next »

[Schoq]

I'm pretty sure that "high frame rate = fake/cheap" is a learned association that can be unlearned.
I definitely noticed it, mainly when when the frame was panning or just when something moved quickly, it gives a much clearer image than it would have in 24 fps, which is apparently a bad thing for a lot of people :P

The 3D did bother me a lot though (first movie I saw in 3D), made it hard for me to focus on things most of the time and the stupid subtitles often broke the depth and felt even more in the way than usual.

[ThemsAllTook]

I'm pretty sure that "high frame rate = fake/cheap" is a learned association that can be unlearned.

I hope so, because it's ridiculous. All other things being equal, a higher frame rate can't make something look worse. The fact that most movies and TV shows run at 24 FPS has bothered me for my entire life, so I'd really love to see 48 FPS catch on and get used more.

[Christian Knudsen]

I feel that motion blur has become such an ingrained part of the cinematic language that I'd hate to see it go.

[Schoq]

Yeah, I'm not sure why for sound, colour and spatial resolution everyone always wants higher fidelity, but when it comes to temporal resolution some will argue for pages in favour of never going higher than the bare minimum required to see what's going on

[Christian Knudsen]

Even in 60 FPS computer games, motion blur is added for effect. It just enhances the sense of speed, and without it, things feel tame.

[Schoq]

Motion blur is temporal interpolation, it's needed less the more actual resolution you have.
dum

Nothing is stopping you from motion blurring like a motherfucker for effect at 120 fps, for that matter. It's just that you don't need to in order to save the picture from being a choppy mess.

[Christian Knudsen]

What does screen resolution have to do with motion blur?

[ThemsAllTook]

Temporal resolution (frames per second), not spatial resolution (pixels wide/high)

[crowe]

I did not see the 48fps cut. However, I will say that there are plenty of people who actually get motion sickness from playing videogames and other high-speed video like that who might actually get sick from seeing a movie played out in that speed. My brother went to see it in that way and said it made him physically ill.

[C.A. Sinner]

what i did notice was that the faster panning shots hurt my eyes and were hard to follow. im not sure if that was the 3d (i get eyestrain from 3d very easily) or the framerate, or both though.

[Christian Knudsen]

Temporal resolution (frames per second), not spatial resolution (pixels wide/high)

The post he links to is about screen resolution.

Nothing is stopping you from motion blurring like a motherfucker for effect at 120 fps, for that matter. It's just that you don't need to in order to save the picture from being a choppy mess.

How exactly does this work? Do you capture multiple overlaying frames at the same time in order to get motion blur at HFR?

[Schoq]

I linked that because I happened to have said the same thing about space and colour a day ago.

And yeah, one thing you can do is let adjacent frames bleed into each other.

[Christian Knudsen]

I linked that because I happened to have said the same thing about space and colour a day ago.

I guess I see where you're coming from, but it's not really the same, I think. With retina displays (or any future displays where you actually can't see the separate pixels), not only is anti-aliasing no longer needed, but even if you did have it, you wouldn't be able to see it. But the lack of motion blur is quite apparent no matter how high frame rates you're capturing/playing back at.

But I guess I was just to locked in an analog state of mind and couldn't quite wrap my head around capturing more than one frame at a time in order to get motion blur at HFR.

[ThemsAllTook]

But the lack of motion blur is quite apparent no matter how high frame rates you're capturing/playing back at.

I don't think this is actually true. However, 48 FPS isn't nearly enough to make motion blur imperceptible. I once ran an old game of mine on a CRT at 200Hz, and perceptually it was as if I'd implemented motion blur. That's just subjective memory on my part, but if you get a chance, try playing a game at an extremely high refresh rate like that (3DTVs run at 240Hz when displaying 3D imagery, maybe there's some way to tap into that for 2D and send separate images for each frame?), and you should see what I mean.

[Christian Knudsen]

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that you got motion blur that wasn't there before in one of your games by running it at a high frame rate?

EDIT: And I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I'm not saying that there will be no motion blur no matter how high frame rates your recording at. I was replying to what Schoq was talking about in the linked post; that anti-aliasing won't be needed with retina displays (or actual displays where you can't make out each individual pixel) and likewise motion blur won't be needed for HFR. I disagree with that, because with retina displays, you can't tell the difference between something that's anti-aliased and something that's not, since you can't make out the individual pixels. But with HFR, you will always be able to tell the difference between something with motion blur and something without. I'm just saying that it's not comparable.