-
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
Like seriously stop accusing people who don't like what you like of being victims of rooted nostalgia.
Especially don't do that and then claim they're the snobs
That you literally just can't accept that a lot of people don't like what you like is disturbing.
Technically better doesn't mean artistically better... see the debate between hand drawn animation and computer animation
I can accept it perfectly fine and nothing about what I said is invalid or ""disturbing""
It's good option to have, but it shouldn't be enabled by default. It might work better with some "Auto" -option, like with HDR, where content itself had option to inform TV that "I'm suitable for HFR".
You definitely haven't since you literally said there's no valid reason, accused me of being brainwashed and conditioned, and said once they replace 24fps everyone will agree with you.
And you know accused the entire industry of being out of touch snobs rooted in nostalgia.
None of that is acceptance
People that hate HFR, are you fine with HFR versions of films being offered alongside 24fps variants?
I simply have a hard time with certain films being shot in such a way where the 24fps 'stutter' becomes obvious - see my earlier post.
This doesn't mean the entire film is problematic, but certain scenes in particular. Fast paced pans or extremely fast moving shots, they become a bit overwhelming. I'm curious if it's possible to selectively shoot those at a higher framerate, whilst also not giving people motion sickness.
Admittedly, like I said in my earlier post, I would prefer if the entire film were the higher framerate, it's just easier for me/my brain to watch and process.
But I also have to accept I am not every human on the planet.
Do people hate HFR that much that they would insist that no HFR films can be made at all, even if a 24fps option were presented?
I simply have a hard time with certain films being shot in such a way where the 24fps 'stutter' becomes obvious - see my earlier post.
This doesn't mean the entire film is problematic, but certain scenes in particular. Fast paced pans or extremely fast moving shots, they become a bit overwhelming. I'm curious if it's possible to selectively shoot those at a higher framerate, whilst also not giving people motion sickness.
Admittedly, like I said in my earlier post, I would prefer if the entire film were the higher framerate, it's just easier for me/my brain to watch and process.
But I also have to accept I am not every human on the planet.
Do people hate HFR that much that they would insist that no HFR films can be made at all, even if a 24fps option were presented?
HFR I feel works really well for more grounded stuff like sports and nature documentaries. Also works well with games as they require input which is something not required for most
However for Narrative features I prefer 24fps as it has a more dreamlike quality and feels more escapist which is what I want.
Some people in this thread really coming off like this:
However for Narrative features I prefer 24fps as it has a more dreamlike quality and feels more escapist which is what I want.
Some people in this thread really coming off like this:
I think the better question is if studios would be willing to fund HFR films knowing that the cost of the CG and render times would be much greater than that of the standard 24fps. Also a risk they would be more averse to taking in the current climate with theatrical on the ropes due to the pandemic.
I'm sure given the option most people would be fine with multiple variants although it may also lead to some confusion as there was with Gemini Man (where it was only shown in 120fps 3D in a very select amount of locations) but if they can sort that I don't see why not.
It's hard to take your opinions seriously when your favorite thing about those movies is their second-worst quality (just barely losing to the CGI). The HFR made costumes and props that were fine in the LotR trilogy look obviously fake. A good chunk of the tricks Jackson used to save money in the LotR films would have been impossible, and the trilogy would have been even more expensive than it was already.
Had Peter Jackson stuck with practical effects and 24 FPS, The Hobbit trilogy would have been an inoffensive (but still lesser) trilogy that at least offered some solid nostalgia for people who liked his take on Middle Earth.
For documentaries and the like, by all means, bring on the HFR, but keep it out of other movies unless filmmakers can figure out how to keep their props and sets from looking like they belong in expensive stage plays.
the thing about the hobbit is that it was an early effort of a big budget movie trying higher refresh, and they knew 95% or more would be watching at 24,
I think better results can be achieved, 24 has been the standard for so long, all the camera work, directing and acting even are very well optimized for it, higher refresh requires some adjusting from everyone I think
what works at 24 might not work the best at 60, and what works at 60 might not work at 24 also
I think it's inevitable, but who knows when it's going to start popularizing,
I think sports and youtube are getting people used to the idea over time at least.
