4 ms·
The 24 FPS movie rate premise is that the human eye can’t detect the difference of higher frame rates. But the higher frame rate TV demos look amazing and movie
by codefreakxff 7y ago
The 24 FPS movie rate premise is that the human eye can’t detect the difference of higher frame rates. But the higher frame rate TV demos look amazing and movies that are resampled look like crap to people because they CAN see at more than 24 FPS.
I’m not saying that the resampling is right, but I am super questioning this film rate in a digital age.
I’m also questioning the algorithm that just creates a messy blur of nonsense between two frames. Surely we can create a smarter algorithm
- 33mhz 7y ago24FPS is chosen because of the work it engages the brain in; it's a sweet spot between seeing film and seeing a series of pictures.
- mrob 7y agoOzu Yasujirō was famous for his use of static cameras and lack of action scenes. His films are probably the most low-motion mainstream films ever made, which means they do not engage your brain very much in interpreting the 24fps motion. And yet they are still highly regarded by critics, and in my opinion highly engaging in terms of characters and story. Would they have been improved by shooting at 12fps, to make your brain work as hard as it does with conventionally shot films?
- greedo 7y agoWatch La Jetee (Chris Marker). A "film" comprised mostly of stills with just a few actual scenes with movement.
- marci 7y ago"La Jetée", the original "12 Monkeys".
- teddyh 7y ago> A "film" comprised mostly of stills with just a few actual scenes with movement. …which was remade into a high-budget Hollywood CGI-laden production, starring Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt. I’m not even joking; it’s called 12 Monkeys, and was released in 1995.
- greedo 7y agoAnd into a television series on SyFy.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- PorterDuff 7y agoAlso consider that a film is watched in a different environment and lighting than a TV.
- jim-a-1020401 7y agoThe best software for this I’ve seen is Tachyon but it’s way above consumer technology level for cost and compute resources. https://cinnafilm.com/product/tachyon/ https://cinnafilm.com/product/tachyon/ Like the interface and OS I assume the TV manufacturers are mostly using cheap versions of what they think they can get away with without pushing up their costs.
- giobox 7y agoThis isn’t true really, it’s been known since before the dawn of cinema that humans can appreciate higher frame rates. 24FPS was chosen as much for economic reasons as anything else - it’s one of the slowest frame rates cinema could get away with while still delivering a satisfactory experience. Remember that higher frame rates meant higher consumption of expensive film before the digital era. Lowering the FPS to the lowest you could reasonably get away with reduced the cost of materials significantly. That it’s still popular today is at least partly testament to the conditioning effect of decades of 24FPS movie consumption. Audiences often find the higher FPS look and “feel” strange, at least in a cinema context, such as the backlash the 48 FPS cinema presentation of the Hobbit movies received. I strongly believe that if industry had settled on say 48FPS as the standard we’d be conditioned to “expect” that look and complain that 24FPS looks strange.
- lrem 7y agoFor context when the "digital era" started: it was newsworthy when a middle series of Dr House switched to digital. Also: cinematic film is what keeps Kodak alive.