8 ms·

I wish they'd push for 4K 60FPS so they could upgrade their releases to this in the future.

• cbg0 9y ago
  60 FPS is undesirable for most movies/shows, as opposed to 24 FPS which creates a certain feel that most people prefer.
  • soperj 9y ago
    Most people prefer it because they're used to it, and that's what they feel is "movie like"
    • ryandrake 9y ago
      Is 24FPS the video equivalent of vinyl's so-called "warm" sound?
      • stinkytaco 9y ago
        That's a pretty good analogy. Film is attempting to portray a 3D world in 2D. Even if everything looks really good, it's still fake and 4K at 60fps just draws attention to that fakeness. For sports, news, even documentaries this isn't a huge deal because you are not trying to get people to suspend their disbelief. But for narrative cinema, it can take you right out of the picture.
        • slhck 9y ago
          I don't understand your argument… if the analogy were true, listening to a CD or streaming from the web would make most people think the recording is "fake" or artificial, longing to listen to it on vinyl. Which I guess most people probably haven't had the chance to compare to CD yet.
          • stinkytaco 9y ago
            Well, lots of people do prefer vinyl. One of the things that soured me on the whole "audiophile" thing that I did for a while was the fact that some of my favorite music sounds worse due to the high quality of the playback. Prince's 1999 does not sound good on high quality headphones from a digital source. That and the money and snake-oil. I think some of this will change with time as people get more used to the look and the production gets better (effects, costumes, etc.). Music is also an artificial construct from the get-go, even live, but most narrative film is meant to reflect real life in some way, shape, or form. That means that anything out of place is caught immediately by our expert eyes. All that said, when I was in the industry, one thing I noticed was how easily you could gloss over minor visual details like set dressings or small props (think food on plates), but even the slightest error in sound production was enough to destroy the effect.
            • slhck 9y ago
              Thanks for sharing that insight. I guess that in terms of perception and experiencing – at least when it comes to what consumers are used to –, sound is a different beast altogether. And then you have to differentiate music recordings from sound production for cinematic content, where the latter is of course more about recreating real life. It's funny that 2D stereo still works so well. Perhaps that will also change again, with binaural recordings and object-based audio, but that's something I don't see the music industry using anytime soon.
              • stinkytaco 9y ago
                2D stereo is all about the equipment. We have two ears, headphones have two speakers and cars have two sides (I realize there are often 4 speakers in a car, but the layout impedes the sounds). Considering so few people consume music at home in a high quality setup, but rather on the go with low quality equipment, I don't see that changing. Interesting that the long running debate about Beatles in stereo vs. mono is centered largely around the fact that the music was mixed to be listened to on a mono phonograph speaker that most people had. As far as we've come, low quality is still how music is delivered. There are some good DVD-A or SACD's with 5.1 audio, but they are niche and expensive.
      • slhck 9y ago
        No, I don't think so, not even in terms of being purist arguments that people make. Long version if you're interested in why people some people may think vinyl sounds better than CD: http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl) http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl) It's hard to compare these two arguments since "CD sound" is the standard these days, whereas the "technically inferior" 24fps is still the cinematic standard. So, while people may label 60fps video as "unnatural", nobody would label a CD recording as such. Also, there are people who've never listened to vinyl to this day, whereas almost anybody will be used to the "film" look of 24fps, which has been the de-facto standard for decades.
        • stinkytaco 9y ago
          Music also changed to leverage the recording mediums' "artificiality". There's lots of music that simply could not exist live. Creating a sound that sounds like a live performance (i.e. "natural") is no longer necessarily the goal.
      • giobox 9y ago
        To some extent this analogy works for me, but I'd argue 24FPS can still be a legitimate artistic decision - it can lend a film a more 'dream' like quality, for want of a better description, that the hyper-realism of high frame rate recording can lose. I think this was a large part of the reason so many people didn't like the "feel" of the Hobbit when it was screened in some cinemas at 48FPS. Rather than just assume that more is better, hopefully the future will see frame rate as just one more artistic choice in the same way focal length or aperture is used today to convey different feelings or effects. The warm sound of vinyl on the other hand is just poor sound quality masquerading as something desirable.
