4 ms·

Cool page (although I had to disable uBlock Origin to be able to see it correctly). > There are 24 frames in one second of animation. Why don't they target 60

by rom1v 5y ago

Cool page (although I had to disable uBlock Origin to be able to see it correctly). > There are 24 frames in one second of animation. Why don't they target 60fps now?

chottocharaii 5y ago
1) very expensive to do more in betweens 2) 60fps looks uncanny to viewers. we’re culturally accustomed to associating 24fps with feature films
- rom1v 5y ago
  > 1) very expensive to do more in betweens That's maybe a bit native, but for an animated movie, I think that the intermediate frames could be computed automatically, for a small additional cost. I don't dispute that there might be a bit more work (I guess some frames might need to be adjusted manually), but I am not convinced that it is that much expensive to do 60fps rather of 24fps.
  - martin_balsam 5y ago
    Not really, yes some interpolation is done automatically, but most character animation, especially for high budget films like Pixar is hyper finely tuned to the frame level, manually adjusting the interpolation curves to get the most expressive animation. And then you have films like Spider-Man Into the Spiderverse where they did a mix of 24fps and 12fps for a more punchy and cartoony effect. In the end it’s not about realism but emotion and artistic representation
chronogram 5y ago
The low FPS also helps in disguising the theater. Lots of things in movies are fake, and if it was in 60 FPS you’d be able to see clearly what is happening. Additionally it helps in making still things stand out, like scenery or the main character in a crowd. For real things like sports and esports, more FPS is used because instead of hiding things you want to show things.
- alickz 5y ago
  For live action I believe this is the case. For example the 48fps version of The Hobbit was very uncanny, and the makeup and SFX were too obvious. But for purely animated films I don't think this is the case; there's no makeup or SFX to hide. The bigger issue would be budget I think, and tradition.
matt-attack 5y ago
We absolutely experiment with 48, 60 and even 120fps. We’d use them if they looked good. They don’t, they make any content look atrocious. adding more (temporal) detail does indeed improve the realism but improving realism isn’t good when you’re delivering Impressionism. Your question is very analogous to asking “Van Gogh’s work is great and all but it needs more (spatial) detail. I can’t believe he’s still using those broad brushes when now days you can buy fine brushes. His work would have much more detail and would look more realistic!” Once you seriously ponder how naive such a statement is, you’ll understand why filmmakers stick with 24fps. It’s not reality. It’s not what our eyes see. Just like an impressionistic painting is not what our eyes see. And that’s a good thing.
- dahart 5y ago
  There seems to be a lot of evidence that audiences that prefer 24fps do so because they’re so used to it, and for that reason, expert film makers seem to be even more strongly biased than general audiences. 24fps wasn’t chosen by animators, and wasn’t decided on for it’s Impressionism, right? If you want Impressionism, 1fps is better than 24, no? Disney used to animate on 1s, 2s, 3s for both economy and style reasons, and no longer do. Live action films are also 24fps, because all films are 24 by default, and many people complain about live action in higher frame rates. Suggesting that Disney consciously chose 24 for it’s impressionism seems revisionist and inaccurate. Kids watching modern TVs, however, don’t seem as bothered by 60fps video, because they’re much more used to it. BTW I used to prefer 24 fps categorically, back when I worked in film. Personally, 60fps looks weird to me, but it’s becoming better. I’ve started really disliking 24fps when there are horizontal pans, that kind of shot is now unwatchable for me, it’s awful. I don’t know why it used to seem tolerable.
  - egypturnash 5y ago
    I always feel like 24 fps, dropping to a lower effective rate as you start going on twos or using more eccentric, punchy timing, is an artifact that exists because it is really close to the absolute lowest framerate where the "illusion of life" breaks down and you are looking at slideshow of static drawings. My experience from when I still animated was that a sustained 10fps is right on the edge, it was real hard to get away with holds on the production I worked on that was on 10. And animation is a fuckton of work. Anything you can do to not have to do a new drawing for every single frame is welcomed, unless you are Richard Williams endlessly iterating on The Thief And The Cobbler and sneaking around your studio at night slipping extra drawings into your animators' shots to put everything on ones, regardless of whether or not it works best for the shot. If you can make a computer inbetween it for you then it's easier to fuck around with much higher framerates than is sustainable with an all-human production, but there's still gonna be times when you just want to hold the heck out of an image to make damn sure it reads. (hell, when I was doing stuff in Flash, we regularly made a practice of taking the ultra-smooth tweens it made and putting it back on twos, because it just Looked Weird and we preferred to save going on ones for fast motion with a semi-hand-crafted smear.)
disease 5y ago
I saw The Hobbit in a theater playing at 60fps in 3D and several people in the theater laughed at points in the film that were not supposed to be funny just because how odd certain things looked. Although I personally enjoyed the unique presentation it kind of made me realize that 60fps would never take off.