I think better results can be achieved, 24 has been the standard for so long, all the camera work, directing and acting even are very well optimized for it, higher refresh requires some adjusting from everyone I think
what works at 24 might not work the best at 60, and what works at 60 might not work at 24 also
I think it's inevitable, but who knows when it's going to start popularizing,
I think sports and youtube are getting people used to the idea over time at least.
I didn't say everyone would agree with me and you need to stop twisting my words. I said that had the situation been reversed, then in all likelihood the preference for HFR content would be a hell of a lot higher than it is right now, I do wish that it starts getting made more because simply put many have not even had a chance to see it implemented well and would likely start preferring it if it starts getting made well on a regular basis. This is not an outlandish statement to make.
Proponents of 24fps think that it somehow makes those movies inherently more artistic. I simply have lost all patience with arguments that have no basis in reality. 24FPS is and always has been a cost-saving measure. Thanks to modern sample and hold displays, 24fps content looks worse than ever.
I never argued otherwise. I am all for movies to continue looking better and the hobbit looked horrible but none of why it looked or was bad has anything to do with framerate. The movie was an overly long, unfocused nostalgia pandering mess. That tried to turn a simple adventure children's book into TLOR. There is a pretty big reason why it sucked and the CGI isn't even close to the worst thing about it that I could say, but that is a whole other thread.
Last edited:
A few users in this thread are having a hard time separating technical preferences from artistic preferences. HFR has no future because there isn't a single director outside of Ang Lee that prefers it over the standard. It has nothing to do with being out of touch. Even James Cameron, who is an innovator within the industry, doesn't see it as anything but a tool. He doesn't even consider it a format in the likes of 3D or IMAX. Just because something offers more clarity and smoothness, doesn't mean it "looks" better.
"I never said people don't have to agree with me but there's no logical reason not to agree with me."
Not to mention you've characterized people who prefer 24fps as conditioned snobs rooted in nostalgia
Like it's incredible to me that you can't see how incredibly arrogant and condescending you've been all while pretending it's those who don't see it your way who are the problem. You've literally called practically every filmmaker a snob while claiming there's no real logical reason not to prefer hfr.
Like does your stance basically boil down to that since objectively 48 is a bigger number than 24, people who prefer 24 have no basis in reality to prefer it?
Like 24fps has never looked worse ... to you. With my new oled 24fps has never looked better to me. Everything you say is wrong with 24fps on modern displays I've never noticed. What I do notice is that hfr is displeasing and I don't like the effects it has on motion and forground background integration. Someone posted a neflix test clip and all the characters looked like they weren't actually in the places they were in, it looked like the foreground was pasted on the background...
Last edited:
I do think some people would still prefer it, just as there are people who still prefer 480p content over 1080p content or 4:3 vs 16:9, but those would be a minority.
HFR cuts down the sample and hold blur that modern displays suffer from significantly. That is a fact, so no, it doesn't just boil down to the number being higher. I can see what benefit high framerates brings to games when moving the camera around and the entire screen doesn't turn into a blur as if my vision had dropped tenfold. Nothing about the stuttery and blurry motion is inherently superior. So I am not convinced that many would prefer it if they were more exposed to HFC for movies.
Hfr is not comparable to resolution. Resolution changes were quickly adopted, HFR has been around for a while and people still aren't interested in shooting it that way... and no it's no deep rooted nostalgia.
Of course you aren't convinced because you don't believe anyone has a logical or valid reason to prefer 24fps.
Hfr gaming is completely different than hfr live action narrative stuff
Multiple people have explained why hfr doesn't look good to them but you don't accept talking about the soap opera effect as a valid descriptor so what can we do lol.