    • pwthornton 9y ago
      I don't know if I would say it's just because people are used to it. 24 fps is highly stylized. Movies are shot in 24 fps, wide aspect ratio (often much wider than 16:9), heavily color graded and often have film grain applied to them. It makes them feel quite distinct from normal digital video. I'd argue it is color grading and wide aspect ratio more than anything that makes movies feel like movies, but 24 FPS and it's less lifelike movement also does make them feel distinct. On the other hand, no one argues that sports look a lot better in 60 FPS. For home movies I take, I also want at least 60 FPS, because it preserves reality better. But movies aren't about preserving reality.
  • fenwick67 9y ago
    I think that's why he said "in the future", when people might eventually realize that 60FPS is good.
    • monkeyprojects 9y ago
      All 3 hobbit movies where released in the high frame rate format (albeit 48 frames not 60) and the general complaint was that they felt "soap opera"ry due to the way people felt about them. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarcher/2014/12/16/hate-the-hobbit-in-high-frame-rate-you-just-need-to-see-it-again/#74fb2c875f83 https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarcher/2014/12/16/hate-the-... Is a decent commentary on the issue
      • ashark 9y ago
        My complaint about the 48fps (after going in hyped to see this Spiffy New Format) was that everyone looked like they were speed-walking all the time, which was really distracting. It was like a sped-up silent film. Nothing else I've seen in higher framerates has had that problem, though—just The Hobbit.
        • 83457 9y ago
          Was that the frame rate or just hobbits trying to keep up with Gandalf?
        • ClassyJacket 9y ago
          I didn't feel like that at all and it surprises me anyone did. Do you have the same problem when you see people walk in real life?
          • ashark 9y ago
            No, and other high-fps video I've watched (all on much smaller screens, though) hasn't had that effect. I've wondered if the sensation was generated by some combination of 3D + 48fps + viewing angle. Or maybe something to do with the post-processing particular to that film. My wife reported the same effect—people walking with a casual gait but seemingly slightly sped up. Also affected other movements of people and objects, but walking was the most noticeable. The level of distraction it induced was similar to when audio and video are slightly out of sync (though, to be clear, they were not, that's just the kind of constant low-level distraction in caused) We saw the second one in 24fps 2d (we mostly avoid 3D because we rarely care enough about it to pay extra, but it was the only way to see the first one in 48fps) because we both hated the first one's presentation so much, so I don't know whether we'd have experienced it in that one.
  • baby 9y ago
    Color is undesirable for most movies, as opposed to black&white which creates a certain feel that most people prefer.
  • Justin_K 9y ago
    That's an opinion.
  • Doxin 9y ago
    Honestly, having been immersed in a lot of 60fps content for a while, going to a movie theater and having it be 24fps was rather jarring. It strikes me as odd that they are heavily advertising high quality surround sound and 4k laser projectors while leaving the low hanging fruit of frame rate.
• mattalbie 9y ago
  Increases costs dramatically. 2.5x the data.
  • MichaelGG 9y ago
    Only uncompressed. Especially when there's not a ton of motion.
  • gberger 9y ago
    Not necessarily 2.5x. Video compression is a thing.
    • theelfismike 9y ago
      presumably they're storing the raw, uncompressed video? at the same time, I would imagine storing a couple extra terabytes of data isn't a significant cost in the scheme of a production.
  • hoschicz 9y ago
    video size != costs! Most movie production costs are mostly humans.
    • mattalbie 9y ago
      Video size absolutely correlates with cost. It's not 1:1 but there's a relationship. The entire pipeline masters from uncompressed sources. When you need to color, crop, re-frame, or add VFX, you need to read/render those files at original resolution. Render time (and equipment that can do it) becomes a factor, particularly for post-production vendors, who pass on the cost (and mark it up). True, Post Production is not the largest piece of the pie, but it still adds up to millions of dollars.