|
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
|
Author
|
Topic: HFR - the reviews are in and it "didn't look so good"
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 08-14-2012 06:46 AM
I guess we should at least give HFR a try. I don't think anybody should compare HFR to Stereoscopic 3D.
Stereoscopic 3D is just a flawed technology and no matter how you put it, it will never work this way. As mentioned before, it is a nice gimmick on a 5 minute theme-park ride, but after that, it becomes a tiresome experience. So, maybe we can just let it die and don't bother to look into it, until we got technology that realistically can reproduce a light field.
I don't think HFR is flawed by design, quite the opposite. We already know that it is a tool that can help us to create more realism. But, maybe it can also be used to create a more immersive fantasy.
I guess, Suspension of Disbelief requires more sophistication, if the tools we use to create an alternate reality become more and more able to reproduce reality. Of course, there are many historical examples of this, but quite recently we've seen the transition from SD to HD on TV. This also required quite some rethinking on many levels. Presenters and actors suddenly needed better makeup and the old sets suddenly looked fake.
So, are we sure that in the case of this Hobbit preview, it is really just the HFR that makes it look stupid?
Does anybody remember Public Enemies (2009)? That movie was almost entirely shot on digital cameras. A lot of people complained about the TV-ish looks of that movie and I also noticed it. It just didn't fit. You could easily blame the digital camera work here, but other movies that preceded and followed it, managed to produce that "cinematic" look just fine, using exactly the same cameras.
I guess, a bit of post production and some more experience with different shutter settings can also make HFR a great experience. You can still add some extra motion blur where needed, while finally, after about 90 years or so, stuck at 24 fps, getting rid of the omnipresent and (in my opinion) very distracting judder.
And if we get rid of Stereoscopic 3D, I guess almost all DCI installations should be able to play HFR with just a minor software update I guess? Because current 2K 3D is practically already at 48 FPS. So 2D HFR would just be at the same bitrate as "normal" 3D. So, lets get rid of the sunglasses and embrace 2D HFR please ![[Wink]](wink.gif) .
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chuck McGregor
Film Handler
Posts: 47
From: Bremen, ME, USA
Registered: Mar 2012
|
posted 08-14-2012 01:03 PM
quote:
Manny worte:
I don't think HFR is flawed by design, quite the opposite. We already know that it is a tool that can help us to create more realism. But, maybe it can also be used to create a more immersive fantasy.
I guess, Suspension of Disbelief requires more sophistication, if the tools we use to create an alternate reality become more and more able to reproduce reality. Of course, there are many historical examples of this...
I agree with that 100%.
Another example is that the aesthetic debate between analog and digital audio still goes on for these very reasons, most certainly in non-film audio.
The point here is that the aesthetics of audio or visual recording has always involved post-processing. For audio the post processing that infuses "life" into what would otherwise be a sterile recording may be as simple as whatever the studio acoustics contribute to the sound (think lighting for visual) to extensive use of electronic or other post-processing.
Higher resolution, in whatever form that comes, has always meant simply paying more attention to the finer details of what one is capturing. To make any "capture" aesthetically pleasing one must know how to manipulate what is being captured and/or how it is being is captured and/or how it is post-processed. This basic process doesn't change no matter what the specific nature of the audio or visual systems placed between the visual or audible source "image" and the receiver's eyes and ears in perceiving that image.
The fact the Hobbit clip might have looked bad seems to be for the same reason some people (but not all) find Ricky Martin's "Livin'la Vida Loca" intolerable to listen to - bad production values (near zero dynamic range being the prime culprit). The medium conveys the message. If you don't like the message don't blame the medium. Blame its users.
(Going back to my cage now.)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Chuck McGregor
Film Handler
Posts: 47
From: Bremen, ME, USA
Registered: Mar 2012
|
posted 08-15-2012 01:36 AM
There is a fundamental difference in the comparisons cited between DVD/Blu-ray, 35/70 mm, film/digital, and between 24/48 fps. The former are differences in visual resolution in terms dimension. The 28/48 fps comparison is differences in visual resolution in terms of time. You get additional information in a given time frame allowing primarily finer resolution of movement enhanced by lower flicker times. Anyhow, its a bit like comparing improvements in apples to improvements in oranges.
