Is there a legitimate argument against high frame rate films?

is there a legitimate argument against high frame rate films?

pic unrelated

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=71dH4V-C3H8
youtube.com/watch?v=d2dYBU0s6sE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

it looks shit

I grew up on lower framerates, so films with higher frames look like soap operas to me, almost too real in a way. The most jarring example I saw was one of the Hobbit movies in theatres. It just looked like a bunch of people standing around in costumes. I realize that's all filmmaking is, but it seemed off to me.

HFR is for vidya and soap operas. Cinema is 24fps and always will be.

>Cinema is 24fps and always will be
why?

higher framerate pornos ive seen look good to me, so im fine with it

I agree with this. Part of the "magic" of movies is the lower framerate than TV. It's easier to suspend your disbelief when the movie itself is "unreal". When you make it too smooth it takes you out of it completely.
Instead of getting drawn in it just makes it look even more like a bunch of people in front of green screen.

No. Higher framerates look better, morons just aren't used to it.

The lack of motion blur strains the eyes of many people. Once the technology is there to give the film an artificial motion blur during frame interchange, the higher framerate will be standard

Fucking this

Why would I want it anyway?

Please be trolling.

HFR in 3D for the Hobbit was amazing.

Literally Avatar-tier visuals.

You can hate the Hobbit-trilogy all you want, but visually speaking it raised the bar.

this
>why is porn superior to film?

That shitty 12 Years A Slave was like that.

>Cinema is 24fps and always will be.

Well, except when it's 30fps.

>Higher framerates look better, morons just aren't used to it.

This.

You must be blind. Do you remember the giant molten gold statue melting and looking like a windows 98 graphic? How bout the barrels in the river scene? That shit sent cinema back to the dark ages.

I completely disagree. There was not one moment during The Hobbit where I thought the higher frame rate added anything. It only distracted me.

Like this user said it just looks weird. Like a home recording of a stage play or something

>doesnt see the difference between HFR and normal FR
>calls others blind

Trolling it is.

Heres your (you).

"no"

I bet you play video games.

Kinda superfluous.

Doesnt' really help or hinder the film in any functional way.
To be honest, I felt overwhelmed during the Hobbit with that wooden bridge collapsing and debree everywhere, it felt like too much information, but I wouldn't really argue that this shouldn't ever be used.

Things are the way they are for a reason, the illusion of motion sustained in an effective and economical way, and there's no real reason to rationalize using High Frame Rates.

Then you have no idea about cgi and green screen technology.

The first time I saw the Hobbit in HFR in the cinema I was weirded out, but impressed by the fluidity and flawless merging of the real sets withs superimposed CGI.

After watching the Hobbit in non-HFR, I saw the difference (in the cinema).

Higher frame rate is truly the future.

Especially as action scenes more and more erratic. So many movies [especially Bourne] could have benefited from a higher frame rate.

"no", I dont.

I bet you dont have an argument.

When I saw the high frame rate version it made it painfully obvious how CG it was and how it made everything stand out from everything else. I don't know how you could think it made anything look better.

Hola r eddit!

So youre saying you would have had trouble spotting the CGI, when Smaug showed up?

Is that really your argument?

Im starting to regret having voiced my opinion.

This thread is a gigantic troll fest.

Hola p lebbit!

Because they make movies look like video games i. e. The Hobbit

ITT people who can spot the CGI

>1980
>going to see The Empire Strikes Back PSYCHED fuckin love Star Wars
>Luke's on this planet, meets some guy
>the guy is a puppet
>like, an actual fucking puppet
>do they think I'm stupid or what
>hiss loudly, throw popcorn at the screen
>loudly berate those who shush me for not realising it's a puppet
>escorted out of the theatre, refused refund
>absolutely fucking disgusting
>a puppet

Motion blur is one of the best ways of hiding CG. But yea let's make a fantasy film look like Days of our Lives because Peter Jackson is a fat fuck

I miss film grain

I don't think a higher frame rate will help me feel more from a film.

this is puppets, this is mechanicals, this is puppets, this is mechanicals ,this is puppets, this is mechanicals, this is puppets, this is mechanicals

>Like a home recording of a stage play or something

that "home recording" feel made it seem more real to me because it felt like i was watching something that actually happened and recorded, not a highly edited and stylized movie

this.

shooting in higher fps makes cgi look even more noticeable and worse than it already does too

>almost too real in a way
>i dont want movies to look realistic

???

