3 ms·

Movies don't look "weird" at 48fps, they just look different from what we're used to. However watching 24fps movies on a TV with a higher refresh-rate that jus

• jerf 12y ago
  I've made that argument in the past too. However, the linked blog post does make an interesting case that there is some reason to believe it does in fact look objectively "weird". There should be ways to test this. This theory implies that video games should look "better" in an A-B comparison at 60fps if you add certain types of probably-subtle noise to them, probably even through temporary frame rate drops. If so, that would be an awfully cheap way to improve game graphics.
  • chadgeidel 12y ago
    I seem to remember that this was the idea in the development process of Lost Planet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Planet:_Extreme_Condition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Planet:_Extreme_Condition). My Google-fu is failing me, I don't see any articles that explain the developer's intent.
• TillE 12y ago
  The only persuasive point I've seen against HFR movies is that they can reveal a little too much detail. Movies rely on makeup and props and sets which may create a good illusion of reality at 24 fps, but maybe not at 48.
• ashark 12y ago
  The worst I can say about most HFR video I've seen is that it looked bit soap-opera like, which I get is a conditioned thing. The Hobbit in particular, however, looked like it was playing back at 1.2x normal speed. I hated it. Kept expecting Buster Keaton to show up. I wouldn't mind more movies shot in HFR, from what I've seen of it in general. It seems fine. Nice, even. I would prefer they not start doing whatever The Hobbit did.