21 ms·

> With fps, again, there are issues related to the eye, how the "afterimage" works, when visual information becomes too distracting or overbearing, etc. There

by dpark 10y ago

> With fps, again, there are issues related to the eye, how the "afterimage" works, when visual information becomes too distracting or overbearing, etc. There is no physiological phenomenon that makes low frame rates more natural or appealing. The real world doesn't have a frame rate. The preference for low frame rate is learned. No one ever selected 24 fps because it was better. They selected it because it was technically feasible at a reasonable cost and crossed the line into acceptable fps. > Note also that we, for example, have been technically lowering the resolution of photographs (smoothing the skin) to make portraits appear more pleasant since forever. It's one of the main staples in fashion and magazine portrait photography. This is wildly different. Firstly because most things on screen are not human skin and secondly because we've been smoothing skin in real life for centuries with makeup. The desire to see skin as smooth and flawless doesn't mean that people generally want the world to be blurry.

coldtea 10y ago
>Firstly because most things on screen are not human skin Most, no, just the most important (actors' faces).
- dpark 10y ago
  Depends on the movie. Pretty sure pores weren't problematic for Avatar, or March of the Penguins, or many other movies. For the majority of movies that do focus primarily on humans, there are typically still scenes (e.g. outdoor panoramas) that clearly benefit from high resolution. And a competent film crew should be able to soften the look if it is appropriate. It's slightly absurd to suggest that 4K is the max resolution we should allow because some films might be diminished by the use of 8k.
  - modfodder 10y ago
    It takes more than just a competent film crew to adjust for 8k and HDR. New lighting, makeup and set design techniques have to make up for the higher fidelity. Suddenly the line where makeup is applied is highly visible, as happened during the switch over to HD (this led to makeup artists switching to air-brushing in the early days). Set design needs to look even more real than before (if you've ever been on set, you probably noticed how fake everything looks, yet on screen the flaws disappear). This will take time and experimentation. And money, money that the industry really doesn't seem willing to spend yet as they've spent tons moving over to a 4k pipeline. It'll take a blockbuster success from someone like Cameron releasing an 8k HDR film for the industry to even seriously entertain the idea (and they'll be more gun shy since the 3D push wasn't as successful as they hoped). And unless annual attendance shrinks drastically, they have little reason for the extra expense (and theater owners won't want to bear the cost of the upgrade since they're still working on the upgrade to 4k). Douglass Trumbull, a pioneer in cinema techniques, is developing technology to allow mixed frame rates and resolution. So those panorama shots could be 8k HFR, while maybe the close up shots of the actors are 4k 24fps. It will be interesting to see if this actually works in a film that requires suspension of disbelief. I wouldn't hold my breath for this to reach cinemas in large numbers anytime soon. All this is to say, it is much more complicated than you make it out to be.
    - dpark 10y ago
      > It takes more than just a competent film crew to adjust for 8k and HDR.... Your list boils down to "use it appropriately and don't assume old techniques are appropriate". Obviously there is a lot of learning the industry would need to do to use 8k well. > Douglass Trumbull, a pioneer in cinema techniques, is developing technology to allow mixed frame rates and resolution. So those panorama shots could be 8k HFR, while maybe the close up shots of the actors are 4k 24fps. It will be interesting to see if this actually works in a film that requires suspension of disbelief. I wouldn't hold my breath for this to reach cinemas in large numbers anytime soon. Sounds interesting, and promising, though I agree that it seems unlikely to be widespread anytime soon, even if it works beautifully. > All this is to say, it is much more complicated than you make it out to be. That's an odd comment to end on. At no point did I ever say it was simple. I said it's absurd to treat 4k like it's the pinnacle and anything beyond that is somehow actually a loss.
      - modfodder 10y ago
        > All this is to say, it is much more complicated than you make it out to be. Sorry, I think this was meant for another comment, not yours, as I don't see the sentence I thought I was responding to in yours. >Your list boils down to "use it appropriately and don't assume old techniques are appropriate". Obviously there is a lot of learning the industry would need to do to use 8k well. This takes more than a "competent film crew". A competent film crew should have no problem working in well established techniques and workflows but wouldn't necessarily be prepared to venture outside that. If I was directing a production in 8k, HDR, VR, 3D or any edge cases, I want more than a competent film crew. I want creative thinkers and problem solvers. I want crew members who have experience on a wide range of projects, everything from digital video to imax (you might be surprised at how often even the crews of big budget productions have limited experience outside the status quo). In the early days of the RED camera, the best footage came from cinematographers who had worked in lower budget HD productions, not film cinematographers. The HD crews had already been working in similar workflows, but the competent film crews were flummoxed by this one piece of equipment and even though they could see the results on set, they would still send back footage that was way underexposed and often unusable (and this was often from very well respected and experienced cinematographers). I believe few people in the industry believe that 4k is the pinnacle. But most do believe that the technology to move to 8k is not even close to ready or worth the added cost, that workflows for 4k are just now becoming standard (the majority of projects are still finished in 2k, although that will change with distributors like Netflix now requiring 4k delivery). And that audiences won't care enough about beyond 4k enough to pay extra. Are you ready to pay extra for an 8k screening? The theaters have to recoup the cost for new projectors while they're still paying off the brand new 4k installs. Oh, and there aren't many cinema lenses that can cover an 8k image (especially since many DPs prefer the quality of older lenses). There are old timers that lament the loss of film and resist moving from 24fps. But they'll be replaced by the younger generation who will be more open to experimentation and pushing the medium beyond its limits. The industry is driven first and foremost by profits, so once the pencil pushers see profit in 8k and HDR, the whole industry will move in that direction.
malka 10y ago
With higher FPS i feel like i see more of the flaw on acting. Like im watching theater. I think low FPS increases the expérience by letting our brain fill some gaps.

