High Frame Rate (1 Viewer)

[SamT]

So just watched Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk in 60fps and it looked terrible. Not to mention how bad was Hobbit in HFR. They never released it on Bluray. I heard that James Cameron wants to go HFR for Avatar sequels.

I think they should forget about HFR and stop pushing it. It looks terrible. We watch movies not to watch reality. The 24fps gives the dreamlike, the drama look. It immediately transports you to another place not the high frame rate.

What do you think? Do you like to watch a movie in HFR?

 

[TravisR]

To me, all special effects shots in HFR just look like a video game and any onscreen movement looks horribly fake. Maybe it can get better but as of now, I hate it.

Considering that Billy Lynn and The Hobbits are the only movies to employ it (though the Avatar sequels are coming), it doesn't seem like too many in the industry are impressed by it either.

 

[Carabimero]

I can't decide if it's just that my way of seeing isn't acclimated to it, or if it just looks bad. As of now, I think it just looks bad.

 

[jcroy]

(On a tangent).

The few cases where I liked to watch something in high frame rates, is footage from rock concerts. I find it weird watching rock concert footage shot on 16mm or 35mm film at 24 frames per second.

Most of the hi-def rock concert footage I watch on youtube (whether from a cell phone or an actual video camera), appears to be either 60 interlaced or progressive frames per second.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I hate it too. Cinema teaches us how to watch it, and we've been taught our whole lives how to watch 24fps.

But it is interesting that there's nothing inherently superior about 24fps; it was a hastily agreed upon compromise that dates to the birth of talkies. Warner Bros. was working with Western Electric to make The Jazz Singer using the Vitaphone system. At the time, most motion pictures were shot at around 60 feet per minute (16fps) but exhibited at faster frame rate to pack more showtimes in. But audiences were far more sensitive to distortions in the speed of sound than in the speed of visuals, so a standardized framerate needed to be established. The Vitaphone team met with experts from Warner Bros. to figure out a solution. Stanley Watkins, the chief engineer on the Vitaphone project, asked (I believe) Warner Bros.'s head projectionist what speed movies were projected at. The Warner Bros. expert told him that the first-run theaters ran movies at around 80 feet per minute (a little slower than 22fps) while the discount second-run theaters ran movies faster at around 100 feet per minute (nearly 27fps) to maximize the number of screenings. Watkins took the average of the two speeds ([80+100]/2) and settled on 90 feet per minute as the compromise. And so 24fps became the standard.

If Edison's 46fps standard had taken root, that would probably be the "right" look, and anything else would feel off. It would be interesting to take someone from the early 1920s and show them a movie in 24 fps and movie in 48 fps and see if they share the same preference for 24fps.

But 24fps is objectively advantageous over high frame rates in one respect: it hides a lot of flaws. A lot of the tricks that constitute movie magic would not be possible at higher frame rates.

 

[WillG]

I hate it too. Cinema teaches us how to watch it, and we've been taught our whole lives how to watch 24fps.

In fairness, a lot of it is that we're just not used to it, so it looks strange. Even thought I thought it looked strange, I saw all the Hobbits in HFR because I respected that was how PJ intended it to be seen.

But honestly, I probably don't ever see myself getting fully used to it.

 

[Malcolm R]

I saw one of the Hobbit films in HFR. I did not like it at all, and would not choose to view any other films in this manner.

It did not seem like film. It was more like watching a stage production.

 

[Edwin-S]

Just because we dinosaurs grew up with low frame rate, low resolution media does not mean that generations going forward will prefer to keep watching films that way. Younger people are growing up watching high frame rate material, especially in video games. Once all of us dinosaurs pass, 60FPS will probably become the standard and future generations will wonder how we ever thought that low frame rate, judder filled films were the epitome of artful film making.

 

[TravisR]

...I saw all the Hobbits in HFR because I respected that was how PJ intended it to be seen.

Same here and I have to say that when a shot was static, it really looked great and the detail was incredible. However, any movement in the shot and it looked terrible and fake. I don't know if that 'movement problem' is something that can even be overcome but if it can be fixed, I think I (and filmmakers) will be a lot more on board with HFR.

 

[SamT]

I think there is no problem with the movements in HFR. They don't look fake, the problem is that they look real and we don't go to movies to watch real reality.

There is something biological behind it, it's not just that we are used to it. Why do we use rectangle screens? Why no to say that we are used to it and the future generations could watch movies in circles?

 

[SamT]

This is a real question. Explain to me why we accept rectangle screens? Why not to watch in circle shaped screens? A circle is more logical and natural.

 

[TJPC]

We paid extra to see the second Hobbit film in 3D HFR after hearing about it so much. The 3 of us could not see any difference. We reverted to 3D imax for the last one.

 

[TravisR]

This is a real question. Explain to me why we accept rectangle screens? Why not to watch in circle shaped screens? A circle is more logical and natural.

I'd guess it was the normal shape for photography in the 1850's (or whenever photographs were invented) and when films started, they just kept that square shape because it was just the norm. Then in the 1950's, they decided to shoot movies in a wider format to compete against the smaller square shape of a TV.

 

[Worth]

I'd guess it was the normal shape for photography in the 1850's (or whenever photographs were invented) and when films came into being, they just kept that square shape because it was just the norm. Then in the 1950's, they decided to shoot movies in a wider format to compete against the smaller square shape of a TV.

I think the shift to wider screens was less about shape than size - existing cinemas had more space to expand on the sides than on the top and bottom.

 

[Worth]

Just because we dinosaurs grew up with low frame rate, low resolution media does not mean that generations going forward will prefer to keep watching films that way. Younger people are growing up watching high frame rate material, especially in video games. Once all of us dinosaurs pass, 60FPS will probably become the standard and future generations will wonder how we ever thought that low frame rate, judder filled films were the epitome of artful film making.

I'm not convinced there's much of a future for cinema, period. The younger generations seem more interested in watching YouTube videos on their phones than anything else.

 

[WillG]

Why not to watch in circle shaped screens? A circle is more logical and natural.

I would suggest watching something in a circle would be a frustrating experience. I don't necessarily agree that a circle is more natural. If you look around you you'll likely find that a lot of our world is square/rectangular. Things such as houses, buildings, cars and even people generally have a square/rectangular shape.

Viewing something in a circle would result in cropping high and low. Think about viewing a line of people on a circular display, it wouldn't be long before heads and feet began to get cut off on the sides of the display. A square or rectangle alleviates that problem.

 

[Tino]

Our vision is more rectangular than circular.

Simple.

 

[Tino]

Btw I love HFR.

 

[skylark68]

I hated the Hobbit in HFR. However, I hated the Hobbit for other reasons too so it might not have been just the frame rate.

 

[SamT]

Our vision is circular and not rectangular. Circle is the normal shape because your eyes are circle. Your field of view is circle. The normal shape for photography is circle. In the beginning it was a small hole, later a circle lens. Every image in your eyes and photography are circles.

My point is that we chose rectangles to be able to frame subjects, to focus our attention on what they want us to see and it's more pleasant. So for me, because it looks real, it's not a good excuse to have it.