You keep editing your posts after I already responded to them. Nothing I said about 24fps on modern displays is wrong. They produce a far blurrier motion than CRT TVs did. That is an objective fact. Do you even know how modern display work? 24FPS is worse looking today than it ever has been. Just because you do not notice it, doesn't change that some of us do and find the EXTREME blur distracting. What part of this is hard for you to understand?
The effect it has on lowering the motion blur is the same.
I guess it shouldn't really be surprising that users on a video game forum would be the ones who support imposing high frame rate on an industry that does not want it. And hey, I get it: video games at high frame rates are great! The undesirable effects of HFR are basically reduced to nothing in the context of video games, whereas the benefits delivered by higher frame rates are incredibly obvious when the player is controlling the action on the screen, they need that maximum clarity and response time.
But please stop talking about HFR cinema as if it's an inevitability. We can agree or disagree on its practicality or desirability, but at this stage, it's not happening. Filmmakers don't want it. DPs don't care about it. Virtually everyone in the industry (outside of Ang Lee) is against it. If anything, that period around The Hobbit and Billy Lynn were a bit of an HFR fad spearheaded by older directors (Lee was nearly 60 and Jackson was over 50) enamored with the technology. The younger generation in Hollywood, on the other hand, is almost entirely against it. There's no movement to increase adoption of HFR, it's completely fizzled out after the small number of films that used it were either commercial flops like the Ang Lee pictures or panned for their usage like The Hobbit series, which moved away from HFR as the trilogy progressed. Very few theaters supported it by the third film.
Nobody wants it. Nobody's using it for narrative feature films. In fact, here's the words of the man who was previously seen as its biggest Hollywood advocate:
And when even James Cameron says he's against its adoption as a format and sees it only as a tool that should be used with 3D, it certainly doesn't look good for its long-term prospects. The increase in production cost is not worth it for a feature that most people within and without the industry do not want or care about.
Rage against 24fps all you want, but it's here to stay.
But please stop talking about HFR cinema as if it's an inevitability. We can agree or disagree on its practicality or desirability, but at this stage, it's not happening. Filmmakers don't want it. DPs don't care about it. Virtually everyone in the industry (outside of Ang Lee) is against it. If anything, that period around The Hobbit and Billy Lynn were a bit of an HFR fad spearheaded by older directors (Lee was nearly 60 and Jackson was over 50) enamored with the technology. The younger generation in Hollywood, on the other hand, is almost entirely against it. There's no movement to increase adoption of HFR, it's completely fizzled out after the small number of films that used it were either commercial flops like the Ang Lee pictures or panned for their usage like The Hobbit series, which moved away from HFR as the trilogy progressed. Very few theaters supported it by the third film.
Nobody wants it. Nobody's using it for narrative feature films. In fact, here's the words of the man who was previously seen as its biggest Hollywood advocate:
And when even James Cameron says he's against its adoption as a format and sees it only as a tool that should be used with 3D, it certainly doesn't look good for its long-term prospects. The increase in production cost is not worth it for a feature that most people within and without the industry do not want or care about.
Rage against 24fps all you want, but it's here to stay.
I mean it look hideous in films. It just turns a film that was meticulously thought about in terms of colour, lightning etc and reduces it all to looking like a cable TV show. Not to say it couldn't work in a Marvel movie say but that shit should never become the norm.
Games, sports, nature docs, every day of the week, makes totally sense for those formats
Games, sports, nature docs, every day of the week, makes totally sense for those formats
I can only remember that Hobbit one and it gave me a headache. I am good with 24fps for movies or whatever it is.
Gaming is a completely different medium with a completely different art style
I didn't say your pov is invalid or illogical if you don't like 24fps, or that how you see 24fps is wrong.
I literally acknowledge that 24fps doesn't look good to you, so why do you think I don't understand that you prefer 48fps.
