Opinions on High Frame Rate films? (I think that's what it's called)

M

myownself

Personally, I think it makes things look to real. Before I knew that it was an actually way of filming, I just thought it was a show or film that was poorly edited. It makes everything look like a soap opera to me. I also think it makes a lot of acting look cheesy.

I want to know all your opinions because obviously there are people that really like this still of film. For example, look at the show Doctor Who. Everybody seems to love it but I get turned off by the HFR film.
 
Have you actually seen anything that is 48frames per second (HFR). The Hobbit I believe is the only mainstream example of it and I thought it looked amazing.

I'm not sure if you were implying it, but Doctor Who does not have HFR.

It sounds to me a little like you've just chosen some of the critic reviews of HFR as 'soap opera' is one of these commonly used comparisons. However NOT A SINGLE real person I have spoken to about it said that they felt it was a soap opera and most enjoyed it. Ill be seeing the rest at HFR of The Hobbit trilogy.
 
My sister-in-law's parents have something called a Smart TV that has an HFR setting on it. I heard that the Hobbit was filmed in HFR but my theater was only showing it in Digital and 3D.
 
I saw it in 24 fps, and not in 3D and I have little doubt that seeing it in 48 or 3D (and god knows if both) would've ruined the experience for me.
 
On the TV it is a refresh rate setting, often something like 200Hz, for example. It essentially looks sort of similar to HFR shooting, however it is the TV making up the extra frames, rather than it actually being shot at a higher frame rate. The Hobbit is the only theatrically released movie to date to be actually shot in HFR.

The thing about your TV is you can quite easily turn it off.
 
As far as tv's go, 60hz being the standard refresh rate, newer tvs have come out with 120hz and 240hz, and I would agree, I don't care for the 120/240hz modes. To me, they are ok for sports, but for movies, they make things look like they are home videos. Just my opinion, of course. At the restaurant I run, we have 120hz LCD tvs. I've turned off the 120hz modes, so they display in standard 60hz.

I haven't had a chance to see the Hobbit in 48p yet, but I'm wanting to see it, so I can come to my own conclusions about it.
 
I personally prefer the higher frame rate, though after watching The Hobbit in 3D, I'd like to have the chance to watch the 2D version at 48fps. I didn't find that the 3D added to the story. The flying pine cone was cool though.
 
Sweetie said:
I personally prefer the higher frame rate, though after watching The Hobbit in 3D, I'd like to have the chance to watch the 2D version at 48fps. I didn't find that the 3D added to the story. The flying pine cone was cool though.
Click to expand...

No where that I've seen so far offered 2D and 48fps
 
There is no 2D 48fps version, the entire purpose of 48fps was for smoother, better 3D without the difficulties and artifacting present in 24fps 3D shooting.
 
Yeah I know there's no 2D 48fps version of the hobbit, hence my "I'd like the chance to watch it". If it was available, I'd have already done it.
 
What are the concrete differences (facts, please, not opinions) between 24fps and 48fps? Sure, for gaming you need higher fps for more accurate aiming etc, but as far as I know, the human eye only needs 24fps, plus I imagine 48fps costs a lot more to do because of how every frame has to be treated, right?
 
MetalRenard said:
What are the concrete differences (facts, please, not opinions) between 24fps and 48fps? Sure, for gaming you need higher fps for more accurate aiming etc, but as far as I know, the human eye only needs 24fps, plus I imagine 48fps costs a lot more to do because of how every frame has to be treated, right?
Click to expand...

It's supposed to make movies look more realistic looking.
 
MetalRenard said:
What are the concrete differences (facts, please, not opinions) between 24fps and 48fps? Sure, for gaming you need higher fps for more accurate aiming etc, but as far as I know, the human eye only needs 24fps, plus I imagine 48fps costs a lot more to do because of how every frame has to be treated, right?
Click to expand...

Even though the human eye and brain perceives 24 fps as continuous movement instead of a slide show, practically ayone is able to tell the difference between say 24 fps and 48 fps, or 48 fps and 100 fps. The main difference being that with a higher fps, all the movement on the screen is more fluid. This can be seen for example in panoramic shots of the landscape: in 24 fps, the movement of the camera doesn't feel that continuous and fluid - especially if the movement of the camera is relatively fast - in contrast with 48 fps, where the movement seems to be a lot smoother.
 
MetalRenard said:
What are the concrete differences (facts, please, not opinions) between 24fps and 48fps? Sure, for gaming you need higher fps for more accurate aiming etc, but as far as I know, the human eye only needs 24fps, plus I imagine 48fps costs a lot more to do because of how every frame has to be treated, right?
Click to expand...

The main difference is in the amount of motion blur. 24 fps is traditionally shot using a 180 degree shutter, giving a shutter speed of 1/48th of a second. If 48 fps is shot with a 180 degree shutter, the shutter speed is 1/96th of a second. However, I believe The Hobbit was shot using a 270 degree shutter, giving a shutter speed of 1/64th of a second.

In any case, this increase in shutter speed makes for a sharper image when either the subject or the camera is moving. One of the reasons some filmmakers are interested in using it is to make fast pans and camera movements easier for the audience to track, particularly when projected on large screens.

This increase in sharpness can make composited SFX easier, because there is less motion blur to match. The down side is twice as many frames have to be composited, and also generated in the case of CGI. Also, if any by-hand touch up to the effects are required, it will take significantly longer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top