I mean Billy Lynn was shit.
Pans in 24 FPS are moderately disgusting to look at.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Cinematographer Dion Bebee confirms 120 FPS framerate for Ang Lee's 'Gemini Man'
- Thread starter jack_package_200
- Start date
I mean Billy Lynn was shit.
Pans in 24 FPS are moderately disgusting to look at.
Nah.
The moment I saw videos at 60hz, I found that I immediately preferred it.
The clarity is unbeatable.
Only moderately? I've found their jerkiness awful, even before I regularly saw higher frame rate videos.
Anything that moves in continuous motion looks great. The only thing that looks awful is CG stuff, where the extra motion resolution completely destroys.
I'll give you that. They do look bad at times but for everything else, 24p please.
Couldn't watch thw Hobbit trilogy, would have a headache from this too. My mind takes it as fast forwarding all the time.
Starring Clive "box office poison" Owen? Yeah good luck with that.
I never bothered to watch Ang Lee's previous 120fps movie, but I'm still kinda interesting in somehow experiencing that once. It's kinda strange that he's all in on that considering the handful of theaters around the world that can show that.
I never bothered to watch Ang Lee's previous 120fps movie, but I'm still kinda interesting in somehow experiencing that once. It's kinda strange that he's all in on that considering the handful of theaters around the world that can show that.
On a regular TV or (god forbid) a computer monitor? Sure. In a theater? Nah, they look just fine. 24fps is just enough to create the illusion of a smooth pan when it is actually correctly presented instead of going through a 3:2 pulldown for TV.
Is there even a HFR home release of that? With that framerate I assume it would be digital-only. And I wonder how huge it would be, even with modern compression.
Why don't these directors just choose 60fps so that it can have a shot at being more than just a gimmick released in only a few theaters? Every TV in existence could play a 60fps film, so they could at least release it to audiences at home, but 48, 120, etc. just seems like a waste of time. Especially when the director's preferred version is 4K/3D, and the UHD standard doesn't even support 3D.
The UHD Blu-ray had a 60fps version of it.
The UHD Blu-ray had a 60fps version of it.
Last edited:
I really need to see Billy Lynn in full, but you can only see the 60fps ver if you buy the 4k HDR UHD
I'm still optimistic about HFR
I'm still optimistic about HFR
HFR requires a new visual approach which Lee, Cameron et al are trying to figure out. My guess is that it requires a more immersive, intimate filming style to lean into the realism of HFR.
No. Panning always looks like shit.
And essentially all current TVs support 24p when watching blu-rays.
Honestly the incessant defense I see of 24fps plus negativity over higher framerates is just annoying to watch. There's nothing inherent to that framerate that makes it good or superior. Honestly no different than the poor misguided souls that attempt to argue that 30fps is better than 60fps on the gaming side.
As I always say in threads of this sort:
24fps was originally picked because it was THE CHEAPEST FRAMERATE THEY COULD SYNC SOUND TO.
120fps isn't an issue here since it can be perfectly downsampled to 60fps. And one advantage of filming in 120fps over 60fps is that it can also be perfectly downsampled to 24fps, since 120 is a multiple of 24. That works out just fine for conventional theater projection.
James Cameron would be smart to do the same for the Avatar sequels, although I do wonder what would be the cost increase in regards to the CGI rendering.
Last edited:
OP
OP
I always thought the Hobbit was an odd choice to showcase HFR on film. I felt like a mid-budget action movie (or even a short film) would be a more interesting choice - I'd love to see someone like Gareth Evans try it.
I hope he does. Maybe he could get away with only rendering 60 frames and then use newest AI algorithms to "interpolate"/ create the rest. I would also like variable frame rates in movies. Pans and action scenes in 120fps while mellow scenes could go down as low as 24fps as a stylistic choice. If one is pushing the medium forward then as well make it even more flexible.
For general information: the new hdmi 2.1 standard features/supports 4K/120fps. And these TVs are being sold later this year. Next year nearly every new tv will support 4K/120.
My feelings as well. It was horrible and the worst version of that bs tru motion effect shit they do with TVs now.
And I'm def curious what it looks like, but more like I want to check it out for a few minutes, not go into nyc and have to sit through 2 hours worth for $25.
I don't know about variable framerates. I hate that in video games, even when they change between locked 30 to 60. It just fucks my brain up. After my eyes get used to 60, 30 looks way slower and choppier than normal. This is one thing I don't like about the newer Mortal Kombat and Injustice games (all the "cinematic" actions run at 30fps). It even annoys me when video games that normally run at 30fps decide to run their menus or maps at 60.
Seeing this clip my issue is more with the camera and cinematography than the framerate. Which might be things people need to figure out with higher fps in movies. The shots in which the camera is closer and on the same level with the soldiers behind the wall, looks good in my opinion. Other shots and cuts makes it look quite boring.
