
'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained - memoryfailure
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2403746,00.asp
======
josephlord
High framerates give the appearance of and in some cases substantially better
images reducing significantly various temporal aliasing effects. They are
without doubt better in every way from a technical point of view.

There is however a cultural issue that is worst amongst the film creators that
"film" is regarded as expensive, high-end and good so that things that don't
have the artefacts (low frame rate, film grain and colour) are regarded with
at least suspicion. This will probably pass with time especially as the number
of high budget, high quality TV series increases.

~~~
mikeash
I feel like I'll go mental if I hear one more film buff talk about the
essential nature of various imperfections in traditional film. It's so obvious
that nobody would have chosen to go with film grain, low frame rates, or any
of the other limitations that were foist upon them if they had had a choice.
But now these technical limitations get enshrined as the medium's supposed
true nature, at least by some....

~~~
scrumper
As in so many creative endeavours it's the limitations which make the art.
It's not always about going for perfection, but it always has to be emotional.

Which is a more powerful statement? This:
[http://virgo.bibl.u-szeged.hu/wm/paint/auth/monet/parliament...](http://virgo.bibl.u-szeged.hu/wm/paint/auth/monet/parliament/1905.jpg)

or this: [http://isitthattime.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/fog-over-
the...](http://isitthattime.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/fog-over-the-houses-
of-parliament.jpg?w=610&h=406)

There's no question that the latter is more technically accurate, more
lifelike, more realistic, but it lacks the guttural punch of the Monet. Monet
was a master, but only by exploiting the limitations of his medium could he
attain that mastery.

So it goes with film. A decent cinematographer uses the inherent faults of
film to convey emotion. Without the low dynamic range of film, the dark
corners of the Nostromo in Alien would have looked like a plywood movie set.
Without lens flare and blown highlights then the plight of a dehydrated hero
in the desert would be much harder to get across. Those things - 24fps, lens
flare, low range, depth of field - have become part of our shared culture now.
So much so that even media which aim for perfect realism (eg video games)
mimic some of them to aid immersion and, once again, heighten the emotional
response.

~~~
luser001
Disclaimer: I am not an art expert.

You point is well taken, but just as a minor nit, I wanted to add that artists
_did_ achieve photorealism first and then move on to abstractness. Arguably,
that was driven by the advent of photography which commoditized photorealism.

~~~
scrumper
Fair point. Impressionism was in no small part a reaction to the overly stuffy
and formal schools of realistic painting of the time. You've made me think: I
wonder how much photography contributed to their frustration with that
academic painting style?

But still, painting is painting. Take the Dutch Old Masters: incredibly
realistic, lifelike pictures, but also extraordinarily powerful. One doesn't
preclude the other, but in every case something about the medium contributes
to its power. It might be the fact that a sitter for one of Caravaggio's
Christs was actually suffering due to holding his body in place for so long;
it could be a need to invent some aspect of light in a scene which ends up
illuminating a girl's face in a particularly lovely way.

There's plenty of emotion in photography, too, but it tends to come as a
result of skilful use of that medium's own characteristics: spontaneity,
completeness, and presence. Press photographs are a great example, exploiting
the medium's immediacy to steal a few, shocking milliseconds of reality. That
applies even to powerful landscape photographs, in the opposite way: They are
very carefully staged, manipulated and contrived, all simply a way to align
the limitations of the medium (only 1/500th of a second to make an image) with
a particularly beautiful instant of passing space-time.

------
laserDinosaur
Someone in the industry told me it felt like they were watching actors in a
stage show, and not in a good way. All sense of immersion and suspension of
belief was eroded away into watching people in costumes fight on fake sets
against CG monsters. He said with such a high frame rate it's almost like live
footage has reached the uncanny-valley. It seems quite on par with the
statement from Entertainment Weekly.

~~~
shock-value
This is exactly right. I don't understand why some people are jumping up and
down as though this is some massive technological and artistic advance. TV has
been able to do 60fps for decades (and HD, digital 60fps for at least one
decade) and yet no television dramas (and even most comedies) are
filmed/broadcasted at that rate. Why? Exactly the reasons you describe.

High framerates are great for live events and reality-based programming.
24-30fps is suited to taking the viewer "out of reality" into an artistically
constructed world. This is not going to change because some movie theaters get
48fps projectors.

