5 ms·

8K@75fps is pretty nice. Tangent: I've been using software called SVP (SmoothVideo Project) which uses AI/ML with a GPU (3090 in my case) to generate additiona

8K@75fps is pretty nice. Tangent: I've been using software called SVP (SmoothVideo Project) which uses AI/ML with a GPU (3090 in my case) to generate additional intermediate frames for video files, turning a ~24fps 4K Bluray rip into a ~48 fps or even higher. For scenes with a lot of action it's a noticeable improvement, everything feels smoother. All that to say I hope that the industry starts moving to higher frame rates for film, I'd rather have native 4K 48hz content over 8k 24hz.

Beambender 4y ago
[dead]
wmf 4y ago
James Cameron and Peter Jackson were pushing high frame rate but critics absolutely hate it so I don't think it's going to happen.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ShadowBanThis01 4y ago
  James Cameron's usage of it was gravely flawed because he arbitrarily kept switching back and forth between 24 and 48 FPS from one shot to another in Avatar 2. There's absolutely no discernible pattern or motivation for the changes. WTF. I wish 48 FPS were adopted widely so we could all just get used to it, because it simply and undeniably renders motion better.
  - christoph 4y ago
    Same to some extent with IMAX Blu-rays. It drives me mad when certain “blockbuster” IMAX disks shift aspect and film stock so quickly, just because… let’s use “IMAX” for some shots... It totally breaks the feel and flow of a movie for me when black bars and film grain suddenly start shifting about and changing. Either film and release it all in IMAX or don’t bother IMO.
    - dylan604 4y ago
      This is what the Dark Knight does. The majority of the film is in whatever wide aspect ratio, but then for the "epic" IMAX shots the aspect ratio switched to a much more square aspect ratio. It was very noticeable in the theater when I saw it way back when.
  - seabass-labrax 4y ago
    I haven't seen Avatar 2, but this or something similar is something I notice all the time in films on DVDs, especially those originally for TV: the camera will cut to a long shot and everything becomes weirdly smooth until the camera cuts back again. Whether it's due to a change in film speed, frame rate or something else I can't work out, but I would imagine that these long distance shots are in fact library footage spliced into the film.
- christoph 4y ago
  I think because while visually and technically better in the right hands (with multi hundred million $ budgets), it will almost always end up looking like a cheap soap opera in lesser hands - every imperfection in makeup, set and lighting becomes immediately obvious to even an uncritical eye. It’s kind of similar to an uncanny valley situation in VR, side note: I think ultimately AI on its current trajectory will finally push forwards and make VR accepted and feasible for entertainment in a multitude of ways... For 4K or 8k HFR HDR live filming, you have to raise all your general production values by a really crazy amount for it not to look cheap and naff. Forget additional storage and transmission costs of the extra data, the actual day to day increases in production costs (and timelines) rapidly scales far beyond those, making such trivial things like storage a mere rounding error. Case in point - the most watched UK soap opera “Eastenders” saw the BBC go way over budget and spend £90m+ over many years just rebuilding all of their iconic sets so they could finally film it in basic HD. HFR 4K HDR would require an even bigger and more serious upgrade across the entire production, and a long term commitment to those bigger budgets, which the BBC have clearly decided is totally not feasible and also not worthwhile for a 3-4 times a week half hour soap opera. It won’t happen for most things because HD and certainly 4K is more than good enough for most normal people to enjoy video media on a screen up to around 100”’s at a sensible seating distance… So most entertainment can be done at a much lower cost and with way lower risk. The benefits just don’t and probably never will outweigh those factors.
  - readbeard 4y ago
    2k is enough for most cinema purposes. https://www.yedlin.net/ResDemo/index.html https://www.yedlin.net/ResDemo/index.html I do think 8K will make a big difference for VR though due to the extreme angle of view.
dylan604 4y ago
SmartTVs have had an interpreted frame rate mode for a long long time now. Die hards HATE HATE HATE it.
- 0x457 4y ago
  Are you sure you're not confusing inserted generated frames to "we do some annoying things that, we think, make our 60Hz TV look like a 240Hz TV"? Those things are incomparable.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    either way, you are showing something to the viewer that is not part of the original image. whether that is the result of some AI's hallucination into what it thinks is there or some frame duplication/blending, it all means you've made up stuff that didn't exist to trick the mind into thinking it does.
    - 0x457 4y ago
      Yes, but one is significantly better than the other. I don't mind a bunch of if statements inserting frames in most cases, but manufacturers can shove their "Effective Refresh Rate" you know where.
- oofbey 4y ago
  Diehards also think vinyl sounds better than CD, or at least many used to. (You know, because CD's are digital, which limits their dynamic range and frequency, whereas analog can be "perfect" in theory if you don't think too hard about it.) Some people are just allergic to anything that "improves quality". The reason these technologies exist is because _most people_ think it does improve quality. Haters gonna hate.
  - blangk 4y ago
    Writing off subjective assessments of modes of art as 'haters' seems like something a true hater might do. If you admit there is a qualitative difference then it seems obvious there would be mixed opinions about the different modes. Latest isn't always greatest.
pier25 4y ago
> 8K@75fps is pretty nice Apparently only when using their RAW format which costs $979 for a license. https://store.dji.com/product/dji-inspire-3-raw-license https://store.dji.com/product/dji-inspire-3-raw-license
CyberDildonics 4y ago
This is not only not relevant, it isn't AI either. Optical flow and motion interpolation have been around for over 25 years, but now people are mistakenly calling them "AI".

