next »

[ThemsAllTook]

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.

That's exactly what I'm saying, and it's perfectly comparable. As Schoq alluded to earlier, anti-aliasing is spatial interpolation, and motion blur is temporal interpolation. How exactly will you be able to tell the difference between something with and without motion blur at an extremely high frame rate? For a simple example, suppose an object moves 10 pixels in one frame at a low frame rate, so it's motion blurred over those 10 pixels to simulate a higher frame rate. If instead of doing that, the frame rate is multiplied by 10, and the object moves discretely by one pixel per frame, essentially the same information reaches your eyes over that period of time, just in 10 increments instead of all at once.

Now, that's not to say you couldn't extrapolate motion blur so that the information of more than 2 adjacent frames is represented in a single frame, just as you could extrapolate anti-aliasing so that the color of one pixel bleeds farther in one direction than into the pixel directly next to it...but that would be a weird stylistic choice that would make things blurrier than necessary.

As you say, you can't see anti-aliasing on a retina display since you can't make out individual pixels. With a high enough frame rate (which 48 is not), you won't be able to make out individual frames. Same deal. How do you see those two as fundamentally different?

[Schoq]

the spatial equivalent would be how a blurry high res image compares to an antialiased low res image
and super strictly technically I think both both aa and motion blur is more correctly referred to as a form of oversampling rather than interpolation but
this kind of got ridiculous half a page ago

[Christian Knudsen]

That's exactly what I'm saying, and it's perfectly comparable. As Schoq alluded to earlier, anti-aliasing is spatial interpolation, and motion blur is temporal interpolation. How exactly will you be able to tell the difference between something with and without motion blur at an extremely high frame rate? For a simple example, suppose an object moves 10 pixels in one frame at a low frame rate, so it's motion blurred over those 10 pixels to simulate a higher frame rate. If instead of doing that, the frame rate is multiplied by 10, and the object moves discretely by one pixel per frame, essentially the same information reaches your eyes over that period of time, just in 10 increments instead of all at once.

If you record something at 24 FPS it will have motion blur, i.e. each individual frame will have motion blur. If you record at 48 FPS, there will be much less motion blur. That's why James Cameron has been talking up 48 FPS in relation to Avatar and why he's shooting Avatar 2, 3 and 4 in 48 FPS. Because motion blur ruins the 3D effect to some degree.

The lack of motion blur at 48 FPS or any HFR will be obvious compared to the motion blur at 24 FPS. And even 48 FPS with motion blur will look different from 48 FPS without motion blur. But with retina displays, you can't tell the difference between an anti-aliased image and one that isn't if you can't discern the individual pixels.

Also, I don't think you can call motion blur temporal interpolation. Stuff like Motion Flow is temporal interpolation.

EDIT: Yeah, temporal or motion interpolation is actually trying to compensate for motion blur: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_interpolation

[ThemsAllTook]

this kind of got ridiculous half a page ago

Agreed. I think Christian and I are still talking about slightly different things, but I'll bow out of the discussion.

[Mono]

Searching for Sugar Man is a really good documentary. Rodriguez story is more of a Nick Drake-story than the story of Nick Drake. I don't know how behind I am on hearing his stuff (technically 40 years I guess) but I am still excited. His voice sounds very much like James Taylor but more monotone. His lyrics are excellent.

[SterlingDee]

I couldn't even get past the first 30 minutes of The Hobbit (and this is coming from someone who probably saw each of the LOTR movies three times in theaters!). It was overstuffed with filler and I hated the hobbit slapstick comedy that started off the film. I just couldn't get into watching it, it felt like I was watching a children's movie. Will give it another chance at sometime in the future.

[allen]

well it's based off a book that was written for children, so of course it's a children's movie

[C.A. Sinner]

imo one of the movie's main problem is that isn't ENOUGH of a children's movie (as was discussed earlier itt).

[Mono]

Yes, it's like Peter Jackson did not decide which direction to take it. Obviously coming out post trilogy influenced how it turned out.

[C.A. Sinner]

welp it probably comes down to jackson taking over the project from del toro. ofc this is just speculation but i think del toro would have stuck closer to the tone of the source material.

[Mono]

Oh, yeah! I totally forgot about that. I think you hit the nail on the head.

[Netsu]

I watched Battleship again yesterday and I am still not sure if it was a serious movie or a parody. Definitely hilarious either way.

[Mono]

I love this movie opening.

Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)

[ClayB]

the tension and mood of that film is timeless.

I watched The Master recently, but ultimately it disappointed me in it's ponderousness and needlessly enigmatic cast of characters.

[Rahrahrah]

Give me the chicken!!!

For the second, and I vow the last time I watched one hour of In the Name of the King last night with much beer after a great dinner at home.

Oh, is that thing a train wreck.