This article indicates that there are perceivable differences between frame rates to around 60 fps, depending on the conditions:
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Flicker_fusion
One relevant conclusion another commentator wrote based on that article is that "the larger the stimulus area, the faster the frame rate needed to saturate human perception...[This] concept directly applies to screen size, meaning that higher frame rates may be more useful on a theater screen than a small monitor."
I see no problem of HFR regarding the "art" of film. In basic terms one's visual data will have a higher time resolution. This primarily means an expansion of the range of things that can be done with that data.
I suppose this means, like 2D to 3D conversions, there will eventually be a way to interpolate 24 fps stuff to "improve" it to 48 fps.
>>> See [insert film title] remastered in stunning "Forty-Eight" !!! <<< ![[sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Carsten Kurz
Film God
Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009
|
posted 08-15-2012 08:25 AM
Another reason why I don't think this is an issue of adoption - people seem to think that higher oder lower frame rates are just a 'relative' issue. They are not, because our vision system is not a multiscan monitor. As we all know, at around 60-80fps (depending on individual, brightness, etc.), consecutive played frames fuse into perceived continuous motion. This is an absolute aspect of our perception. 24fps will always have a certain 'imperfect' look that warrants cinematic perception of narrative content, not 'realism'. Aside from that, how long will we have to wait until a major part of our daily narrative media consumption will be HFR? Would adoption work at all with a mixed 24/48fps experience?
I agree that probably a lot of people will not actively perceive HFR as a 'bad experience'. The problem is, it could still leave them without enthusiam of cinema experience. Means, the cinema experience could be flawed, and that could lead to patrons giving up on cinema as a whole.
That said - Motion interpolation in displays and projectors usually is configurable, and some of these settings seem to result in some smoothing without 'too much' of that soap effect. Maybe they will find ways to reduce the soap effect with native HFR capturing as well. Maybe they need to apply something in post, or maybe they need to experiment more with framerates/shutter speeds. Maybe mixed 24/48fps features is the way to go. When I watch current 24fps features, I think that only a few scenes could benefit from HFR. Why not use HFR only for these scenes?
- Carsten
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Carsten Kurz
Film God
Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009
|
posted 08-15-2012 09:17 AM
I'm not talking about the lower end of motion perception - the fact that there is 'flicker fusion' also means that there is a higher end. And that is an absolute barrier, even though it may be a moving target somewhere between 60 or 80 fps, depending on the individual. Cameron, Trumbull, etc. did tests and they say that there is a very slight benefit in going from 48fps to 60fps, but nothing that justifies going higher than 60fps.
That is in digital projection, so 'flicker fusion' is not applicable in it's own sense, although of course high contrast scenes qualify for the term sometimes even in digital projection.
Fact is - our perception has an absolute limit where increasing frame rates are no longer perceivable. From this limit on, we perceive sequential frames like continuous motion as in our normal vision.
And I doubt that getting close to that barrier makes the simple 'adoption argument' valid for HFR.
It may be just 'adoption' from 12fps to 24fps, or 16fps to 24fps, as it happened in cinema history.
But not when approaching that absolute perceptive barrier around 60fps.
Flicker-fusion is a bit on the higher end of that limit, simply because of the very high stimulus (=contrast). 'Motion-fusion' as I would call it, will usually need somewhat lower frame-rates, as we see from the numbers discussed.
- Carsten
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 08-15-2012 08:27 PM
quote: Manny Knowles
this whole HFR thing has nothing to do with true quality -- it's marketing -- instead of making good films with good characters and stories, they're now using technology to draw in the crowds
Well that's certainly nothing new...after all, they were touting "talkies" in the 1920s and then color, wide-screen, cinemascope, then stereo/surround, then digital sound.
I doubt HFR will do anything like "make people decide to give up on the cinema." HFR has nothing to do with the major motivation most people have for going out to the movies, which is "to get out of the house and have an enjoyable time."
At the Dolby Atmos demo at CinemaCon they also featured an HFR demonstration which featured the same footage rendered at 24fps, and then 48, 60 and 120. It was footage of kids riding on a carousel. It was quite easy to see differences between every one of the frame rates.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic