4 ms·

HFR is superior to 24fps in every conceivable way. Film makers have a wide variety of creative tools available to them to help them tell a story, of which HFR

HFR is superior to 24fps in every conceivable way. Film makers have a wide variety of creative tools available to them to help them tell a story, of which HFR is one. We're talking about art, not a technical quest to reproduce reality as closely as possible.

addlepate 14y ago
Incidentally, this is also the reason why Instagram-style photo filters are not necessarily a bad thing. Photography is not (only) an effort to, as you say, reproduce reality as closely as possible.
bennyg 14y ago
Exactly. I hate when it tries to be too real, so I take the exact opposite position as the parent. It's a movie, not reality. And they look like soap operas.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
martinced 14y ago
Sure... And if I display the exact same frame twice in a row at 48fps I get 24fps. So anything that 24fps can do, 48fps can do too. And I don't buy the crazy idea that someone using 24fps during an entire movie would someone be the achievement of some visual art perfection. This is wrong, wrong and wrong. Also I have to laugh quite a bit at you describing a movie called "The hobbit" which shows dragon, trolls, elfes, magicians, etc. as "trying to reproduce reality". ; )
- fr0sty 14y ago
  > And if I display the exact same frame twice in a row at 48fps I get 24fps. Not quite. Shooting at 48fps requires a faster shutter speed than 24fps (1/48 vs 1/96) which gives you less motion blur.
  - lucian1900 14y ago
    Which is great! Motion blur sucks ass. And if the film maker wants blur sometimes, they can still add it, without compromising the entire film.
    - brazzy 14y ago
      Um, no. Motion blur is absolutely essential for smooth movements. Showing 48fps material by displaying every other frame at 24fps will look, much much choppier than 24fps material.
      - lucian1900 14y ago
        Of course, but that's not what I mean. Shoot at 48fps and blur each frame as appropriate, just like games do. It's not exactly hard.
  - ricardobeat 14y ago
    In theory you could shoot 48fps at 1/48.
- FredFredrickson 14y ago
  His point was that the motion of the video doesn't need to look like it's happening in person for the film to be entertaining. Just like the story doesn't have to explain why there are elves, trolls, etc. for you to accept their presence and move on. It's an artistic decision. It reminds me of video games, in a way. GPU's are constantly being improved, and we get closer and closer to producing real-time photo-realistic graphics every day... and yet there is still plenty of room for games like Super Mario or Team Fortress 2, which don't want or need to look realistic to be fun.
- MrScruff 14y ago
  Sure... And if I display the exact same frame twice in a row at 48fps I get 24fps. So anything that 24fps can do, 48fps can do too. I'm not sure what your point is. If a film maker frame doubled 24fps and projected it using a HFR system nobody would regard it as HFR. And I don't buy the crazy idea that someone using 24fps during an entire movie would someone be the achievement of some visual art perfection. This is wrong, wrong and wrong. I didn't say that. Also I have to laugh quite a bit at you describing a movie called "The hobbit" which shows dragon, trolls, elfes, magicians, etc. as "trying to reproduce reality". I didn't say this either.
aufreak3 14y ago
It'll be interesting to compare this situation with what people thought colour film did to movies compared to monochrome. I can imagine people moaning eloquently about the loss of poetry in film, about how its not about the realism offered by colour, etc. ... though I do not know whether that happened. The state of 3D technology might be comparable to the realism of eastman colour.

addlepate 14y ago

Incidentally, this is also the reason why Instagram-style photo filters are not necessarily a bad thing. Photography is not (only) an effort to, as you say, reproduce reality as closely as possible.

bennyg 14y ago

Exactly. I hate when it tries to be too real, so I take the exact opposite position as the parent. It's a movie, not reality. And they look like soap operas.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

martinced 14y ago

Sure... And if I display the exact same frame twice in a row at 48fps I get 24fps. So anything that 24fps can do, 48fps can do too. And I don't buy the crazy idea that someone using 24fps during an entire movie would someone be the achievement of some visual art perfection. This is wrong, wrong and wrong. Also I have to laugh quite a bit at you describing a movie called "The hobbit" which shows dragon, trolls, elfes, magicians, etc. as "trying to reproduce reality". ; )

fr0sty 14y ago
> And if I display the exact same frame twice in a row at 48fps I get 24fps. Not quite. Shooting at 48fps requires a faster shutter speed than 24fps (1/48 vs 1/96) which gives you less motion blur.
- lucian1900 14y ago
  Which is great! Motion blur sucks ass. And if the film maker wants blur sometimes, they can still add it, without compromising the entire film.
  - brazzy 14y ago
    Um, no. Motion blur is absolutely essential for smooth movements. Showing 48fps material by displaying every other frame at 24fps will look, much much choppier than 24fps material.
    - lucian1900 14y ago
      Of course, but that's not what I mean. Shoot at 48fps and blur each frame as appropriate, just like games do. It's not exactly hard.
- ricardobeat 14y ago
  In theory you could shoot 48fps at 1/48.
FredFredrickson 14y ago
His point was that the motion of the video doesn't need to look like it's happening in person for the film to be entertaining. Just like the story doesn't have to explain why there are elves, trolls, etc. for you to accept their presence and move on. It's an artistic decision. It reminds me of video games, in a way. GPU's are constantly being improved, and we get closer and closer to producing real-time photo-realistic graphics every day... and yet there is still plenty of room for games like Super Mario or Team Fortress 2, which don't want or need to look realistic to be fun.
MrScruff 14y ago
Sure... And if I display the exact same frame twice in a row at 48fps I get 24fps. So anything that 24fps can do, 48fps can do too. I'm not sure what your point is. If a film maker frame doubled 24fps and projected it using a HFR system nobody would regard it as HFR. And I don't buy the crazy idea that someone using 24fps during an entire movie would someone be the achievement of some visual art perfection. This is wrong, wrong and wrong. I didn't say that. Also I have to laugh quite a bit at you describing a movie called "The hobbit" which shows dragon, trolls, elfes, magicians, etc. as "trying to reproduce reality". I didn't say this either.

aufreak3 14y ago

It'll be interesting to compare this situation with what people thought colour film did to movies compared to monochrome. I can imagine people moaning eloquently about the loss of poetry in film, about how its not about the realism offered by colour, etc. ... though I do not know whether that happened. The state of 3D technology might be comparable to the realism of eastman colour.