Will higher framerate video and film content ever take off? Because it should

[rou021]

Oh I'm not suggesting that anyone needs to be the next Jackie Chan. He did extreme things for his craft.
My point was that action scenes in western movies are often shot the way they are because the actors themselves do not have the training for it - so they're full of camera cuts and may even drop the frame rate to try and sell the illusion of the scene having more impact than it really does.
But this has limited effectiveness at best. The way the scenes are cut - as shown in the example above - often ends up making it look like there's no impact at all.
The director often just tries to create confusion with people moving quickly, rather than a real action scene.

Click to shrink...

No doubt. Sometimes there are very practical reasons they don't go further with stunts and action scenes. It takes a lot of planning and choreography to get that stuff to work and there just isn't the time or budget for it in certain productions. Sometimes, however, the creatives involved just aren't competent at action.

I recall this bugging the crap out of me when I saw Quantum of Solace in the theater. The camerawork and editing were so hectic, I couldn't tell what the hell was going on during the action. Considering the budget, they really didn't have any excuses. Especially in a film series known for impressive stunts and stellar action sequences.

That's just something which has never worked for me. It's always been obvious when scenes are being sped up for effects like that.
Seeing it at a higher frame rate, or using interpolation does not change it.
But it doesn't "ruin the magic of cinema" for me. I was under no illusion that it was being done for real. It's no different than the stop-motion effects in older films. They never looked real; but they never had to.

Click to shrink...

I can understand that.

 

[8byte]

Oh I'm not suggesting that anyone needs to be the next Jackie Chan. He did extreme things for his craft.
My point was that action scenes in western movies are often shot the way they are because the actors themselves do not have the training for it - so they're full of camera cuts and may even drop the frame rate to try and sell the illusion of the scene having more impact than it really does.
But this has limited effectiveness at best. The way the scenes are cut - as shown in the example above - often ends up making it look like there's no impact at all.
The director often just tries to create confusion with people moving quickly, rather than a real action scene.


That's just something which has never worked for me. It's always been obvious when scenes are being sped up for effects like that.
Seeing it at a higher frame rate, or using interpolation does not change it.
But it doesn't "ruin the magic of cinema" for me. I was under no illusion that it was being done for real. It's no different than the stop-motion effects in older films. They never looked real; but they never had to.

Click to shrink...

Not entirely relevant, but the frame rate isn't lowered in western action films, it's still 24fps. What is typically done is that the shutter speed (which is different from frame rate) is increased, usually 4x the frame rate. So typically a 24fps film is shot with a shutter speed of 1/50 or 1/60, but for western action (Black Hawk Down is an example that springs to mind) the shutter speed is increased, eliminating motion blur considerably and introducing clean but choppy looking frames into the scene.

I hate it. It's terrible.

 

[Dan-o]

Shooting at 48 FPS with a 1/48s shutter, and directing scenes as if you were shooting at 24 FPS, would look a lot closer to traditional cinema than this; but things like panning shots and high action scenes would look a lot better.

Click to shrink...

You may have said this already, but were The Hobbit films shot at 48fps with a 1/48s shutter or some other shutter speed?
I recall when I saw them in the cinema, there were things I liked and didn't like about its look, but I couldn't put my finger on it. Shutter speed may have been the issue.

Gemini Man, to me, looked like garbage, and I saw it in 120fps... Had to drive halfway across Houston for it.

Not entirely relevant, but the frame rate isn't lowered in western action films, it's still 24fps. What is typically done is that the shutter speed (which is different from frame rate) is increased, usually 4x the frame rate. So typically a 24fps film is shot with a shutter speed of 1/50 or 1/60, but for western action (Black Hawk Down is an example that springs to mind) the shutter speed is increased, eliminating motion blur considerably and introducing clean but choppy looking frames into the scene.

I hate it. It's terrible.

Click to shrink...

I think the feel of that has its place in chaotic camera movement, but generally I do agree. I noticed a lot of zombie flicks used it in the early '00s too.

 

[8byte]

I think the feel of that has its place in chaotic camera movement, but generally I do agree. I noticed a lot of zombie flicks used it in the early '00s too.

Click to shrink...

Oh man, in the early 00s it was such a huge trend, haha. Of course I didn't even notice it until I got into shooting and producing video myself a decade later.

It certainly has its place, as does every technique and trick, and it's nice that it's definitely died down in popular usage.