3 ms·
Avatar 2 was shot for 48 fps. It’s very different to interpolating animation to a higher frame rate. Most animation is shot for 24 fps on twos, so 12ish frames
by dagmx 4y ago
Avatar 2 was shot for 48 fps. It’s very different to interpolating animation to a higher frame rate.
Most animation is shot for 24 fps on twos, so 12ish frames (we usually go between 8fps and 24fps)
The difference is that we design poses to read at a given frame rate and have performance characteristics at those rates. If you were to interpolate it, you’d change a fundamental characteristic of the acting.
How long a ball makes contact with a surface is important and interpolation struggles to understand something that should stick to a surface for an extra frame versus something that should be blended.
Yes you’ll potentially get lower strobing but you’re also now getting a different performance. Maybe you don’t care, but it’s fundamentally changing things away from the intention.
This is a different discussion than just simply what frame rate video is shot at.
- satvikpendem 4y agoYeah you're right, I don't actually care about the difference in performance, I can't tell it apart honestly speaking, I just notice the extra fluidity which I'll continue to use.
- dagmx 4y agoThat’s fair, and that’s always a viewers choice to make , especially with home viewings. > I remain unconvinced by those arguments Though hopefully that does go some of the way to convince you that the arguments are legitimate. But personal subjective preference can override intention of the author.
- numpad0 4y agoAfter giving it a day, I think I understood the problem. That extra fluidity isn't expected to be necessary by most animators, as well as audiences. This might be the realms of assistive technologies, like subtitles fundamentally is.
- fomine3 4y agoAlso consider that real videos and CGs are "shot" by 24 fps, but 2D animations aren't shot but drawn by human. Animator decides what picture should be an inter frame.