/30 fps and 48/60 fps is purely psychological. When you're watching something at 24/30 the frame rate is smooth enough (under most circumstances) not to be choppy and distracting, but is also low enough to be perceived as looking at a picture. Once you get to 48/60 your brain starts perceiving what it's looking at as real, and then it starts picking up on all the little things that are wrong and shouldn't be, and that's also why it starts to look like actors on a set rather than some disconnected fantasy, and the suspension of disbelief that comes with that. That's why that Gemini Man clip comes across as "Will Smith crouching in the grass" rather than "a sniper setting up his shot".
OP
OP
About the type of responses I expected lol. I do appreciate the more informative posts like the one from cakefoo , it helps me understand the blind spots I have wrt the subject. I do agree it does not work well for everything, I don't think I'd ever want to watch something as deliberate and painterly as a Lynch directed piece in hfr. His thematic focus on dreamy is exactly suited for 24 fps, though as much of a camera tech nerd he is I wouldn't be surprised if he wanted to experiment with it. I mean looking at the jarring transition to Inland Empire's early digital blown out lighting was such a massive departure from the deep rich tones of earlier 35 mm stuff he did. Admittedly that's apples and oranges when IE was still standard 24 fps but I think it still shows a willingness to experiment with different tools within the medium. He probably hates hfr for film though :P
It was. But there were certainly times it should have been dialed down for specific shots where it made set and models look like... sets and models.
Cameron is our only hope in the near future for a resurrection.
The Hobbit kind of convinced me that the information loss from 24fps is pretty critical for your brain being able to suspend disbelief. That movie has some of the best costuming and set work in the business, but as soon as you put it in HFR your eyes see how artificial it all is. CGI action benefits, but actual stunt work suffers as your brain gets enough data to easily tell a stage fall from a real one, or that that punch didn't actually land at full force. No actor is good enough to sell a close up performance in HFR. It's super realistic, like being all the set, and has all the emotional resonance of just watching a day's work on the set instead of watching the actual movie.
The Hobbit looks bad, period, whether you increase the motion resolution, or the resolution. It looks terribly fake in 4K.
Again though, Cameron isn't doing HFR for the Avatar sequels. That has been confirmed.
I thought he was only using for certain scenes. If even Cameron isn't buying into it, there's no future for it any time soon.
Yup.
Or with 4K content, period.
It starts to become incredibly obvious when you have 4K level of detail, and then the slightest amount of motion occurs, and the resolution drops horrendously due to the frame rate (not the panel).
I also with you and OP.
People only hate high refresh rate film because they've been conditioned with 24-30 fps content for nearly a century.
Film and television are out here using techniques like motion bur and shutter speed manipulation to hid the FLAWS that are inherent to low FPS films.
It interesting that even streamers and YouTube content creators are more quick to present their content in 60 fps than the "old guard."
Last edited:
One of the other things that I've literally thought about for a decade now, though, is why jump to 48FPS/60FPS+?
Even just having movies jump to 30FPS would substantially improve the motion resolution while minimally reducing the "cinematic feel".
I honestly feel like it could be a great compromise for the OLED/4K problem.
Even just having movies jump to 30FPS would substantially improve the motion resolution while minimally reducing the "cinematic feel".
I honestly feel like it could be a great compromise for the OLED/4K problem.
No
The Avatar Sequels Will Not Be in HFR Says James Cameron
James Cameron says that while he sees HFR as a useful tool, he won't be using it for the upcoming Avatar sequels that he's working on.
collider.com
Another vote for HFR here. I hope one day 24 fps becomes an "artistic choice" for specific retro intentions, just like black & white, mute cinema or 4:3 is today.
Accustomed to HFR content on good home TV sets, when I go to the movie theaters, 24 fps stands out in a very bad way to me. And it did that specially for 3D movies when that was a thing.
I refuse to believe there can't be great movies with great cinematography like typical demo videos like this one:
Accustomed to HFR content on good home TV sets, when I go to the movie theaters, 24 fps stands out in a very bad way to me. And it did that specially for 3D movies when that was a thing.
I refuse to believe there can't be great movies with great cinematography like typical demo videos like this one:
I wish. I saw Gemini Man at 120hz and it almost looked real. Which made some of the unnecessary gymnastics look hilarious but it also made the firefights and chase scenes more intense. The action probably wasn't even particularly great for the genre but at 120hz you might as well have been there.
For "a" reason. Just not a good one.
The Hobbit looked amazing at HFR.
this sounds like compression issues instead of frame rate issues.
Well, I think HFR pairs extremely well with footage like this. Most of it is similar to nature or travel docs/shows, where little suspension of disbelief is required and you're not (consciously or unconsciously) questioning what's real, what's fake, etc.
I think the dancers looked great and the woman ~2:05 looks so good I almost didn't believe she was real. But many movies/shows aren't vehicles for great cinematography and you're way more likely to have a shot of two people talking in a room than a wide angle shot of an exotic location.
The CGI alone looked so f'n bad, even for back them it was laughable and looked like video game animations.
I'm inclined to think that Samsara would look even more incredible if it had double the frames.
People don't like it because they're not used to it. We've all been used to TV shows / movies at 24hz our entire lifetime.
CGI / CGI heavy movies are best using motion smoothing if you're not used to it and want to try it out.
CGI / CGI heavy movies are best using motion smoothing if you're not used to it and want to try it out.
This is just simply not true. We have had HFR content our entire lives on the local news, soap operas, etc. Do you really want movies to look like that?
Last I read, he was using it for certain shots. This interview seems to indicate that's still the plan.
As I mentioned concerning The Hobbit, it's all situational. For certain shots it works. For others, it breaks the suspension of belief.
Last edited:
I think VR film is our best shot at HFR because 24fps would be a barf bonanza. But I don't think that's an actual thing yet.
Nope. Most noticeable for me in fact on reference quality UHD Blu-rays.
I'm sure you know this but 24fps was decided on only because it was way cheaper at the time. If this was not the case and everything had always been shot at 60fps then you showed someone 24fps content nowadays they'd be horrified.