High frame rate cinema booed but shows will go on

May 04, 2012 by Nancy Owano weblog

Critics' arguments over whether a film’s actors, screenplay, or music score are worth the price of the ticket have been overshadowed by controversy over the technology used for making the film. Comments are mixed, from lukewarm to thumbs-down. The movie-making technology in question involves a change from 24 frames per second (fps) to 48 fps. HFR (high frame rate) technology is the “future of film,” say proponents, and a controversy was set off at last month’s Las Vegas showing of director Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit. Like the famous director, James Cameron, Jackson believes that HFR films are the next important chapter in cinema.

Unlike movies filmed at an industry standard rate of 24 fps, the use of HFR technology offers less flicker, motion blur and stuttered movement. Attempts to reduce motion blur and flicker found in films can only raise the film experience. The impact on 3-D is especially trumpeted, in resolving the medium‘s problematic issues that make viewing difficult for some people.

Higher frame rates of 48 FPS and 60 FPS will soon be the norm, say supporters. At last month’s brief preview at CinemaCon 2012 of Jackson’s new film, however, which was presented in 48fps, some critics voiced harsh reactions. While their words differed, their basic opinion is that the 48 fps technique renders a film that looks phony like TV soap operas. Some more specific observations were that the film lacked enough color contrast and that actors seemed “overlit,” according to a report in Variety.

As interesting is the response from Jackson to the criticism: He feels that this is new technology that the viewer’s eye just needs to get used to. What is more, there is no going back on what he notes is a significant step forward. Shooting and projecting at 48 fps is said to make the film "much easier to watch, especially in 3-D. We've been watching HOBBIT tests and dailies at 48 fps now for several months, and we often sit through two hours worth of footage without getting any eye strain from the 3-D,” he wrote in Facebook.

An earlier study from California State University of 400 filmgoers suggested that watching 3-D films raised the risk of eyestrain, headache or trouble with vision.

Proponents of 48 fps believe it is just a matter of viewers adjusting. What critics find as “fake,” is verbally recast as “hyper-realism.”

Jackson has written that “You get used to this new look very quickly and it becomes a much more lifelike and comfortable viewing experience."

If HFR is the future, then in practical terms that future may require theaters to upgrade their equipment. According to The Rolling Stone, some theater owners are skeptical about upgrading their equipment. Writing in Extreme Tech, David Cardinal said any moves to upgrade theater projectors to 48 fps, even at a cost of several thousand dollars per screen, though, would be worth it for the operators if it gives theater goers a “premium” experience. The word “if” hovers over the question of how quickly moviegoers will realize they are in for a better future of watching films with 48 fps. The swing for and against may be influenced, though, by those who are put off by present-day 3-D as a source of eyestrain. Jackson said 48 fps is more gentle on the eyes.

Paul Martinovic in Den of Geek says that the advantage of 48 technology making 3-D more watchable is key. Reducing 3-D eye irritants will be a step forward. People who have up to this time avoided 3-D can now get back “into the fray” free of the shackles of blurry vision,” he said. That alone would make it an economically smart move for industry adoption, he added.

Explore further: Continental works on infrared for car multi-touch

Related Stories

Eyes are windows to more than a child's soul

Sep 01, 2011

Nearly 80 percent of what children learn during their first 12 years is through their vision. Though vision problems may seem easy to identify, they actually can be difficult for parents to discern. Still, parents need to ...

Recommended for you

Continental works on infrared for car multi-touch

Dec 23, 2014

Using infrared technology, gesture-control features might find their way into the "affordable" market segment. Automotive supplier Continental, with an eye on the future, is working on intelligent infrared ...

How will Google, Apple shake up car insurance industry?

Dec 22, 2014

Car insurance industry, meet potential disrupters Google and Apple. Currently, nearly all mainstream insurers that offer driver-monitoring programs use relatively expensive devices that plug into a portal under the dashboard. ...

Cyclist's helmet, Volvo car to communicate for safety

Dec 21, 2014

Volvo calls it "a life-saving wearable cycling tech concept." The car maker is referring to a connected car and helmet prototype that enables two-way communication between Volvo drivers and cyclists for proximity ...

California puzzles over safety of driverless cars

Dec 21, 2014

California's Department of Motor Vehicles will miss a year-end deadline to adopt new rules for cars of the future because regulators first have to figure out how they'll know whether "driverless" vehicles ...

User comments : 50

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Kedas
4 / 5 (5) May 04, 2012
48 and 60fps? Wouldn't it have been much better to go for (3*24) 72fps it is high enough and it is backward compatible.
alfie_null
1.6 / 5 (5) May 04, 2012
Subjective comments aren't an honest assessment. Of course the proponents' audience aren't a bunch of scientists.
CardacianNeverid
4.2 / 5 (5) May 04, 2012
Higher frame rates do produce less flicker and thus smoother, more fluid motion. One question I'd have is whether The Hobbit was shot in 48fps natively, or was it simulated in post-production? If the latter, then it might produce some negative artefacts that the viewers picked up on.

On the other hand, of course the studio and their shills are all over this because it means they can churn out more 3D crap and charge through the nose while making everyone re-buy shiny new versions of movies they've had for years, coz it's like, you know, better!
justme99
5 / 5 (4) May 04, 2012
I have to smile at critics saying it "looks fake" i.e. not like the real fake they are used to seeing (at 24 fps, our brains have been compensating all along, filling in tons of information not actually present). Also, the comments about lighting are really no different than issues with SD vs early HD; the industry just needed to adjust to the different lighting requirements in a different medium.
Irukanji
1.4 / 5 (14) May 04, 2012
Chances are 48fps is filmed on digital, whereas 24fps is filmed on film. Film is superior to all digital pictures, and will be for a long time. Or rather, it will be until digital can pick up all of the colours, rather than RGB and then decoding the relevant colours.

They are pushing 48fps because digital is super easy to work with, just plug it into the computer and edit away, and then you can send the same digital copy all over the world instead of having reels and reels of film which could get damaged.

Of course, we all know that digital degrades by itself with each successive read/write, whereas film which has been stored correctly will last for a very long time.
Deadbolt
5 / 5 (3) May 04, 2012
It would be interesting if 48fps belongs in a valley (much like the uncanny valley in robotics, and a similar valley for synthesized music), in which it seems close enough to how the brain understands time periods for real motion, to seem off.

24fps might not be realistic enough to seem wrong, in the same way that a cartoon, while less realistic than many automatons, seems less creepy BECAUSE it is less obviously a pale imitation and is its own thing instead.

If this hypothesis is correct, higher fps doesn't always look worse - there will be a valley you can rise out of as you go higher. Of course, what I'm proposing could be a big pile of crap, but we'll see.
chkr
1 / 5 (4) May 04, 2012
If you use Windows, I highly recommend trying the SVP (SmoothVideo Project) package. It's freeware though you are free to support the project if you do like the software.

In my case, a combination of a Q9400 CPU and a GTS250 video card works just fine. I can convert on the fly even FullHD video from 24FPS to 60FPS on my configuration, though you'd better have a more powerful PC to minimize conversion artifacts.

I'm not a programmer, just an ordinary user trying to help the project. Please be warned that SVP is not for everyone: some people like the result, others don't.

P.S. Hopefully I didn't break any rules by posting this information. Sorry for not adding any direct links: I just didn't want my post being treated as spam (though I'm not sure if I'll succeed in that). Just try and google for yourself. :)
chkr
5 / 5 (2) May 04, 2012
Higher frame rates do produce less flicker and thus smoother, more fluid motion. One question I'd have is whether The Hobbit was shot in 48fps natively, or was it simulated in post-production? If the latter, then it might produce some negative artefacts that the viewers picked up on.

Even if The Hobbit was shot as usually and then its framerate was upconverted in post-production, surely the artifacts were carefully removed frame by frame. So I doubt that the viewers negatively reacted to the artifacts per se. I guess some of them just weren't used to high framerate, which is understandable.

As for me, after getting accustomed to watching videos at 60FPS, I just don't wan't to switch back to 24FPS. Even the artifacts of automatic framerate upconversion (see my comment on SVP) are bearable compared to the ordinary framerate, if you know what I mean.
MikeSpreafico
5 / 5 (1) May 04, 2012
Proponents of 48 fps believe it is just a matter of viewers adjusting. What critics find as fake, is verbally recast as hyper-realism.
lol
chkr
5 / 5 (6) May 04, 2012
Film is superior to all digital pictures, and will be for a long time. Or rather, it will be until digital can pick up all of the colours, rather than RGB and then decoding the relevant colours.

I'm not an expert at all, but that looks like a highly disputable statement to me. Some major movies have already been shot on digital with good results. For example, Collateral (with Tom Cruise starring as an assassin) was released in 2004. I guess digital cameras have become much, much better since them.
They are pushing 48fps because digital is super easy to work with, <...>

True.
Of course, we all know that digital degrades by itself with each successive read/write, whereas film which has been stored correctly will last for a very long time.

Digital does not degrade by itself with each successive read/write. Sorry, but that's simply untrue. :)
chkr
5 / 5 (1) May 04, 2012
Proponents of 48 fps believe it is just a matter of viewers adjusting. What critics find as fake, is verbally recast as hyper-realism.
lol

I disagree with those critics and find nothing to laugh about. To me, even a 10-years-old TV series (I'm talking about SD, not HD) looks better when upconverted to 60FPS. Believe it or not, but even facial expressions look more natural.
Moebius
2.5 / 5 (4) May 04, 2012
Those opinions by the watchers are like the opinions cavemen given a smart phone would have when they complain that it doesn't light up the cave very well.
javjav
4.6 / 5 (9) May 04, 2012
Film is superior to all digital pictures, and will be for a long time. Or rather, it will be until digital can pick up all of the colours, rather than RGB and then decoding the relevant colours.

You have no idea. Film is RGB (it is based on 3 layers of emulsion sensitive to red, green and blue), and almost all film movies of the last 10 years have been digitized and processed in RGB as part of lab process before you show them. Meanwhile, digital is not limited to RGB. Even video (YUV) has a wider color gamut than film (RGB), and ALL digital theaters are not using RGB but XYZ (which covers the complete human eye gamut).
Of course, we all know that digital degrades by itself with each successive read/write, whereas film which has been stored correctly will last for a very long time.

Digital copies are identical and you can do as many backups as you want at no cost, while film degrades over the time. All studios are digitizing their old film masters to preserve them
aroc91
2.3 / 5 (3) May 04, 2012
For those wondering, they are shooting in native 48fps. I can't find it anymore, but I saw a nice behind the scenes about a week ago where they talked about filming with the RED cameras and how they set up the 3D. Fascinating stuff.
julianpenrod
2 / 5 (3) May 04, 2012
The "looks fake" sensation, comparing the movie to soap operas, is an example of a phenomenon that has seen expression throughout the television viewing world. What is considered normal television, like "I Love Lucy" and "Star Trek", is recorded on normal film stock. Soap operas and, among other things, Normal Lear shows like "All In The Family" were on videotape. Many registered some kind of difference, the picture can be crisper and the sound less muffled, some even said lights looked brighter, but were unable to express it. It got so that some trade reportsd actually had to inform them that there wasn't anything wrong, they were watching a different form of film. Some programs, like "Twilight Zone's" "The Lateness of the Hour" were presented both on film and videotape, no doubt puzzling many who didn't know there was a difference in the appearance. They may even have been led into thinking thee was something wrong with their set or them.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (7) May 04, 2012
Interestingly, there doesn't seem to have been an investigation into the difference in sensation! Many have evidently experienced it through the years and mentioned it. Trade reports obviously know it was expressed. And claiming they "didn't know" doesn't help, because even "scientists" must have experienced it and knew it existed! Yet none examined the effect! And left so many to think they weren't completely in their right mind or struggling to equate the appearance of normal film stock and videotape doing who knows what damage to their comprehension abilities! And there are those who still insist "scientists" can be trusted and there aren't massive conspiracies against the public.
mrlewish
not rated yet May 04, 2012
Yes it was shot in native 48fps. Saw an article a while back saying it was.
julianpenrod
1.4 / 5 (7) May 04, 2012
Another point apparently being aggressively ignored is the potential for inserting subliminal imagery into a film shown at twice industry standard speed. It can have less of an immediate presence for many and so be even less directly sensed. In point of fact, the same can be said for the mandated swtich from analog to digital transmissions. Being what can be considered more artificial, digital signals can likely be more easily manipulated to include hidden material. Unsurprising that so many different venues today embrace presentations that involve the screen broken into many tiny elements, even if it has no significance.
Ooo O
1 / 5 (1) May 04, 2012
48 and 60fps? Wouldn't it have been much better to go for (3*24) 72fps it is high enough and it is backward compatible.


It will be backwards compatible anyways for everything except movie theaters. They receive their film differently and the film would have to be re-rendered at 24.

I think they just need to do a little digital enhancements to the 48 FPS. That would normalize the color.
marraco
2.5 / 5 (2) May 04, 2012
TV soap operas don't look phony because of frame rates. They are inherently phony, and would be phony at any frame rates.

I'm accustomed to high framerates on PC screens, and I cant stand the low framerates of movies. Its worse on landscape scenes.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) May 04, 2012
technology is the "future of film,"

No. Content is the future of film. Technology will only generate a 'wow'-factor for 1-2 movies.

Much like the other article recently where viewers didn't register the difference between a DVD and Blu-ray at all if the film was good.

Moviemakers have to rediscover that the real movgies go on in the mind - and that only exceptionally well written and directed (and for the action movies: choreographed) movies achieve that.
jet
not rated yet May 04, 2012
Jackson did a masterful job in LOTR, the rest of his body of work.. well not so much.

IF you watch some of the early remastered blue ray disks you will see a similar effect (in fact the blue ray LOTR according to many) that it is over bright and seems like a TV video or even a stage play at times.
Lurker2358
3.5 / 5 (4) May 04, 2012
Basically just an excuse to sell you a more expensive player and television set.

You know, typically 2 years before the next re-formatting of everything to fleece the sheeple again.
Urgelt
5 / 5 (2) May 04, 2012
Alas, improving the frame rate and even moving to three-dimensional imaging will do nothing to offset miserable content.

Hollywood manufacturers ignorance.
bg1
not rated yet May 04, 2012
3D makes me sick for up to a day. Can 48 fps solve that? Will it solve it for 3D TV as well?
MandoZink
1 / 5 (1) May 04, 2012
It's too bad that video will never have the ability to achieve the absolute uninterrupted flow that is the hallmark of sound technologies like vinyl LPs.
MandoZink
4 / 5 (2) May 04, 2012
Even video (YUV) has a wider color gamut than film (RGB), and ALL digital theaters are not using RGB but XYZ (which covers the complete human eye gamut)-javjav

Actually, there are NO color reproductive technologies which can cover the complete human eye gamut. Pigments, phosphors and modern LEDs have a limited gamut. Within the range of each reproductive method there may be an infinite number of possible colors, but it is a subset of the infinite color range that humans can perceive.

I did not learn this until the day I hiked way up into the Rocky Mountains and peered down at some glacial lakes. I was stunned. I asked my wife what they HELL was going on. She didn't know either. We were looking at an icy blue color that neither of us had ever seen before in our life. I will never forget that day. A NEW color? I was baffled. I eventually learned that the color Aquamarine cannot be reproduced and can only be seen in nature.

There are color gamut charts on the web which show this.
Lurker2358
1.5 / 5 (2) May 04, 2012
Light in nature appears as a unique wavelength depending on the material reflecting or emitting it.

The color scale in nature goes from red through blue as a smooth, continuous transition of decreasing wavelengths. Human beings are "trichromates" and have the ability to see long(red), medium(green) and short(blue) wavelengths, but in nature it is a smooth transition. On a computer it is blocky and attempts to mix colors.

Light on your computer screen is a proxy reconstruction using "pointelism" to try to fool your eyes.
MandoZink
not rated yet May 04, 2012
Light in nature appears as a unique wavelength depending on the material reflecting or emitting it.

Actually most light in nature is blend of wavelengths, whether emitted (an additive process), or reflected (a subtractive process, as in pigments). Each of the 3 different cones absorb a certain limited bandwidth, each being centered at either RED(575nm), GREEN(535nm) or BLUE(445nm).

For pure wavelengths, each cone responds with a signal strength determined by the reception curve for that cone. The combination of signal strengths from 2 (sometimes 3) of the separate color cones pinpoints the exact color we perceive. Since monochromatic emitters are rare in nature, the colors we perceive are a blend of cone stimulations.

Some colors our brain perceives don't ever really exist in nature, such as purplish combinations of blue and red. We only see purple because our brain "insists" on seeing something to represent the signals it is receiving.
MandoZink
not rated yet May 04, 2012
If you only had one cone type, you could not determine the color at all. You would only perceive the intensity, which is determined by the cone's absorption curve. Each cone type actually transmits, to the brain, signals which carry only AMPLITUDE information, based on the cone's absorption curve. The brain requires signals from at least two cone types to determine the wavelength.

Sorry to brag here, but I happen to have collected one HELL OF A LOT of information on lights, lighting and phosphors over the last decade and read them all. I regularly communicated with current and former lighting researchers from GE, Sylvania, and other lighting industry designers in USENET forums. I am very good at determining precisely what phosphors are in any fluorescent lamp, but cannot do the same for HIDs.

By the way, your television, especially the old CRTs, cannot emit red. They emit an orange-red which you just get used to seeing as red. Really!

Quantum dots are an interesting development.
MandoZink
5 / 5 (1) May 04, 2012
By the way, there is a little known inadequacy in using RGB to illuminate objects compared to natural sunlight which is a continuous spectrum.

Imagine you have two golden yellow objects which both appear to be the same color in sunlight. Number 1 is a pigment which actually IS the pure color you see. Number 2 is a combination of pigments, which is a perfect blend that appears as exactly the same color in sunlight.

If you place these under an RGB light source, such as the current tri-phosphor lamp types, you will notice a major change.
Number 2 will have a combined return from one pigment reflecting the red content of the yellow and the other pigment reflecting the green content of the yellow. The yellow will show up well.
Number 1, the pure pigment, will not respond very well at all and will look duller. This is because the red and green phosphors are actually narrow band emissions which will not be reflected well by the pure color pigment. That also goes for LED light sources.
Ducklet
3.7 / 5 (3) May 05, 2012
24fps and 48fps look very different. The exposure time for 24fps is clearly never longer than 1/24, and in reality 1/30s. This causes a fair amount of motion blur, which blends frames together. 48fps is shot at 1/60s, which has 1/2 the linear motion blur, or 1/4 the perceived motion blur (the frame in an area, so entropy grows with the square of linearity). Without motion blur the motion looks synthetic and artificial, like amateurish CGI (good CGI includes 'exposure' motion blur). Cinematic sequences shot with a 1/30s shutter speed don't have rapidly moving well-defined edges, but cinematic sequences shot with a 1/60s shutter speed do, to a much greater extent.
chkr
not rated yet May 05, 2012
The "looks fake" sensation, comparing the movie to soap operas, is an example of a phenomenon that has seen expression throughout the television viewing world. <...>

My bad! Being unaccustomed to this site's rating system, Ive clicked the wrong star. Sorry, I just don't know how to correct my mistake.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) May 05, 2012
Jackson did a masterful job in LOTR, the rest of his body of work.. well not so much.

Actually I think the trilogy is pretty average (barely rewatcheable). Now his early movies were masterpieces of irony and sarcasm. Real labors of love.
MandoZink
not rated yet May 05, 2012
Within the range of each reproductive method there may be an infinite number of possible colors, but it is a subset of the infinite color range that humans can perceive.

I made an obvious misleading statement here. It implies an infinite spectrum, which obviously isn't true. I know I certainly can't see gamma rays, or microwaves, or as-yet-undiscovered wavelengths.

I meant to say our eyes can see an infinite number possible combinations of colors WITHIN our visual range - about 400nm - 700nm.

By the way, although the absorption curve of our RED cones peaks at 575nm, the color we see as deep red lies somewhere about 660nm-680nm. Oddly, video displays have traditionally only used red at 611nm in their RGB mix. Now some LEDs are being used which are closer to a deeper red, but I don't know how common this is.

An interesting reference I just found is:
http://www.helios...rint.pdf
Strap
4 / 5 (3) May 05, 2012
Basically just an excuse to sell you a more expensive player and television set.

You know, typically 2 years before the next re-formatting of everything to fleece the sheeple again.


The "sheeple" are already fleeced on this one. Most TVs/Players sold today produce at least 60fps, with high end sets able to produce 120fps. According to the sales person that tried to up-sell me the same excuse is used to sell the 120Hz. "60fps can cause headaches if you like action movies/games with lots of movement." Ironic most media is not even close to 60fps on the production end.

This is really more about theater hardware. Film editors can alter the lighting as the media standard changes. Eventually they will need to again rely on telling a good story, or so we can hope.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (2) May 05, 2012
yay.

let's keep wasting our improved computing power and telecommunications bandwidth on doubling pixel count, color depth, and frame rates. Woo hoo, just what we need, more stale entertainment that costs more and more every year.

Keep doing this shit long enough, and we'll need terahertz processors just to watch a youtube video.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.1 / 5 (35) May 06, 2012
More bits = less piracy.

You will have more bits even if you don't want them.

This is how the free market dictates your freedom.

chkr
not rated yet May 07, 2012
It's too bad that video will never have the ability to achieve the absolute uninterrupted flow that is the hallmark of sound technologies like vinyl LPs.

You know, technically savvy people sometimes make fun of so-called "audiophiles," who highly value vinyl LPs, electron-tube amplifiers, and so on. I've recently read that vinyl records are as good as 12-bit digital audio. Compare that to CD-Audio, which is 16 bit. No offence, just for your information. :)
chkr
not rated yet May 07, 2012
let's keep wasting our improved computing power and telecommunications bandwidth on doubling pixel count, color depth, and frame rates. Woo hoo, just what we need, more stale entertainment that costs more and more every year.

