6 ms·
Sadly, (mild) motion interpolation is necessary for those of us that get headaches from 24fps video, especially panning shots. If only filmmakers started with
by dontlaugh 3y ago
Sadly, (mild) motion interpolation is necessary for those of us that get headaches from 24fps video, especially panning shots.
If only filmmakers started with decent frame rates. The few films that came out in 48 fps are so much nicer to look at.
- jiayo 3y agoIt's funny, watching films in 48fps in theatres (specifically the first Hobbit movie that pioneered the concept) to me looks like the actors acted in 2x slow motion and then someone pressed fast forward. Everything looks incredibly unnatural.
- sp332 3y agoPeter Jackson added more motion blur in those because he said that it played better with a focus group. I think sticking to a normal 180-degree shutter angle would not feel so weird.
- dontlaugh 3y agoThere was weird motion blur, but to me it looked far more normal than most films. I realise it’s a minority opinion.
- cassianoleal 3y agoI had a different experience. At first, I found things unnatural like you did. After a few minutes, I figured out that it was actually the opposite - it had a bit of a theatrical thing going on, i.e. live action vs. recorded and played back. At that point I figured out that it was just because I've been so used to crappy frame rates that the more natural movements feel out of place. I wonder what the first pass, with less motion blur, would have felt like. Maybe better, maybe worse. I kind of feel it would make it worse, in the same way that the transitional from analog to high definition digital made it look worse to me since I could notice the transitions between frames. That is, at least at first. I'm used to it now.
- whynotminot 3y agoI firmly believe most people complaining about the Hobbit in 48 FPS just don’t like change. It’s not worse. In fact it’s so vastly better. Watching a 3 hour movie in 3D without getting a headache from 24 FPS judder (“magic”) was a revelation. But different bad.
- zhoujianfu 3y agoI watched it in 3D HFR and it was terrible terrible terrible to me. I felt like I was watching a play. The special effects looked weird/bad, the acting felt worse, the makeup more obvious, everything yuck yuck.
- kalleboo 3y agoI was really looking forward to 48 fps - the juddering in wide panning shots on 24 fps always takes me out of the immersion so I was hoping the cinema world could move forward. There was just something very wrong with it. It kept feeling like suddenly parts of the movie were sped up and going at 2x speed. To the point where I wonder if the cinematographer was just not experienced with the technology to make it work right (like, maybe there are collaries to the 180 rule that need to be experimented with) I watched it in 2D, I'm sure for 3D it makes a whole different experience.
- wharvle 3y agoAlso saw the first film in 2d in the theater at 48fps, also very excited going in, also felt like everything looked sped-up. What it reminded me of was silent era film that’s been slightly sped up on purpose for comic effect. All the walking looked kinda jerky, like it does when you speed up footage of someone walking, for instance. Or very early manual-timing film that was cranked a bit inconsistently. It was so distracting I could hardly focus in anything else the entire movie. If it’d been a better film, I’d say that gimmick ruined it, but… well.
- kalleboo 3y agoYeah it was very strange. Like, you don't get that effect from 60fps TV or video shot on your smartphone, so I wonder what went wrong to cause it.
- ender341341 3y agoI think people blamed the frame rate, but for me it was the rest of the effects that put me off, faces were too softened, lots of scenes had weird color saturation, as others mentioned there was a lot of motion blur, compared to LOTR the VFX really pulled me out of lots of scenes.
- thaumasiotes 3y agoI did not notice anything that I would attribute to the frame rate. Frankly I think the visuals of the movie were fine. It was the writing that was the problem.
- Timon3 3y agoI'm personally fine with 24 and 48 FPS (without interpolation), but what I absolutely can't stand is a variable rate. I saw Avatar 2 in the cinema with this, and it ruined the experience for me. Switching down always felt like the projector is lagging.
- jokowueu 3y agoI've never heard of headaches from 24fps video , must be rare
- dontlaugh 3y agoAfaict it’s a kind of migraine. Everyone I know that gets headaches from low fps also gets migraines.
- Finnucane 3y agoI'd never heard of it growing up in the era when that's all there was. I don't know if it's rare, but it's only in the last decade or so I've heard people complaining about it.
- JohnFen 3y agoI grew up in the same era, and I definitely knew people who could not watch TV because it induced headaches in them.
- exitb 3y agoWe don’t perceive all types of screens in the same way. Film projectors and CRTs display parts of the frame, only part of the time. TFT and IPS screens introduce a lot of inertia and blend the frames. Both of these help the motion illusion. OLED on the other hand has the harshest frame transition - it displays the entire area for the entire time and switches frame content almost immediately.
- foresto 3y ago> it displays the entire area for the entire time and switches frame content almost immediately. I've heard this called the sample-and-hold effect. It looks a bit like a fast slide show, and really stands out in high-contrast, steady motion scenes.
- smcleod 3y agoI get it too. I visually see tearing / juddering on most video lower than about 40FPS and it’s incredibly tiring.
- TylerE 3y agoEven if they just moved to 30 like normal TV that’d be noticeably better.
- mejutoco 3y agoJust a note that NTSC has 30 fps. PAL has 25 fps.
- alternatetwo 3y agoMost movies and fiction TV are shot at 24fps. Reality, news etc are shot at 30fps.
- dontlaugh 3y agoTV in the UK is generally 50 , at least.
- TylerE 3y agoThat's interlaced though. Effectively half for a progressive scan.
- dontlaugh 3y agoI don’t think interlaced video is still broadcast, since analog was shut down.
- kalleboo 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HD_channels_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HD_channels_in_the_Uni... > All HD channels in the UK broadcast at 1080i, apart from Sky Sports Main Event UHD channel and the BT Sport Ultimate 4K
- dontlaugh 3y agoThat surprises me. I guess I never noticed since I always have interpolation on nowadays.
- lainga 3y agoDid you get this symptom from the narrow shutter snapshot-like filming in Saving Private Ryan? https://cinemashock.org/2012/07/30/45-degree-shutter-in-saving-private-ryan/ https://cinemashock.org/2012/07/30/45-degree-shutter-in-savi...
- cpach 3y agoInteresting. Did you ever go to the movies in the 90s? Those were all 24 fps. Did you get a headache then?
- thedougd 3y agoAre we including 3:2 pull down and frame doubling as interpolation?
- dontlaugh 3y agoNo, that makes it much worse. Avoiding it is a big reason to get 120 fps tv.
- rocqua 3y agoThere is the alternative of Black frame insertion. It loses a lot of brightness, but helps a lot with stuttering at 24 fps. The problem that causes stuttering is (simplified) that your eye is moving smoothly to follow something on the screen, whilst the image is moving in discrete steps. So when your eyes expect something fixed in side your view, its actually stuttering. Black frames make use of a natural image retention in the eye. Where you effectively continue to see the last bright thing. Hence what you expect to be stationary in your field of view does remain stationary. This was actually key to film based projectors working, because they need a period of black to advance to the next frame. Without image retention it would seem to flicker. Though 24 hz is a bit to slow for that, so they actually added a black period (by just blocking the light) in the middle of each frame to even out the effect. They were already doing BFI, not for motion smoothing, but for flicker smoothing. It seems likely this is accidentally why 24hz film doesn't have stuttering whilst 24hz screens do need it. Personally I care too much about the brightness loss of BFI, but it might be interesting for you.
- thomastjeffery 3y agoThat's not a valid alternative at all, IMHO. It solves a problem, yes, but a different problem than what is solved by interpolation. Black frames resolve ghosting. That's great! I want to see one frame at a time, no more. Motion interpolation resolves jagged motion. Instead of making my brain do the extra work of filling in gaps of motion, it lets my brain see an image move smoothly through time. The higher resolution gets, the larger the group of pixels are that need to be moved each frame. This causes two unique and interdependent problems: 1. Low shutter speed creates blurry images, which makes high resolution worthless. 2. Low framerate creates gaps in motion, which makes high detail painful. The faster the shutter, the more detail is visible. Filmakers are happy to solve this as extremely as they can. New cameras and lenses capture incredibly sharp and bright images with very short frame times. The more detail in motion, the more confusing gaps between frames become. Filmakers (and the industry in general) refuse to increase framerate, so they give us ever increasing gaps instead.
- dontlaugh 3y agoIt helps a little and I prefer lower brightness anyway. But it doesn’t remove the panning judder entirely. Mild interpolation does better.
- hoseja 3y agoYes! Panning shots are such a pain. Motionblur them or something please.