by rom1v 5y ago

Cool page (although I had to disable uBlock Origin to be able to see it correctly). > There are 24 frames in one second of animation. Why don't they target 60fps now?

chottocharaii 5y ago

1) very expensive to do more in betweens 2) 60fps looks uncanny to viewers. we’re culturally accustomed to associating 24fps with feature films

rom1v 5y ago
> 1) very expensive to do more in betweens That's maybe a bit native, but for an animated movie, I think that the intermediate frames could be computed automatically, for a small additional cost. I don't dispute that there might be a bit more work (I guess some frames might need to be adjusted manually), but I am not convinced that it is that much expensive to do 60fps rather of 24fps.
- martin_balsam 5y ago
  Not really, yes some interpolation is done automatically, but most character animation, especially for high budget films like Pixar is hyper finely tuned to the frame level, manually adjusting the interpolation curves to get the most expressive animation. And then you have films like Spider-Man Into the Spiderverse where they did a mix of 24fps and 12fps for a more punchy and cartoony effect. In the end it’s not about realism but emotion and artistic representation

chronogram 5y ago

The low FPS also helps in disguising the theater. Lots of things in movies are fake, and if it was in 60 FPS you’d be able to see clearly what is happening. Additionally it helps in making still things stand out, like scenery or the main character in a crowd. For real things like sports and esports, more FPS is used because instead of hiding things you want to show things.

alickz 5y ago
For live action I believe this is the case. For example the 48fps version of The Hobbit was very uncanny, and the makeup and SFX were too obvious. But for purely animated films I don't think this is the case; there's no makeup or SFX to hide. The bigger issue would be budget I think, and tradition.

matt-attack 5y ago

We absolutely experiment with 48, 60 and even 120fps. We’d use them if they looked good. They don’t, they make any content look atrocious. adding more (temporal) detail does indeed improve the realism but improving realism isn’t good when you’re delivering Impressionism. Your question is very analogous to asking “Van Gogh’s work is great and all but it needs more (spatial) detail. I can’t believe he’s still using those broad brushes when now days you can buy fine brushes. His work would have much more detail and would look more realistic!” Once you seriously ponder how naive such a statement is, you’ll understand why filmmakers stick with 24fps. It’s not reality. It’s not what our eyes see. Just like an impressionistic painting is not what our eyes see. And that’s a good thing.

dahart 5y ago
There seems to be a lot of evidence that audiences that prefer 24fps do so because they’re so used to it, and for that reason, expert film makers seem to be even more strongly biased than general audiences. 24fps wasn’t chosen by animators, and wasn’t decided on for it’s Impressionism, right? If you want Impressionism, 1fps is better than 24, no? Disney used to animate on 1s, 2s, 3s for both economy and style reasons, and no longer do. Live action films are also 24fps, because all films are 24 by default, and many people complain about live action in higher frame rates. Suggesting that Disney consciously chose 24 for it’s impressionism seems revisionist and inaccurate. Kids watching modern TVs, however, don’t seem as bothered by 60fps video, because they’re much more used to it. BTW I used to prefer 24 fps categorically, back when I worked in film. Personally, 60fps looks weird to me, but it’s becoming better. I’ve started really disliking 24fps when there are horizontal pans, that kind of shot is now unwatchable for me, it’s awful. I don’t know why it used to seem tolerable.
- egypturnash 5y ago
  I always feel like 24 fps, dropping to a lower effective rate as you start going on twos or using more eccentric, punchy timing, is an artifact that exists because it is really close to the absolute lowest framerate where the "illusion of life" breaks down and you are looking at slideshow of static drawings. My experience from when I still animated was that a sustained 10fps is right on the edge, it was real hard to get away with holds on the production I worked on that was on 10. And animation is a fuckton of work. Anything you can do to not have to do a new drawing for every single frame is welcomed, unless you are Richard Williams endlessly iterating on The Thief And The Cobbler and sneaking around your studio at night slipping extra drawings into your animators' shots to put everything on ones, regardless of whether or not it works best for the shot. If you can make a computer inbetween it for you then it's easier to fuck around with much higher framerates than is sustainable with an all-human production, but there's still gonna be times when you just want to hold the heck out of an image to make damn sure it reads. (hell, when I was doing stuff in Flash, we regularly made a practice of taking the ultra-smooth tweens it made and putting it back on twos, because it just Looked Weird and we preferred to save going on ones for fast motion with a semi-hand-crafted smear.)

disease 5y ago

I saw The Hobbit in a theater playing at 60fps in 3D and several people in the theater laughed at points in the film that were not supposed to be funny just because how odd certain things looked. Although I personally enjoyed the unique presentation it kind of made me realize that 60fps would never take off.