I just said it's not some universal truth that 24fps has never looked worse or whatever.
The only one acting like they don't understand that someone thinks one frame rate looks worse than another is again you.
It is a good thing that new directors will always come around and some of them hopefully won't be so stuck dead set on preserving a technical limitation that no longer really has a reason to be there. The best thing Youtube did was add support for 60fps and hopefully, that makes more and more people see the appeal. It might still take a while but I do think that HFR is an inevitability for films.
I am tired of repeating myself. The funny thing about this is that there has been a legion of video game players who have never seen the appeal of 60FPS or higher with games either. That has changed as many of them started getting more and more exposed to it. The same will happen with movies in the long run.
If people start getting more exposed to HFR, even with sites like Youtube then it is only natural that more people over time will aim to recreate that look for movies as well. It is possible that we are doomed to forever be stuck at 24fps, but I doubt it. There will always be people out there looking to push things forward.
There's nothing inherently forward about HFR, it is as Cameron mentions a possible good tool to use but the idea that whole movies at 48+ is forward and 24fps is backward isn't an objective truth
And what you think filmmakers en masse are going to get inspired by hfr vlogs and nature clips and abandon 24fps?
When I want real life I go outside.
There shouldn't be problems if the HFR version would be shot in 48fps and with fully open shutter.
This would give the 24fps version identical image as it would have been shot in 24fps and 180 degree shutter like most movies.
Big problem with shooting 48fps is that very rare home setup can ever play it properly.
Perhaps solution is shooting in 240fps with fully open shutter and from there create 24 and 60 fps versions. ;)
Last edited:
They haven't, they aren't, and they won't. It's really that simple. If anything the younger generation is more steadfast in their support for 24fps.
Not filmmakers. YouTube's feature set has no impact on their view of this.
I'm curious to see how you could possibly think that (beyond wishful thinking) when no one is using it, studios aren't interested in supporting it, and filmmakers don't want to touch it. I'm not really interested in debating the merits of HFR with you since you clearly believe that people who want it are just blinded by nostalgia and refuse to see the benefits, and it seems like nothing will convince you otherwise. But I'm genuinely curious what path you see for HFR's adoption in movies. The technology has become widely available, but that's actually led to less HFR narrative films, not more. There is literally zero indication of any movement towards HFR in the film industry.
Your view that it's inevitable seems to be based only on your personal preference for the technology and the accompanying belief that since it's "better," it will eventually become the standard.
I think you've unintentionally nailed the entire reason most people don't like it.
Nobody ever sat down as a kid and decided they liked the look of 24fps better after a series of equally budgeted professionally shot and mastered content at both framerates. They just watched what was out there, which was almost exclusively 24p content for cinema. And the only HFR content anyone ever saw was either sports or "cheap" shows. I make no claim as to the existence or nonexistence of the benefits of 24p content, however, I should think we can all agree that there's a hell of a lot of inertia involved.
Whenever possible I view media as it was intended by the creator, but I know maybe 2 people in my whole life who disable frame interpolation on TVs. Several people have told me they preferred it looking "smooth" when I showed them an on/off, and almost everyone else claimed they couldn't tell the difference. I think that the median human is not fussy about the framerate of their content, and the reason we don't see much HFR stuff being made is because of the aesthetic sensibilities of the artists steeped in a century of cinema history, not because from first principles it's actually massively superior and everyone agrees that it creates some kind of dreamlike whatever. I don't think if cinema was an artform invented today instead of in the late 19th/early 20th century, we would be doing film grain and 24p content, for example.
The argument is quite simple - 24fps was set as a standard as a compromise between technological constraints (film costs) and acceptable results (visual clarity). Both those things have evolved a lot since then, and it's obvious we should reconsider the standards.
We've long reached the point where any technological choice can serve aesthetic purposes, and I'm of the opinion that 24fps is a visual prism that conveys meaning or sensation, in the same way that we're adding lens flares or film grain to video games. However, it's also true that 24fps on modern display technologies (especially OLED, but LCD all the same) is a blurry , stuttery mess that has never been designed to be watched that way, and shouldn't be the default, obvious choice - and it's made even more apparent as we currently don't have access to theaters to watch anything properly and must rely on home solutions.
I hope the industry keeps pushing into new directions and doesn't stay entirely stagnant for the sake of tradition.
We've long reached the point where any technological choice can serve aesthetic purposes, and I'm of the opinion that 24fps is a visual prism that conveys meaning or sensation, in the same way that we're adding lens flares or film grain to video games. However, it's also true that 24fps on modern display technologies (especially OLED, but LCD all the same) is a blurry , stuttery mess that has never been designed to be watched that way, and shouldn't be the default, obvious choice - and it's made even more apparent as we currently don't have access to theaters to watch anything properly and must rely on home solutions.
I hope the industry keeps pushing into new directions and doesn't stay entirely stagnant for the sake of tradition.
We shall see I guess. Something tells me that over the course of 20 years or more we will start seeing more HFR movies, not less.
You are right that nothing would change the minds of current filmmakers. That doesn't mean that higher exposure to HFR from youtube or other sources won't inspire future generations of filmmakers.
I am genuinely curious as to why you think this tech is as good as dead with absolutely no possibility to ever get adopted? I am well aware of how against it the current guard is, and I don't expect things to budge for a while, but that doesn't inherently stop people from developing a preference for higher framerates. Call it wishful thinking on my part if you want but I don't really have a reason to believe that things will stay this dire forever.
Apples and oranges comparison but I think you already know that.
I think all attempts at cinematic HFR have been incredibly ugly. I think there may exist ways to make HFR more visually appealing/more traditionally cinematic and immersive, but I haven't seen any yet.
If anyone has links to some great looking cinematic HFR, I'd love to see it. It seems like traditional editing/framing/etc doesn't work with HFR and looks like total shit. New techniques need to be discovered, otherwise, everything will look like Gemini Man dogshit.
If anyone has links to some great looking cinematic HFR, I'd love to see it. It seems like traditional editing/framing/etc doesn't work with HFR and looks like total shit. New techniques need to be discovered, otherwise, everything will look like Gemini Man dogshit.
Sure so is resolution but you brought that up
And that was mostly a joke.
Another Gemini Man link. The action just doesn't have weight, things look stagey and artificial in a way that removes immersion. I think sometimes it works okay here, sometimes it doesn't.
Resolution is about having more detail on the screen. Higher framerate retains that detail when there is any movement on the screen. I would say the comparison is perfectly valid.
Increased resolution makes things clearer it doesn't drastically alter how things are perceived and experienced
So actually motion smoothing and vivid setting actually have more in common in terms of radical effects on picture than resolution (i mean other than going from 360 to 4k lol) and motion smoothing do
The use of 48fps HFR on the first Hobbit movie blew me away. It did SO much for the 3D effect, it looked extremely natural and clean. Hands-down the best image quality I've seen at a movie theater. It can't be overstated how much more motion detail there was compared to your average movie. Shit looked unbelievable. I didn't like the movie that much but I watched it three times just for the technical presentation.
OTOH I caught Gemini Man at home which is 60fps and I thought it looked like complete dogshit lol.
I think great things can be made with HFR, just almost nobody out there trying, except Ang Lee, and I didn't like his results anyways.
OTOH I caught Gemini Man at home which is 60fps and I thought it looked like complete dogshit lol.
I think great things can be made with HFR, just almost nobody out there trying, except Ang Lee, and I didn't like his results anyways.
Really? My experience is just the opposite. Literally everyone I know hates it and instantly turns it off. Granted a lot of my friends are big movie fans, but even my family members who aren't as deep into this stuff (my brother, my mom) have it turned off and don't like the soap opera effect.