Beambender 4y ago

[dead]

wmf 4y ago

James Cameron and Peter Jackson were pushing high frame rate but critics absolutely hate it so I don't think it's going to happen.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ShadowBanThis01 4y ago
James Cameron's usage of it was gravely flawed because he arbitrarily kept switching back and forth between 24 and 48 FPS from one shot to another in Avatar 2. There's absolutely no discernible pattern or motivation for the changes. WTF. I wish 48 FPS were adopted widely so we could all just get used to it, because it simply and undeniably renders motion better.
- christoph 4y ago
  Same to some extent with IMAX Blu-rays. It drives me mad when certain “blockbuster” IMAX disks shift aspect and film stock so quickly, just because… let’s use “IMAX” for some shots... It totally breaks the feel and flow of a movie for me when black bars and film grain suddenly start shifting about and changing. Either film and release it all in IMAX or don’t bother IMO.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    This is what the Dark Knight does. The majority of the film is in whatever wide aspect ratio, but then for the "epic" IMAX shots the aspect ratio switched to a much more square aspect ratio. It was very noticeable in the theater when I saw it way back when.
- seabass-labrax 4y ago
  I haven't seen Avatar 2, but this or something similar is something I notice all the time in films on DVDs, especially those originally for TV: the camera will cut to a long shot and everything becomes weirdly smooth until the camera cuts back again. Whether it's due to a change in film speed, frame rate or something else I can't work out, but I would imagine that these long distance shots are in fact library footage spliced into the film.
christoph 4y ago
I think because while visually and technically better in the right hands (with multi hundred million $ budgets), it will almost always end up looking like a cheap soap opera in lesser hands - every imperfection in makeup, set and lighting becomes immediately obvious to even an uncritical eye. It’s kind of similar to an uncanny valley situation in VR, side note: I think ultimately AI on its current trajectory will finally push forwards and make VR accepted and feasible for entertainment in a multitude of ways... For 4K or 8k HFR HDR live filming, you have to raise all your general production values by a really crazy amount for it not to look cheap and naff. Forget additional storage and transmission costs of the extra data, the actual day to day increases in production costs (and timelines) rapidly scales far beyond those, making such trivial things like storage a mere rounding error. Case in point - the most watched UK soap opera “Eastenders” saw the BBC go way over budget and spend £90m+ over many years just rebuilding all of their iconic sets so they could finally film it in basic HD. HFR 4K HDR would require an even bigger and more serious upgrade across the entire production, and a long term commitment to those bigger budgets, which the BBC have clearly decided is totally not feasible and also not worthwhile for a 3-4 times a week half hour soap opera. It won’t happen for most things because HD and certainly 4K is more than good enough for most normal people to enjoy video media on a screen up to around 100”’s at a sensible seating distance… So most entertainment can be done at a much lower cost and with way lower risk. The benefits just don’t and probably never will outweigh those factors.
- readbeard 4y ago
  2k is enough for most cinema purposes. https://www.yedlin.net/ResDemo/index.html https://www.yedlin.net/ResDemo/index.html I do think 8K will make a big difference for VR though due to the extreme angle of view.

dylan604 4y ago

SmartTVs have had an interpreted frame rate mode for a long long time now. Die hards HATE HATE HATE it.

0x457 4y ago
Are you sure you're not confusing inserted generated frames to "we do some annoying things that, we think, make our 60Hz TV look like a 240Hz TV"? Those things are incomparable.
- dylan604 4y ago
  either way, you are showing something to the viewer that is not part of the original image. whether that is the result of some AI's hallucination into what it thinks is there or some frame duplication/blending, it all means you've made up stuff that didn't exist to trick the mind into thinking it does.
  - 0x457 4y ago
    Yes, but one is significantly better than the other. I don't mind a bunch of if statements inserting frames in most cases, but manufacturers can shove their "Effective Refresh Rate" you know where.
oofbey 4y ago
Diehards also think vinyl sounds better than CD, or at least many used to. (You know, because CD's are digital, which limits their dynamic range and frequency, whereas analog can be "perfect" in theory if you don't think too hard about it.) Some people are just allergic to anything that "improves quality". The reason these technologies exist is because _most people_ think it does improve quality. Haters gonna hate.
- blangk 4y ago
  Writing off subjective assessments of modes of art as 'haters' seems like something a true hater might do. If you admit there is a qualitative difference then it seems obvious there would be mixed opinions about the different modes. Latest isn't always greatest.

pier25 4y ago

> 8K@75fps is pretty nice Apparently only when using their RAW format which costs $979 for a license. https://store.dji.com/product/dji-inspire-3-raw-license https://store.dji.com/product/dji-inspire-3-raw-license

CyberDildonics 4y ago

This is not only not relevant, it isn't AI either. Optical flow and motion interpolation have been around for over 25 years, but now people are mistakenly calling them "AI".