5 ms·
On my display, most of the demo-gifs look like they are insufficiently low-passed to render realistic/smooth motion. The 24/25 fps gifs certainly have the oppo
by ISL 4y ago
On my display, most of the demo-gifs look like they are insufficiently low-passed to render realistic/smooth motion.
The 24/25 fps gifs certainly have the opportunity to look great (movies are mostly at 24 fps), but the hard-edge rendering of the black circle makes 'em look real choppy. I'd bet that rendering it at 50 fps, then averaging pairs of frames together and displaying it at 25 fps would yield something that seemed much smoother.
With some care, I bet one can go sub-25 fps on a gif and still have something that feels kinda "smooth".
- mgdlbp 4y agoWhen you're the creator of the animation, you can directly simulate motion blur instead of using temporal downsampling. The smoothness of video depends on the angular distance objects move in your field of view between frames. You can see this in the demos: the lower framerates are relatively smooth at the ends of the animation where the motion is slowest, and all framerates (even the highest) become considerably smoother when you decrease your browser zoom.
- quickthrower2 4y agoNot a movie buff here… but do movies avoid shooting anything that might have this sort of problem? Like perfectly round black circles moving in a circle for instance. After all all we see is an illusion anyway (has to be interpreted by low energy consuming brain)! They can probably distract us from choppyness.
- tpxl 4y agoNo, at least not as a hard rule. This is most noticeable when a camera pans horizontally along a very close vertical object very quickly (~1s for a full screen pan). This will give you more than a meter per frame on a movie screen and is very jarring (to me).
- jerf 4y agoI personally am a bit boggled by how hard people will go to bat for "movies must be 24 fps as God intended" because I also have many places like big pans where it's just jarring to me in 2022 to see things jerking across the screen like that, and I'm as used to 24 fps movies as anyone else. There's other things like actions scenes to where I can see the frame rate, motion blur notwithstanding, and I find that quite jarring.
- kllrnohj 4y agoPeople reacted kinda strongly to The Hobbit being 48fps for having a "soap opera" look, and I think nobody has really bothered to try again since then. 60fps YouTube, Twitch, etc.. content looks pretty great, though. Shame Hollywood won't try again.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> People reacted kinda strongly to The Hobbit being 48fps for having a “soap opera” look, and I think nobody has really bothered to try again since then. Ang Lee has done a couple of HFR films since, but neither was a box office success. I’ve read that Avatar: The Way of Water (which Cameron previously said would not be released in HFR) will be released in 48fps, which would AFAIK be the first big-budget HFR release since the Hobbit trilogy.
- ISL 4y agoMovies generally set their shutter speed to gather light for half the duration of the time a frame is shown to the viewer, so the camera itself captures a slightly motion-blurred image of anything in motion. Far more here: https://kevinlisota.photography/2020/04/understanding-video-frame-rate-and-shutter-speed/ https://kevinlisota.photography/2020/04/understanding-video-...
- codedokode 4y agoFor me the animation also looks choppy, as if a ball was jumping instead of moving, and it doesn't look smooth, however this just could be a problem with LCD matrix response time.
- jerf 4y agoI believe that was deliberately done precisely so that you can cleanly see it. Almost everything in the real world isn't that bad in practice.