It's also because the entire language of the medium is built around camera tricks that work well with lower motion clarity. It's part of why HFR techniques grafted onto traditionally-shot films like The Hobbit and Gemini Man look so weird to people. What we can all agree on is that HFR makes movies look more like real life. But when you introduce that element of reality to a set of techniques built around camera and staging tricks that assume a higher degree of blur and lower persistence/motion clarity, you reach an uncanny valley for many people.
You can't just drop HFR into the existing pipeline and expect to have optimal results. In order for HFR filmmaking to ever truly flourish, the entire language of cinema would have to adapt to the HFR medium and come up with camera techniques that better match the way people experience real life. I'm sure that sort of evolution could produce interesting results in some ways and we'd see HFR films that use it much more effectively than Billy Lynn and the other handful of films, but it's clear that, since neither filmmakers nor other industry leaders are willing to use it, that won't happen.
I think I've explained why I don't think it will happen pretty clearly. But to recap: directors don't want it, studios don't want it, and audiences don't care about it. That's not a recipe for adoption, whatever the new "superior" technology, regardless of the field. I think it's weird that you keep railing against the "current guard" and how against it they are when that's just not true. The "current guard," including people like Cameron, Lee, and Jackson, have been more willing to experiment with HFR than any other group of filmmakers in history. But the result of those experiments have diminished HFR's standing as a cinematic tool, not enhanced it. The up-and-comers are more anti-HFR than the current aging Hollywood establishment.
Maybe it makes more sense that you believe HFR will become the standard when you describe the current situation as "dire." I'm sorry, but the amount of people that believe the current state of film is dire because of low frame rates is so small as to be negligible. Right or wrong, very few people feel that way. If you see 24fps as some nightmare that filmmaking desperately needs to wake up from, it makes sense that you'd want to think that its end is inevitable.
What? That's not true at all. Go watch a movie in 480p and then at 4K and tell me with a straight face that it doesn't alter how things are perceived.
Yeah, really. I care about it, but that's my experience with probably two dozen or more people who I've spoken to about it over the years.
I'm not sure I can fully agree at face value without really sitting down and looking at firm examples side by side. Or rather, I do definitely agree "it looks more like real life" (the perception of motion), but I am not so sure about the diagnoses of filmmaking language implicitly breaking down at HFR. Can we really disentangle that from just preferences acquired over time, versus working/not working at all? "It looks wierd to people" - yeah, although interestingly I don't necessarily see that in interpolated conventional content to the same extent. Which is an odd thing to say, but looking at older films interpolated does not look the same to me as Gemini Man @ 60fps, and it's hard for me to gauge why that is. Is Gemini Man doing something different? Is it specific to the cinematography choices made there, or is it intrinsic to HFR? Is it because on interpolated content it's a simulated HFR experience that still, nevertheless retains the artefacts produced by low initial framerate, yet also presenting with higher motion clarity?
Coming at this from a videogaming perspective, some people have definitely worked hard to retain the "cinematic look" at 30fps and 60fps, rather than 24, and a lot of that is simulational, like motion blur applied even to framerates that would not normally produce blur at certain simulated shutter speeds. There's a lot of moving parts here, and I do think it merits deep exploration.
Most of the time when I'm watching a film I never think it needs higher framerates, although occasionally I do see a filmmaker moving the camera too fast. My cinematic experience with 1917 had me thinking about it very often, because the camera was so rarely still and when it did move it was frequently at a pace where the frame became smeared and resulted in a lot of detail loss. I found that unpleasant.
In both of those cases, you are altering the look of the source. So it isn't comparable to things being made with HFR in mind. Not at all. Motion Interpolation is not in the slightest bit like HFR content because it introduces motion interpolation artifacts and vivid is literally altering how the movie is supposed to look. Again none of this is compatible with movies being already shot at HFR or at a higher resolution.
Yeah but the person was talking about motion smoothing
Again it was mostly a joke