~~~
robterrell
Indeed, Douglas Trumbull invented Showscan in the early 80's. It was a high
FPS 65mm film process, and it resulted in a overly "real" subjective effect
very much this article is complaining about. Showscan was demoed at some
conferences and some critics (Ebert?) were big fans but it was never used for
a feature film (although he tried to get the studio to use for his film
Brainstorm). It was positioned against IMAX and lost (although to my eye, IMAX
suffers greatly from strobing and could use a frame rate boost).

But there's something else going on with the Hobbit. I watched the trailer,
which is definitely not 48 fps, and more than once I got the feeling of
watching an actor-on-a-stage-on-video. This might be more related to the use
of RED cameras than the framerate.

Using my film degree about once a year here on HN!

------
Schlaefer
It's redirecting me to google.com (from Germany)

    
    
        ZDXI.OnCountryRedirect("DE", "http://www.google.com");
    

and <http://static.ziffdavis.com/js/zdcc/1.0.0/zdcc.js>

Deactivate JS or googlecache:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:iZmzpFT...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:iZmzpFT7cIkJ:www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2403746,00.asp&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk)

~~~
jabiko
It seems like you can override the IP check by using a GET parameter.

[http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2403746,00.asp?ip=this-...](http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2403746,00.asp?ip=this-
is-idiotic)

~~~
lucaspiller
Careful, you might be arrested.

------
philmcc
Just a personal 48FPS testimonial here...

For some reason I found myself at an IATSE event. IATSE is a union for motion
picture professionals. At the end, they projected a scene, once in 24fps, the
second time in 48fps.

48fps looked "real" to my eyes, insomuch as it looked how I imagine it
would've looked to have been in the room.

Unfortunately, that's not the look I like in films and movies. It truly looked
like a soap opera.

There's a chance that 30 minutes into the Hobbit, peoples eyes will acclimate,
and you'll forget, but I think those initial scenes are going to be a bit of a
disappointment.

~~~
__david__
My friend saw the 10 minute Hobbit footage and said the exact same thing.

He felt like he was looking at a play of the Hobbit--watching costumed people
walk around a set. He couldn't get it to shift into that "watching a movie"
place in his mind.

But you're right--it might be that 10 minutes is just not long enough to
adjust. I'm skeptical but I do want to try it.

~~~
philmcc
I half wonder if PJ has just spent so much time seeing his movies as they are
being made,that he's frustrated that audiences don't see them -that way-...
maybe on set is normal for him, and in order to get the audience to see
"normally"...

...48FPS would nail it right on the head.

------
astrodust
48p and 60p can't come too soon. I'm with Ebert on this one. The biggest
problem with film is we're stuck with 1920s frame rates that end up destroying
a lot of otherwise impressive shots. It's just too jerky under a variety of
common circumstances.

~~~
Zenst
I agree, I'd take framerate over resolution and beyond a doubt I'd take
framerate over 3D (though when I tried 3D It in all effect just looked like 3
layers paralexing).

~~~
astrodust
A lot of "3D" films are basically parallax because they add in the 3D after
the fact, painting it on in a special compositing tool. Only a few live action
films are genuinely shot in 3D from the start, like Avatar.

I've found that computer animated films often translate better to 3D since,
obviously, it doesn't require any fancy cameras.

------
mih
How does a high frame rate movie actually look like? Some good samples for
those interested here - <http://www.48fpsmovies.com/high-frame-rate-example-
videos/>

------
barrkel
60fps isn't even that good in video games, but so many gamers these days have
been raised on 60Hz consoles and PC monitors. They don't remember the old days
of CRTs, where 60Hz was painfully flickery, and you wanted at least 75Hz to
relieve eye strain. 75 or 85Hz with corresponding fps was much slicker than
60Hz.

IMO the purists complaining about 48Hz are complaining about a subconscious
association, perhaps a bit like the smell of popcorn in the lobby. It's not an
objective complaint, but as a subjective one it may be shared by a large
proportion of the audience. Hard to tell until someone takes the risk with a
broad audience, like Jackson is doing here.

~~~
efraim
The reason a CRT seems to flicker with low refresh rates is because the screen
goes dark in between beam traces, a LCD does not. So a static image on a LCD
with 60 Hz refresh rate is stable whereas a CRT would flicker at that rate.

~~~
philwelch
60Hz also synchronizes with the 60Hz flicker of fluorescent lights, which is
especially bothersome.

~~~
ars
Just how old are your lights? Fluorescent lights haven't flickered at line
frequency in at least a decade.

Well, obviously old fixtures still exist, but if you have one in your office
it's time to get rid of it. The new ones are much more energy efficient, but
more importantly they are more pleasing to the eye.

(Specifically get a T8 fixture, not a T12.)

~~~
philwelch
It's been almost a decade since I used a CRT, either.

------
jfb
I'll reserve judgement. Technical advances are of course an integral part of
film history, but the idea that absolute fidelity to some Platonic ideal of an
image is an end in and of itself is purest bafflegab. You don't get to throw
away the existing language of film just because some consumer electronics
consortium wants to sell new TV sets (see: stereo projection).

It doesn't help the case that the last time this subject came up with a big
tentpole release it was _Dinosaurs Fighting Helicopters_.

~~~
roc
> _"the idea that absolute fidelity to some Platonic ideal of an image is an
> end in and of itself is purest bafflegab"_

Particularly in artistic media, where emotion and tone are regularly conveyed
through distortions.

48/60p may be great for some projects. Their technical advantages may enable
shots that simply can't be done well at 24fps. But even that does not make
them inherently "better". Merely the right tool for a given job.

As there's no technological requirement for us to use either one format or the
other, I see absolutely no reason we can't go forward allowing people to
choose technology on an as-appropriate basis without slandering particular
choices as illegitimate in all cases.

------
agildehaus
I'll be seeing The Hobbit at a theatre that doesn't feature 48fps first,
because I know I'll enjoy it.

My experience with 48fps is exactly the same as my experience with those 120Hz
televisions -- any significant motion looks like it's been artificially sped
up. Anyone know why this is?

~~~
stephengillie
This effect is often called the "Soap-opera effect" because so many of us
first noticed it on 1980s dramatic afternoon television shows. Weren't they
also filmed at 24fps like everything else?

~~~
illuminate
60i video, because it was much cheaper than film and no processing delays.

------
fosap
I have a way higher hopes for higher framerates than for higher resolutions.
I'm more excited about 48 Hz or 60 Hz than about 4K or 8K.

But I can't read the article. It redirects to google.

~~~
ImprovedSilence
Really? I'm still in love with the higher definition. I'm a big sports fan,
and I could never go back to a lower resolution. Especially for hockey, my
goodness does HD make it look soo much better. Higher frame rates would be
nice too, don't get me wrong, but I think resolution is more important to me.
(I could be wrong, I'll let you know when they start shooting airing sports at
60fps)

~~~
MichaelGG
I think he's referring to even higher resolutions, above 1080p (approximately
2K in resolution, since it's 1080 x1 920). At the moment, there's no consumer
(as in, under a few $K) displays that'll even show 4K (3840 x 2160), so going
even higher to 8K is not really helping anyone out, any time soon. Whereas all
these systems are capable of running at 60fps, so that's an improvement you
can actually use.

Apart from that, we've been stuck at 24fps for a long time. It's very
noticeable on any film that has any action in: jarring, blurred, choppy
sequences.

------
protomyth
There is a bit of a flaw in this article. A 24 fps film projector displays 1
full frame at a time, there is no scan line. This is very different from TV
and the CRT originated scan line. Comparing frame rates between TV broadcast
and Film projection is flawed.

~~~
shardling
The article discusses exactly this, so I'm not sure what your issue is.

~~~
protomyth
It talks about scan lines and 3:2 pull down but does not mention an actual
film projector displays the whole frame at once where TV's have scan lines.

~~~
zaphar
He discusses the difference between 1080i and 1080p which is exactly the
difference you are talking about. Interlaced vs whole frame.

Not all TV's have scan lines. Any that are 1080p do not interlace.

~~~
protomyth
You and the person voting me down seem to be missing the point of what I'm
saying.

A piece of film is illuminated and shown fully on the screen. There is no scan
line.

A TV is drawn one line at a time. There is a scan line.

Interlaced vs Non-Interlaced has nothing to do with what I am talking about as
both draw one line at a time. Interlaced just means it draws half the first
tick and half the second tick. Non-interlaced draws the full frame each tick.
Both draw a line at a time.

~~~
__david__
No, NTSC on a CRT is drawn one line at a time (it is physically scanned by the
electron gun). But TV is not NTSC any more and CRTs are dead/dying.

Your HD flatscreen (plasma or LCD) does not draw one line at a time. HD is
decoded into a framebuffer and that framebuffer is drawn on the screen in some
hardware specific way. It may be rectangles, or the whole screen, or different
vertical/horizontal slices (with very high refresh rates so you don't see
flicker).

Edit: Moveover, "film" is almost always digital nowadays (I don't think I've
seen a non-digital projection in the last 5 years) which means that the
picture gets to the screen via some form of LCD projection. So your home TV
and film are basically the same at this point. You would've been right 10
years ago, though.

------
jerf
Seems like we have this debate every time someone takes a step forward. It was
amusing the first couple of times, but really, we're still arguing that the
particular technical limitations of the _last_ generation really were The One
True Cinema Format? That time, we got it for sure, not like all the previous
iterations where we thought that, this time for sure.

Pfooui. Can't believe we're even having this discussion. You'll take your
higher resolution and higher frame rates and in five years you'll have
carefully edited your memory so that you knew all along that it was a great
idea and you sure were telling everybody about how awesome it was going to be
against all the naysayers.

------
Keyframe
I have experimented a bit with this, and this is what I can tell you about it.
As soon as DPs get a hang of it, there will be no more talk about it except in
"hipster" circles like vinyl or celluloid. Getting lighting and motion blur
(especially motion blur) to look and feel the same is something DPs will need
to adjust to. Only thing I am worried about now are render times. There are
now 48 frames per second and twice as that if in 3D.

------
justjimmy
"Blurring simulates fluidity, sharpness simulates stuttering."

With a high FPS (in movies), each frame is less blurry, everything becomes
sharper hence the 'uncanny' feeling.

And you can't compare video games and motion pictures - there's no blurring in
video games at all. (Take a screenshot in them, compare and you'll see why)

~~~
HeXetic
> there's no blurring in video games at all.

Most video games since a few years ago render frames with a degree of
artificial motion blur to simulate speed. This is particularly the case with
racing games but also exists in first-person shooters (moreso on the PC than
on consoles, since rapid mouse movements translate to rapid screen motion).

~~~
justjimmy
Are you think of in situations (shooters) where you get like hit by a
flashbang and your screen goes all blurry and shaky? That kind of blur? Or is
the blur happening during just 'normal' firefight/gameplay all the time?

~~~
HeXetic
No, not that kind of effect; there is genuine "motion" motion blur available
in games in response to rapid movement (e.g., sprinting in Battlefield or Mass
Effect - the scenery closest to the player [and therefore moving most rapidly
relative to them] blurs in the appropriate direction) or rapid orientation
change (Portal 2 does this; I think Mirror's Edge did so also).

------
LinaLauneBaer
Strange: When I click on the link I am automatically redirected to google.com.
Is this only me?

~~~
livebeef
Same here, I found this line in the html source:

    
    
      ZDXI.OnCountryRedirect("DE", "http://www.google.com");

~~~
fosap
Why the hell? Why?

------
spyder
Here is the 48fps and 24fps sample for comparison:
<http://www.mediafire.com/?bpg35wg93vusryu>

