pouët.net

I was searching about this but couldn't find complete answers, so I thought about asking the scene.

Yesterday I went to see Hobbit the 2nd movie. Not the first time I experience 48fps in a movie. And the effect is the same, like everything is sped up.

Now, when I search for 48fps, weird, sped up in google, I find mostly articles about how not realistic it looks because we are used to 24fps in movies. Many people talk about not giving the feeling of a movie rather than a videogame. Few people do mention the feeling of things moving in fast forward. There are many explanations in here, psychological, or that frame rate depends from brain cognition (and some suggest the theoritical framerate at 40fps), or when things move faster our brain blurs it, while in hobbit there were 48 sharp images per sec.

That's interesting. But there is one thing I do not understand. Why did it still looked sped up to me, while I am used for years watching fast paced animation in 60fps in games/demos? It's not like it's the first time I watched something with more than 24fps in my life. Is it because on a computer screen I do expect it but in a movie I don't?

I just looks different (more fluid). Takes getting used to in that particular context.

Less motion blur?

"Trumbull also did research into frame rate, running a series of tests with 35 mm stock filmed and projected at various speeds, shown to audiences who were instrumented to biometrically test their responses. He found that as the frame rate increased, so did the viewer's emotional reaction.

Trumbull discovered that although viewers see smooth motion from film displayed at 24 frames per second (fps), the standard in motion pictures for decades, they are subconsciously still aware of the flicker. This awareness reduces the emotional impact of the film. As the speed of projection ramped up, so did the emotional response."

The theoretical framerate is probably not the same for every person. There does not seem to be much research on this yet. Perhaps a topic for a bio/medical researcher who is looking for a topic to work on.

so basically Peter Jackson wants to take advance of your emotional imbalances to invoke homo-erotic fantasies involving dwarfs and a wizard with a big stick. i'll wait for the BRRIP :P

I think it is also dependent on the direction of the movie: the writers/producer take care to make the new technical advantages of 48fps shine with filming faster scenes and camera movements.
I noticed this when watching the first Hobbit in regular 24fps (in the cinema on a digital projector) and it seemed awfully blurry at times almost like framedrops in $mediaplayer.

Interesting. I remember reading an experimental neuroscience article a few years ago and it suggested our visual framerate to be as low as 13 fps with the rest being interpolated and extrapolated by our brain.

Interestingly they were studying the phenomena of a perceived increase in frame rate (i.e time slowing down) during highly emotional and unexpected events such as car crashes. They found evidence to suggest that no significant change in "capture" rate occurs but rather the visual data just gets more emotional context appended to it during capture. This has the effect of a change in time perception upon recalling the event.

So this gives credence to the suggestion that an increased framerate in movies could falsely trigger the emotional centres and result in the appending of emotion to the visual data, if it is viewed at a higher frame rate.

picture1 picture1bluredpicture2 picture2 and so on could be a solution.

To me, 48fps could actually solve the huge amount of motion jerkyness (I'd not dare to call that "blur", since it looks quite bad) in current 3D movies... for 2D, yes, it looks more like "home video" than theatrical, but I'd not say "sped up" either.

now i wonder how blair witch project will look like in 48fps ;P

you are also used to 24fps in the cinema subconsciously. & the soap opera effect. for a very long time I had no idea why the big movies has this cool look/feel for me, until I realised its the low fps, and getting used to it. as high fps shows are usually cheap/bad.

Interestingly though it seems quite the opposite with games. At least I feel like that. A game running in 30 fps certainly does not look as "good", as in 60 fps.

I think thats because games are full of fast movements, so the brain really needs the fps to process whats going on.

offtopic here, but I'm not really used to modern fps games, and the reduced FOV (field od view) compared to IRL is really disturbing for me. This peaks in situations like you can go in a door not noticing an enemy on the door's wall inside the room, while IRL you would pick him up no problem.

That's because of the interaction factor I suppose; if you don't get the immediate response, everything starts to feel chunky.
You can't really have peripheral vision on a 22" screen though.

Yeah, I guess you gotta wait for the Oculus Rift to fill that gap. :D

48fps and the next step will be 192 kHz 32 bits sound as new feature :p

It's funny how the "24Hz is enough" myth spread when actually ~24Hz has been found an average _minimum_ frame rate you need to fool the brain into the illusion of movement...

To make motions really fluid you'll need at least double that (hence 48Hz as the next standard), and then it's still not even remotely as easy. For example the eye can detect sudden increases in brightness way faster than it can detect decays. Everyone can see a photo flash that's going for only a millisecond but no single human would ever recognize a light going _out_ for that period of time. So the "frame rate" needed for smooth motion is very much dependent on the material shown. Yay.

To make things even more complicated, low frame rates introduce nice blurring and ghosting artifacts thanks to the way our rain works. For example cinema is not only known for 24Hz but actually for being "in the second frame" because analog projectors are exposing each frame twice before rolling on to the next. This results in ghost images when your eyes are trying to follow a moving object, and first of all it also explains why movies look so "natural" on old PAL CRT displays because there each image was also presented to you twice.

Also, low frame rates introduce motion blur on LCDs. Because LCDs don't "flash" the image like cinema projectors or CRTs, but keep it steady, what happens when your eyes follow an object is that the eyes shift the field of view continuously but the object you follow jumps from place to place. This means the object is smeared along the movement axis which introduces motion blur where you fully expect should be none. Only ways to remedy this is either return to flashing the images (some LED based screens/TVs can do that, albeit losing brightness) or increase the frame rate until the effect becomes bearable. Yes, those motion compensating 200Hz screens actually make sense with fast motions :)

and 100hz CRT TVs? they were kinda nice before flatter (and HD) Plasmas/LCDs/LED turned up. I remember having an 'original' XBMC set up running through one, but hell my g/f can't tell the difference between SD and HD broadcasts today (let alone a proper bitrate blu-ray..).

Math, math, math, science, science, science. All I know is that movies displayed in above-24fps-modes look like crap.

i dunno why they scale that in old cinema fps anyway. they could already bump it into a global digital motion picture standard. 30. 60. it's everywhere. kill pal for tv's. that'd make everything pretty easy.

48fps is great! movies are over in half the time! wooooohoooo!

I haven't been to a cinema in quite a few years. (Explosions and Car Chases Aversion Disorder.) However, I'd pay to see a Hollywood flick at 48 fps. But only if it were played backwards.

That's interesting. I read something similar here about monks meditating and making time go slower. And of course the usual car accident makes time slow down cases. It also explains the opposite effect, being too drunk, time passes away fast (less conscious? :). I never connected real framerate/passage of time with consciousness before, that's new for me.