So who's tried this new 48fps cinema technology. And did you like it?

I ask as sometimes when I watch a modern tv which has had interpolation put on to show 100hz or 200hz, it can sometimes look a bit... odd.

I know the hobbit will be real frames rather than interpolated ones, but I don't know if the oddness comes from our eyes being used to a certain framerate for movies, and not being able to adapt quickly enough to get used to higher-rate stuff.

Don't want to pay extra for HFR tickets and sit there thinking it's a bit crap all the way through.

http://www.tested.com/art/movies/452387-48-fps-and-beyond-how-high-frame-rates-affect-perception/

Article seems critical of it, but the majority of the commenters seemed to rate it for 3D.

Knock yourself out

Anyone who does gaming doesn't mind it, people who don't freak out.

--

Formal education will make you a living; self-education will make you a fortune.

It looks a bit odd as your eyes are used to regular film. That plus 3d can give a bit of a "separated actors and sets" feel. Stunning for the action stuff (especially slowmo where you can see all the detail) but can feel a bit like TV for the close dialogue stuff.

Higher frame rates give "soap opera effect" which although technically superior makes films look like they were made on a camcorder. I don't like it, but maybe film makers will adjust production and mastering to suit if hfr becomes the norm? Or we'll just get used to it?

ETA: very interesting links. Thanks!

Updated December 29, 2012 at 12:21 AM

--

My Flickr

Invisible Speakers

I'd be quite interested to see what it's like, but wouldn't want to pay extra for it.

A lot of the time I find films in the cinema to flickery, especially really fast paced action stuff.

--

cheers,

Harry

Too many old sheds.

integrale_evo said...

I'd be quite interested to see what it's like, but wouldn't want to pay extra for it.

A lot of the time I find films in the cinema to flickery, especially really fast paced action stuff.

Some LCD tvs already give the effect by interpolating frames. I've watched Shutter Island in this mode and it made all the sets and the lighting look really contrived - like you were watching a play at the theatre.

I think HFR is a good think, but it will certaibly put pressure on set designers and lighting engineers to up their game.

--

My Flickr

Invisible Speakers

It was horrible at first. The opening scene with Bilbo looked like it was on fast-forward, very odd. A common perception apparently - I'm almost surprised PJ didn't ask the actors to move slowly for the first few scenes.

I'm not used to 3D either - the only thing I've seen before was Jackass 3D which doesn't really count.

Combined, I wasn't a fan at all, and was definitely thinking we should have just gone and seen the regular 2D version instead.

But I did get used to it after 10-20 minutes. It still seemed a bit sped up at times, but the further into the film I got, the less I noticed it.

And certainly the detail and clarity were outstanding.

HFR aside, my feeling about 3D is that it's always going to feel a bit "wrong", until technology improves such that you can alter the scene by focusing your eyes on different parts of it. Probably a long while off yet, but I think it's an inevitable step.

3D is utterly pointless in its current guise. The only thing I've seen in recent years which left me nodding my head in appreciation was a trailer before a kids film which ended with a spinning gold Spongebob which actually looked like you could reach out and touch it.

I've not seen a single film where the 3D has added anything at all to the experience. Other than pounds to your bill obviously.

--

Cheers,

Mike.

Ascender, I'm not a fan, but I saw Promethius in IMAX3D, and after initial uncertainty, by the end of the film I was trying to brush ash off my sleeve.

--

139.0001BHP on supermarket UL, glovebox open, hood down.

I don't like 3d at the moment, it never gives a true sense of depth, just looks like a handfull of different layers and is massively dissapointing so I don't bother any more.

--

cheers,

Harry

Too many old sheds.

For me 3D only really works for cgi or animation where they can keep everything in focus. As Seb says it just isnt nice not being able to not focus on different parts of a scene. Not sure how this can change as long as optics are used. And HFRs will require even larger lens apertures which will mean even less depth of field.

--

My Flickr

Invisible Speakers

3D is pretty impossible to discuss though as it works differently for everyone.

--

Formal education will make you a living; self-education will make you a fortune.

Clever directors should be able to make use of the reduced depth of field. The problem is the big Hollywood directors and producers are used to the existing tech. We need a new generation who can make the most of the new tech, and work around the limitations.

--

139.0001BHP on supermarket UL, glovebox open, hood down.

mattcambs said...

For me 3D only really works for cgi or animation where they can keep everything in focus. As Seb says it just isnt nice not being able to not focus on different parts of a scene. Not sure how this can change as long as optics are used. And HFRs will require even larger lens apertures which will mean even less depth of field.

We already have cameras that can store an entire light field, letting you change the focus of a photo after you've taken it. At the moment they're low-res and stills only, but it's only a matter of time before this could be used to record a whole film.

Allowing the user to adjust the focus of what they're viewing is probably pretty straightforward, by looking into the eye and seeing what it's doing.

As for how you can then show that in a way that lets everyone in the cinema see it differently, I'm not sure.

Clever polarising tricks that we've not yet developed and glasses etc possibly, but I expect having the image transmitted into the glasses you wear will be the answer. Then it can easily be different for everyone. Of course if you're doing that, is there any point in going to a cinema? Maybe, maybe not. You could always show the film in an augmented reality way, so it's shown in your glasses, overlaying the screen when it's in your field of vision.

You read it here first!

Interesting post

I wonder if (assuming it becomes industry standard) it will be HFR that will pose the greatest challenge to the film industry? 3D may always remain a nice option, but is not increased realism unlike HFR.
For me HFR is a logical step forward like high res, more bit depth and improved lens optics.

--

My Flickr

Invisible Speakers

James Cameron is apparently backing HFR for his new projects. One downside of it (from the industry's point of view) is that the enhanced clarity means they have to spend more making props and costumes/make-up look realistic.

_ said...

James Cameron is apparently backing HFR for his new projects. One downside of it (from the industry's point of view) is that the enhanced clarity means they have to spend more making props and costumes/make-up look realistic.

Which is why it's a good thing imo. Although low budget film companies may suffer. Btw, does Bluray support hfrs?

--

My Flickr

Invisible Speakers

Seb is correct. The false noses are v apparent in The Hobbit.

--

139.0001BHP on supermarket UL, glovebox open, hood down.