Good Point. Mhhh. Maybe the first minutes need to gradually up the frame rate. For me the hobbit felt way to fucking fast from the first minute, like it was on fast forward, and that feeling never really got away. Panned shots looked amazing. I'm sure Cameron will find a clever way to ease the audience into higher frame rates.
waste of time, effort and money when the human eyes can only see 30 per eye, and on top of that, you have to really focus to combine their efforts for 60 and even then it's rarely stable. There's a reason why it's called "Cinematic 30" ffs...
It'll be interesting to see how Cameron tackles high framerate. He hasn't even confirmed the framerate of the Avatar movies. Whatever it is, I hope it's not 48fps, since that spells doom for video.
It's cinematic 30fps because it's just above the bare minimum framerate for the illusion of motion.
I enjoyed that Billy Lynn was going for 120 FPS, but then it turned out the movie wasn't great so I still ended up not watching it. Having a high framerate and science fiction sounds possibly amazing, but I'm having my doubts the movie will be any good. It's also not really a cast that consistently star in good movies.
You're right on about the sound thing, and it also has the side benefit of being fewer total frames of film to have to use so it's cheaper. And ya, certain panning speeds are not the best thing in 24fps.
But, I'd consider the length of time 24fps has been ingrained as "filmic" to the general population to be an inherent strength of that framerate and why it's been so hard to transition beyond. I almost think you'd need a coordinated effort to switch many types of media at once in order to get mass momentum to establish it.
HFR is a distracting effect in movies. Everything looks extra fake.
Unless the next generation of audiences is raised on loads of HFR content, they'll probably find it weird too.
Unless the next generation of audiences is raised on loads of HFR content, they'll probably find it weird too.
I think that is only true for a very narrow part of the moviegoing audience. When I went to watch The Hobbit with friends, in a full theater, nobody was convulsing and vomiting from the framerate. Nobody cared, one way or the other. I doubt most people even noticed there was something different about the picture. "OMGZ it look so smooth, like a soap opera." Nah. Nobody cared.
It's really frankly no different from video games, almost all casual gamers aren't consciously aware of framerate differences, whether something is 30 or 60. They don't care, unless the framerate is tanking beyond what's acceptable.
I'm all in on HFR but yeah it looks jarring whenever there's cg characters or heavily makeup-designed characters on screen. Not sure how to mitigate that other than perhaps lighting adjustments and better modeling/animation.
It's the fake shit but that one plugin Smooth Video Project you can use with vlc is a trip for older films and certainly elevates some scenes, the miniature flyovers in Blade Runner look incredible with it enabled, so smooth!. You get some nasty artifacting in cutaways and other conditions but it's still a nice novelty to check out and get a glimpse of what the future might hold for films using HFR.
It's the fake shit but that one plugin Smooth Video Project you can use with vlc is a trip for older films and certainly elevates some scenes, the miniature flyovers in Blade Runner look incredible with it enabled, so smooth!. You get some nasty artifacting in cutaways and other conditions but it's still a nice novelty to check out and get a glimpse of what the future might hold for films using HFR.
I would have loved to see his last movie in 120 + 3D, but it was playing in a grand total of two theaters in the US.
Hope more theaters have the tech ready for this time around.
Hope more theaters have the tech ready for this time around.
Love cinematographers who play with frame-rate. The whole 24fps golden standard needs to be abolished. This is 2019 baby, and the line between video and film is no longer necessary.
Will Smith being attached to a project sorta makes me wary though. Never thought I'd say that, but dude has really had some duds.
Will Smith being attached to a project sorta makes me wary though. Never thought I'd say that, but dude has really had some duds.
Good luck finding a theater showing it at that framerate. This would probably end up being a very limited run in select theaters in 120 and shown normally everywhere else.
That's an exaggeration, but using HFR to shoot the pan and then converting to 24 can eliminate a lot of the blurring and judder that happens when panning at great distances or too quickly in a long shot. Like anything else, HFR is a potentially useful tool to improve filmmaking, but shooting an entire movie in it is always a mistake. Even for James Cameron, as we will see in a couple years.
That's an exaggeration, but using HFR to shoot the pan and then converting to 24 can eliminate a lot of the blurring and judder that happens when panning at great distances or too quickly in a long shot. Like anything else, HFR is a potentially useful tool to improve filmmaking, but shooting an entire movie in it is always a mistake. Even for James Cameron, as we will see in a couple years.
Apparently the movie is really bad. It sounds cool, but all early reactions and rumors have said its really rough. Its the kinda sci fi stuff that really appeals to me, but not bracing for a good outcome.
High frame rate is never going to catch on. No one liked it when the Hobbit did it. Like 10% of people at best said it was interesting experiment, while everyone else said it was terrible. The 90% were right. It was barely watchable in 48fps.
High frame rate is never going to catch on. No one liked it when the Hobbit did it. Like 10% of people at best said it was interesting experiment, while everyone else said it was terrible. The 90% were right. It was barely watchable in 48fps.
