4 ms·
No, I'm not. The frame interpolation is actually pretty good, and approximates high framerate relatively well. It is the high framerate itself which causes this
by ralusek 7y ago
No, I'm not. The frame interpolation is actually pretty good, and approximates high framerate relatively well. It is the high framerate itself which causes this effect, however. I've seen two movies in theater at high framerate that were shot as such (The Hobbit and another I'm forgetting), as well as the ability to watch high framerate content on YouTube, and it is absolutely the high framerate that is jarring in cinematic content.
- skrebbel 7y agoThanks for the clarification. I'm not convinced that TV upsampling is generally good, but you make a coherent point and I'm going to try it out myself :-)
- tuscen 7y agoMy experience is different: I've seen all three Hobbit movies in HFR with 48fps and it was gorgeous whereas interpolation is not even close to what I've seen in the theaters. Cinema is not in FPS count but in camera movements and frame composition. Cheap TV shows and movies look cheap regardless of FPS count.
- ralusek 7y agoI almost walked out of the theater, and my whole group was on the same page. It genuinely felt like we were watching a play.
- v7p1Qbt1im 7y agoIMO 48fps was great in the Hobbit trilogy. Maybe not so much in the first one. But I wish directors would opt for higher frame rates if they have fast moving pans, especially in 3D. 3D in 24fps oftentimes looks choppy af. By all means, keep indie and art house productions non-3D, 24fps and on celluloid. But for insane tripple a productions: higher frame rate pls. Supposedly the Avatar sequels are gonna be in 48 or even 60. Maybe they‘ll act as a catalyst again, like the first one did for 3D.