High Frame Rate (1 Viewer)

[Mike Frezon]

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.

I know next-to-nothing about photography, Sam...but I'm having some difficulty with some of your suppositions. Nothing about my vision seems circular. I am blessed to have a full-field of vision. I get no sense that my vision involves a circular shape at all. And most photographic images I've seen are rectangular. Unless, of course, I'm totally misunderstanding you--which is entirely possible.

 

[Mark-P]

I know next-to-nothing about photography, Sam...but I'm having some difficulty with some of your suppositions. Nothing about my vision seems circular. I am blessed to have a full-field of vision. I get no sense that my vision involves a circular shape at all. And most photographic images I've seen are rectangular. Unless, of course, I'm totally misunderstanding you--which is entirely possible.

Your peripheral vision is a perfect circle for each eyeball. The two circles overlap making your peripheral vision a giant oval.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Hmmm. I get no sense of that.

I've always thought I've had exceptional peripheral vision. And never once have I had the impression that it had an oval quality.

 

[jcroy]

Your peripheral vision is a perfect circle for each eyeball. The two circles overlap making your peripheral vision a giant oval.

Could the peripheral vision of two eyeballs be more like a cardioid?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardioid

For example, I find when I try looking directly straight up using my peripheral vision, my eyes end up being "cross eyed" and is somewhat harder to see.

 

[Mark-P]

Hmmm. I get no sense of that.

I've always thought I've had exceptional peripheral vision. And never once have I had the impression that it had an oval quality.

The notch at the bottom is the obstruction of your nose!

 

[TravisR]

Now that I'm thinking about it, I can't stop seeing the rounded edges of my vision. Thanks guys!

 

[mattCR]

There are some things I love in HFR. Sports, as an example. There are some films I think could be great in HFR. But, the ones done so far were just not built for HFR. Avatar could be a film that excels in HFR if the technology is right.

I will wait and see. I'm still waiting for Smell-O-Vision to be a success

 

[Mike Frezon]

View attachment 41999

The notch at the bottom is the obstruction of your nose!

Hey! You leave my nose out of it!

I don't deny at all what you're saying, Mark. I just have no perception of that in terms of my vision. I'm trying to think of a way to express my point...but it's difficult. Because it's not as if there's any kind of frame or outline as I'm looking out my eyes!

 

[Malcolm R]

The notch at the bottom is the obstruction of your nose!

Some notches will be larger than others.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

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.

Because for most of the history of motion pictures, the only game in town was images captured on celluloid and projected sequentially. To do that, you need straight edges.

Today, we view images through grids of light-emitting diodes. A grid also favors straight edges.

There was a brief period of circular screens:

 

[Tino]

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.

Sorry. My field of vision is NOT circle. It is rectangular or at least oval. Must just be you Sam.

 

[Sean Bryan]

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.

Two overlapping circles make something that is far more oval than circle. Plus each single "circle" is already somewhat truncated at the top and bottom. The visual field in someone with two eyes is more ovoid rectangle than circle. I know my periferal vision is wider than my "up/down" vision.

 

[TJPC]

 

[Edwin-S]

Because for most of the history of motion pictures, the only game in town was images captured on celluloid and projected sequentially. To do that, you need straight edges.

Today, we view images through grids of light-emitting diodes. A grid also favors straight edges.

There was a brief period of circular screens:
View attachment 42000

i figure circular screens in the early days of television were due either to lack of knowledge in blowing rectangular glass tubes or an early inability to blow rectangular glass tubes of consistent geometric quality.

 

[TJPC]

The early colour sets were often circular. I remember seeing Star Trek in colour for the first time at a cousins house. It seemed weird and unnerving, like looking at the world through a port hole.

Weren’t all picture tubes round, and then placed in a cabinet with a frame to look rectangular? The picture on the tube was transmitted in a rectangular shape.

 

[Edwin-S]

Wen’t all picture tubes round, and then placed in a cabinet with a frame to look rectangular? The picture on the tube was transmitted in a rectangular shape.

No. Modern CR tubes use rectangular blown glass envelopes. The sides have a slight curve to them, since blowing a perfectly rectangular envelope.isn't possible. It comes pretty close though.

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

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.

You sound like that is a bad thing? To me it sounds more like it is really life-like, which, in my book, is a good thing.

 

[Tommy R]

I saw Desolation of Smaug in HFR. I HATED the look of it. Was very disappointed since it was probably my favorite of The Hobbit movies. The picture looked blurry to me when too much movement was on screen and gave me a headache considering how visually busy the movie was. There was a time or two when there was near no-movement and the picture looked stunning, but then the camera panned and the moment passed. Will NEVER see an HFR film nor 3D ever again.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think the HFR of Billy Lynn (at 120 fps in 4K resolution) looked substantially better than the Hobbit movies (at 48fps in 2K resolution).

I still think the format has a ways to go before it's satisfying as a theatrical presentation format. But I think it has great potential for theme park attraction usage.

 

[DaveF]

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?

It looks terrible because it’s not the 24fps we grew up on with film. We’re dinosaurs, eventually to be extinct.

There will be kids that grow up on higher frame rate video. They’ll suffer through old 24 FPS movies and wonder how we tolerated such barbarism.

(Ha. Edwin beat me to it )