Personal View site logo
48p and 120hz - sometimes more is less
  • 69 Replies sorted by
  • @stonebat Rather than presenting my opinions on the debate, here area few factors to consider that don't seem to be getting much attention in the argument.

    1) Video games and films face fundamentally different challenges in providing immersive environments.

    1a) In video games, lower frame rates often do not have compensations made to the shutter (and only recently compensatory motion blur). Part of the success of the early Burnout series, in regards to its depiction of speed, had to do with the way it implemented motion blur, even against competitors with either higher resolutions or framerates. In live action cinema, a modified frame rate is typically compensated for by a different shutter speed and motion blur is affected by default.

    1b) In video games, response latency (the time between a player providing input and the time the game shows a visual response) is affected by frame rate. The higher the frame rate, the lower the minimum time required to show a reaction to the player's input is.

    1c) In video games, a balance must be struck between conveying a style and preventing data in a fashion the player can quickly make use of. Angles that may be more subjective and immersive for a passive viewer (up close to a face, not showing much of the environment, etc.) can sometimes be impractical during gameplay because they do not convey enough data about the rest of the situation for the player to... well, play. Other times, the sudden removal of the customary information can be used to make the player feel helpless, but extensive use of the effect generally frustrates players and leads to negative reviews. In a film, the decisions about angles can be made based purely on narrative, stylistic and practical production concerns without requiring that audience be able to parse enough information to "interact" with the environment (in the video game sense of the word).

    Why do I bring this up? Because it should be noted (emphatically) that whether 48 fps (or higher) succeeds for films is entirely distinct from whether it works well for video games. The recent press reaction to The Hobbit screening is entirely different from the initial gamer reaction to the advent 60 fps (and higher) frame rates in commercial video games years ago.

    I've spent the overwhelming majority of my life considering questions of human interaction with visual media (with an emphasis on video games since my pre-teens) so this is something I've thought a lot about in the current media climate.

  • People saying they don't like how 24p looks - so have you literally never enjoyed watching a movie in your entire life? I don't get it. Same goes with people watching 25p in PAL countries.

    I've been heartened by the reactions to the 48p Hobbit footage so far. It's the perfect opportunity to get more people informed about things like 120hz motion smoothing on TV sets, which is just as bad if not worse as pan-and-scan was in the VHS days.

    The thing about 48p acquisition and presentation is it's not a new idea. If it were really desirable in a critical mass of viewers, we probably would have had it already. Digital cinema maybe makes it easier (less expensive), but big budget spectacle films probably could have managed it on film decades ago. What I think is happening here instead is just another example of studios trying to differentiate the theatrical experience from home viewing. Same thing as the advent of widescreen & scope (which I actually happen to like!) or the first wave of 3D, which was eventually written off as a gimmick (funny, that).

    I don't doubt that there is something interesting to be done with these 'new' cinematic forms, but the big budget Hollywood spectacle might not be it. Out there on the internet you can now find 60p porn, for instance... :)

  • @shian - "...When I see 48p, I see the same thing. It looks like CHEAP video."

    I'm not sure if I've ever seen 24p actually displayed at 48p anywhere outside a movie theater.

    OTOH, 24p telecined into interlaced 60i is what screams VIDEO to my eyes...

  • I've been intrigued in this issue for a while. I've done a little reading on it and some refer to it as the "soap opera" effect, which I think is quite accurate.

    Funny story: My friend and I happened to be under the influence one night and we decide to turn on the TV. He has one of those big flat LED Samsungs, which I assume must have been 120hz. Anyway, we start cracking up because what we are watching looks so incredibly cheap. We can't handle it. We're laughing nonstop at 2 in the morning just because of the way it looks, not for any other reason. It looked as if a public school got together and decided to film a movie. Even the sets appeared cheap and fabricated. We decided to check the channel's info and sure enough, it was a high-budget Hollywood film. Cold Mountain. I was astonished at the difference such a setting could make.