by dpark 10y ago

coldtea 10y ago

>Firstly because most things on screen are not human skin Most, no, just the most important (actors' faces).

dpark 10y ago
Depends on the movie. Pretty sure pores weren't problematic for Avatar, or March of the Penguins, or many other movies. For the majority of movies that do focus primarily on humans, there are typically still scenes (e.g. outdoor panoramas) that clearly benefit from high resolution. And a competent film crew should be able to soften the look if it is appropriate. It's slightly absurd to suggest that 4K is the max resolution we should allow because some films might be diminished by the use of 8k.
- modfodder 10y ago
  It takes more than just a competent film crew to adjust for 8k and HDR. New lighting, makeup and set design techniques have to make up for the higher fidelity. Suddenly the line where makeup is applied is highly visible, as happened during the switch over to HD (this led to makeup artists switching to air-brushing in the early days). Set design needs to look even more real than before (if you've ever been on set, you probably noticed how fake everything looks, yet on screen the flaws disappear). This will take time and experimentation. And money, money that the industry really doesn't seem willing to spend yet as they've spent tons moving over to a 4k pipeline. It'll take a blockbuster success from someone like Cameron releasing an 8k HDR film for the industry to even seriously entertain the idea (and they'll be more gun shy since the 3D push wasn't as successful as they hoped). And unless annual attendance shrinks drastically, they have little reason for the extra expense (and theater owners won't want to bear the cost of the upgrade since they're still working on the upgrade to 4k). Douglass Trumbull, a pioneer in cinema techniques, is developing technology to allow mixed frame rates and resolution. So those panorama shots could be 8k HFR, while maybe the close up shots of the actors are 4k 24fps. It will be interesting to see if this actually works in a film that requires suspension of disbelief. I wouldn't hold my breath for this to reach cinemas in large numbers anytime soon. All this is to say, it is much more complicated than you make it out to be.
  - dpark 10y ago
    > It takes more than just a competent film crew to adjust for 8k and HDR.... Your list boils down to "use it appropriately and don't assume old techniques are appropriate". Obviously there is a lot of learning the industry would need to do to use 8k well. > Douglass Trumbull, a pioneer in cinema techniques, is developing technology to allow mixed frame rates and resolution. So those panorama shots could be 8k HFR, while maybe the close up shots of the actors are 4k 24fps. It will be interesting to see if this actually works in a film that requires suspension of disbelief. I wouldn't hold my breath for this to reach cinemas in large numbers anytime soon. Sounds interesting, and promising, though I agree that it seems unlikely to be widespread anytime soon, even if it works beautifully. > All this is to say, it is much more complicated than you make it out to be. That's an odd comment to end on. At no point did I ever say it was simple. I said it's absurd to treat 4k like it's the pinnacle and anything beyond that is somehow actually a loss.
    - modfodder 10y ago
      > All this is to say, it is much more complicated than you make it out to be. Sorry, I think this was meant for another comment, not yours, as I don't see the sentence I thought I was responding to in yours. >Your list boils down to "use it appropriately and don't assume old techniques are appropriate". Obviously there is a lot of learning the industry would need to do to use 8k well. This takes more than a "competent film crew". A competent film crew should have no problem working in well established techniques and workflows but wouldn't necessarily be prepared to venture outside that. If I was directing a production in 8k, HDR, VR, 3D or any edge cases, I want more than a competent film crew. I want creative thinkers and problem solvers. I want crew members who have experience on a wide range of projects, everything from digital video to imax (you might be surprised at how often even the crews of big budget productions have limited experience outside the status quo). In the early days of the RED camera, the best footage came from cinematographers who had worked in lower budget HD productions, not film cinematographers. The HD crews had already been working in similar workflows, but the competent film crews were flummoxed by this one piece of equipment and even though they could see the results on set, they would still send back footage that was way underexposed and often unusable (and this was often from very well respected and experienced cinematographers). I believe few people in the industry believe that 4k is the pinnacle. But most do believe that the technology to move to 8k is not even close to ready or worth the added cost, that workflows for 4k are just now becoming standard (the majority of projects are still finished in 2k, although that will change with distributors like Netflix now requiring 4k delivery). And that audiences won't care enough about beyond 4k enough to pay extra. Are you ready to pay extra for an 8k screening? The theaters have to recoup the cost for new projectors while they're still paying off the brand new 4k installs. Oh, and there aren't many cinema lenses that can cover an 8k image (especially since many DPs prefer the quality of older lenses). There are old timers that lament the loss of film and resist moving from 24fps. But they'll be replaced by the younger generation who will be more open to experimentation and pushing the medium beyond its limits. The industry is driven first and foremost by profits, so once the pencil pushers see profit in 8k and HDR, the whole industry will move in that direction.

malka 10y ago

With higher FPS i feel like i see more of the flaw on acting. Like im watching theater. I think low FPS increases the expérience by letting our brain fill some gaps.