Keep doing this shit long enough, and we'll need terahertz processors just to watch a youtube video.

To a trained eye, the difference is as clear as between standard definition and high definition. When I forget to run the application that upconverts video from standard framerate to higher framerate (that is, from 24FPS to 60FPS, the maximum that my monitor can handle), after a minute or so I know that something is missing: Even small movements become somewhat jerky, and panoramic scenes produce a strobbing effect. So for some people, including me, a higher-framerate video just looks better. I guess someone has already done a double-blind test to prove that.
chkr
not rated yet May 07, 2012
More bits = less piracy.

You will have more bits even if you don't want them.

This is how the free market dictates your freedom.

There was a time when some silent-movie makers sneered at "talkies," but it's hard to stop the technological progress. :)
krundoloss
not rated yet May 07, 2012
The problem is simply this: Set makers and prop makers have to up thier game! When an actor is viewed at 48 or 60 fps, it makes things look real. However, when the things they are filming are not real, or are cheap props, this is very easy to detect at higher frame rates! We see the world in high frame rates, most people cannot tell the difference between 60 fps and reality, in regards to realistic motion of objects. So basically, we will have to make better movies to not look fake while being filmed with this awesome new cameras!
kaasinees
1 / 5 (1) May 07, 2012
even 60 fps can be hard on a trained eye.

I always have noticed a great difference between 60 and 120 fps.

120 fps looks much smooother even though it is a very subtle difference because i think maybe i can see at 70 fps or something.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) May 07, 2012
Really depends on what kind of imagig technology you're looking at. 60Hz on a CRT is not the same as 60 Hz on a LCD or a OLED or a plasma screen. On a CRT 60Hz can be noticeable. On an LCD (and especially on an OLED) it's not.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (1) May 07, 2012
Yes i noticed the difference on LCDs.
I havent used CRTs for a while now.
TrinityComplex
not rated yet May 07, 2012
I remember the accepted notion that 32fps was the average maximum that the eye could percieve. I've been able to find comparisons of 24fps and 60 fps and the difference is obvious, but I can't seem to find anything that compares 30fps to 48fps, or 48fps to 60fps. I'm curious if there is a revised estimate of an average maximum perceptible framerate.

Some newer TVs have Trumotion, which supposedly fills in some of the movement between frames on 24fps videos. The difference was obvious, and odd at first, but by the end of the first movie I watched with it other videos (on other, non-Trumotion TVs) seemed lower quality.
kaasinees
3 / 5 (2) May 07, 2012
I have grown up with video games for a 2 decades, since i was very little.

I spent a lot of time playing video games, when i was a teen i played a lot of unreal.

I think my eyes/brains developed to perceive more FPS than someone who goes outside more simply because those people dont benefit from perceiving higher FPS.
krundoloss
not rated yet May 07, 2012
I play games often too. 60 fps vsync is a great framerate, I can certainly tell a difference with higher frame rates, but I could never justify going beyond 60 fps unless I was using a CRT. I think video looks weird at 120 hz, Trumotion as its called with some models. Since the motion is closer to real life motion, it seems creepy to me, like its going too fast. I don't know, maybe its just that our eyes are used to 24 fps, or at most 60 fps, to go beyond that seems strange. Eventually it will be standard I suppose. They do have a very good reason to up the frame rate for 3D movies, since the frame rate is halved (alternate left eye/right eye images) then 120 hz would be 60 hz in 3D mode. 48 fps, would be 24 in 3D, etc.
chkr
not rated yet May 08, 2012
I remember the accepted notion that 32fps was the average maximum that the eye could percieve. I've been able to find comparisons of 24fps and 60 fps and the difference is obvious, but I can't seem to find anything that compares 30fps to 48fps, or 48fps to 60fps. I'm curious if there is a revised estimate of an average maximum perceptible framerate.

On a Windows PC, you can check that yourself by using SVP, the freeware app that I mentioned in my first post (yeah, one star-rated).
Just google "SmoothVideo Project download" for the distribution package or read more on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikiped...ect__SVP
codemonkeybryan
not rated yet May 13, 2012
Film and display the whole movie in 48fps. Dramatic / personal scenes are transformed to simulate 24 fps. Action scenes get their detail; drama doesn't look like soap opera. Problem solved.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.