  • i live in pal land, and that will have to do something with it.

  • @mozes

    Do you feel the same when watching hollywood flicks?

  • you are not alone sir, 48 and 120hz looks like total crap. And while we are at it, full shows in 3D suck ass too (3D in art installations is great).

  • It would have looked much better if 48p content was displayed on true 48p hdtv. That is there is no duplicate or interlaced frames. No you can't buy it... yet.

    24p & 3D is not a happy marriage, and the new x y z or whatever young generation is getting used to higher fps and 3D contents/games. Of course we will adapter to 48p if our facebook friends start bragging about 48p movies.

    The theaters would want 3D 48p to attract more audiences... cuz it would be different experience. You know... Showtime as usual. I will head to a state-of-the-art 3D theater with 64 speakers. There'll be always something special about watching in a theater.

  • 120hz tv's? here are already up to 800hz.........., it is really a moving foto...............

  • @shian

    Some years ago, my parents bought a 32" Bravia HDTV with that 120 Hz shit. I threw some DVDs to test drive the new screen and was so disgusted to see that everything looked "so real" (in the worst sense of the term) that it looked like I was watching a fucking behind the scenes featurette. Some people say that they can't see the difference. Well, I do see it and really hate it. Like you said, for events and sports it's great and maybe for videogames and 3D. Of course, like everything else in the visual world, some people will love it. Well, what can I say? Good for them.

  • @shian you're not alone mate ;) but you are a minority

  • i never liked 24p.................
    And i never did understand, why everybody likes it so much.
    I try it sometimes on my gh2, and the image looks Soooo good, but if there is moving something in the image, aaarrgghhh.............

  • The legacy of film cannot help but affect us. Had we never seen film, we wouldn't know what we're missing, but we have seen it. Film undeniably produces a dramatic dimension that straight video does not.
    I stayed away from video for decades after making Super 8 home movies on Kodachrome, for exactly this reason. Then the GH2 arrived, and made it possible for a person with ordinary means to make movies exactly suited to their own personal vision. At 24P, it produces that film look at resolution superior to 16mm.
    Right now, I'm working with HBR, trying to get smoother motion and keep that look.

  • Seems to be the same conclusion people are coming to when watching The Hobbit footage it seems.

  • Things look good when the frame period matches the exposure period. That's not the case when 24p is sped up to 120 Hz. It's too smooth. The picture floats, and it's disorienting. But 1/60 and 1/60 - I like that a lot, and I'll take it over 24p any day, for any kind of content.

    As for 120 Hz looking like '80s Dr. Who... Well, if Dr. Who had looked good, you wouldn't have such a negative reaction to this, would you?. ;) After years of watching TV and movies, you've been programmed to make certain associations. Time to reprogram your brain, and abandon the limitations of early 20th-century technology.

  • New technology/technique always goes overboard with what it offers. Special effects are particularly prone to this pitfall. Ultimately, it’s the paying viewer who decides what’s commercially viable and what isn’t. You’ll never know unless you try it. Peter Jacks did. We’ll see what the reaction will be.

    Sure, 48p and 3D are just gimmicks at this point. They’re ugly as heck. But look at the history of CGI. The early attempts were laughable and clumsy at best (The Lawnmower Man). Nowadays, it’s difficult to find a motion picture that doesn’t use them to some degree. We’ve learned that CGI doesn’t necessarily mean unrealistic things popping out at you in every frame. They can be used to help tell the story, rather than replace conventional storytelling (think Forrest Gump).

  • @shian

    Yep, no one will be asking.
    Most probably they'll try 48p as intermediary format and jump to 60p afterwards.

    As it had been already said, smooth motion and more sharp individual frames helps with 3D.

  • you are just like elderly people who cannot adopt to the new generation...

    ;)

    seriously yea it looks horrible. But imagine THIS will be the only way everyone will film and watch movies.

    What else could you do? Vomit yourself to death?