4 ms·
> Movies have true natural motion blur. In addition, researchers have performed tests and there's something about films being as slow (motion blurry) as they a
by erichocean 10y ago
> Movies have true natural motion blur.
In addition, researchers have performed tests and there's something about films being as slow (motion blurry) as they are that contributes to them seeming like fiction. 24fps is the slowest you can run a film with lip sync—any slower and your brain has trouble associating the sound with the imagery.
18fps is the slowest you can run a silent film and still distinguish continuous motion.
30fps and you start to lose the "dreamlike" effect, and at 60 fields per second (television), it's lost completely.
- kazinator 10y agoI've transcoded movies to 18 fps (and lower resolution) to decode on an under-powered smartphone. They were perfectly watchable. I don't remember any "whoa, odd lip sync" moments. I was pleased with and surprised by the results.
- galago 10y agoThe standard-known-framerates predate video--both CRT video and modern displays. Its useful to consider how a traditional mechanical movie projector worked with flashing stopped film vs. a persistent modern display. I would love to hear more from someone who understands modern video formats. Is a 'frame' still a discrete displayed entity? My understanding was that it is not in many cases.
- TrevorJ 10y agoFor the most part, yes, each frame is displayed as a discrete entity. NTSC (standard def TV) was an interlaced format so every other line was updated at a time, which led to a much smoother feel. There are progressive and interlaced flavors of HD, but the progressive (non-interlaced) is the most popular format for dramas, while I believe some live events are broadcast in the 1080i interlaced flavor of HD.
- galago 10y agoIsn't the emission of light from modern displays much more continuous, which is why cats now see what's happening?
- aaron695 10y agoCartoon have been traditionally 12 FPS?
- agumonkey 10y agoLast point made me cringe so hard a few years ago when all TVs were to have their (100|200)Hz mode so every movie now looks like straight out of Pixar. Hyper smooth, hyper real and hyper fake all at the same time.
- voltagex_ 10y agoThat's interpolated though - I wonder what it'd look like if you had an actual 200fps source (and the ability to play it)
- agumonkey 10y agoTrue, I forgot that. I think I've seen one 48fps (maybe first Peter Jackson effort to push this) film and the results wasn't different from interpolated 100Hz TVs, the "movie" looked like a professional documentary. Crisp and dead.
- gambiting 10y agoI saw the first Hobbit in 48fps and that was the first time I ever wanted to walk out of the cinema - was literally unpleasant to watch, my brain was telling me that everything is playing too fast and that audio should be desyncing from video, but it never did. Maybe I would get used to it if all films were made in 48fps, but I certainly can't recommend it after that one experience.
- agumonkey 10y agoSome people say we reject non 24 fps out of ingrained habits, I don't subscribe to this point of view. Nobody ever complained that a movie failed its purpose because it was filmed at 24fps. Tangent: so many movie are lacking in terms of set, direction, pacing, scenario.. why do people believe tech is the variable to improve...
- MichaelGG 10y agoIs this a human thing, or conditioning? Higher framerates being associated with daytime TV or home recordings and all that. Has anyone done research with film-naive people (hard to find) and seen if they show a preference? 24fps sucks anytime the camera pans. Or in action movies, things just jerk around everywhere.