I don't even know what your point about Smaug is. My point is that the CG background didn't blend in well, the CG characters didn't blend into the live action crew, and every time they moved on screen I was reminded that I wasn't in a magical land but watching people pretend to fight invisible orcs on green screen. At no point was anything believable. High frame belongs to video cameras and sport events.

LOOK THE POINT IS THAT IT'S NEW AND THEREFORE SUCKS BECAUSE I ASSOCIATE SAYING THAT THINGS SUCK WITH HAVING TASTE AND HAVE CHOSEN TO INVEST MY SENSE OF SELF-WORTH IN PURPORTING TO HAVE TASTE IN MOVIES SO SHUT UP

I have a 60fps of Star Trek 2009 its fuggin sweet

Planet of the apes too

This.

The problem that framerate and resolution nerds are incapable of perceiving is that at a certain point you're just pulling the curtain back and seeing actors on a set instead of the movie. There's a reason HFR died after hobbit, nobody cared and the spec dorks went back to their video games

i think hes trying to say that monsters/dragons/other things that are not real are obviously not real and made up of cgi

personally i disagree with your opinion and thought the higher frame rate made the cg stuff blend in better with live action stuff

>The problem that framerate and resolution nerds are incapable of perceiving is that at a certain point you're just pulling the curtain back and seeing actors on a set instead of the movie

the problem that you are incapable of perceiving is that people want that kind of feel from movies

muh tradition

the real reason hfr died out after the hobbit is because it costs more to produce and bluray players cannot handle playing hfr movies

>the problem that you are incapable of perceiving is that people want that kind of feel from movies

KEK, so the reason 48 fps faded back into soap opera obscurity like the gimmick it was is actually because people *wanted* it?

They want movies to look like cheap day-time TV instead of real productions with money behind them? I'm glad these people's opinions don't matter because that sounds like hell on earth.

...with literally no consumer protest or backlash.

I dunno about high framerate in films but higher framerate animation consistently looks far better than standard 24fps and obviously lacks any "too real soap opera" effect people complain about
youtube.com/watch?v=71dH4V-C3H8
youtube.com/watch?v=d2dYBU0s6sE
>inb4 weebshit, just using it as an example of ultra fluid animation

This, 60fps looks weird at first but your eyes adjust after a couple of minutes, then when you switch back to 24fps it looks like laggy dogshit by comparison

No expert but that would probably be related to why videogames look better at 60fps?

48 fps would literally double the work of a CGI department. Which in film studio terms would get you half the results

>five minutes of shit scenes makes an entire 12 hour series shit

some people wanted it, not enough to make it commercially viable

there was protest and backlash. id imagine you didnt see any because you were not interested in higher frame rate to begin with

Is this some kind of artificial 60fps? Because it looks like dogshit, and usually I'm fine with higher frame rates.

Here's the rule. If a real thing is in your movie, it better not be hfr.
Vidja->OK
Animated->OK
Blade runner -> fuck me
Who framed Rodger rabbit -> wew

Not speaking for everyone but higher frame rates make me feel sick after 30+ minutes

That's not how animation works... the server farm gets twice the work... that's all.

We don't hand draw frames anymore.

Moot argument. Have yet to see the potential of hfr exercised by somebody with vision.

they still have to hand pick all the tweening keyframes or whatever the terminology is

Did you not see hfr Hobbit?
It made it look so "real" that all you could see was costumed modern day people running around green screens. Maybe if you use it better it could be good but The Hobbit is literally a legitimate argument against the technology.

is there a legitimate argument for or against high frame rate films?

everything in this thread can be summed up as "its my opinion and everyone who disagrees is some kinda retard"

I think people are resistant to HFR for the same reason that they were initially resistant to switching from SD to HD, lower resolutions and lower framerates might be technically inferior but they do a better job at hiding flaws like shitty sets, shitty costumes and shitty special effects.

Movie and television production companies had to spend a fucking fortune increasing their production values to adapt to HD, they're dreading having to do that again for 60fps 4k UHD and then probably having to do it again in ten years for 120fps 6k UHD

There's also not one for it either

thats why i said "for or against" in my post retard

I should have read more carefully, cumdrop

It's impossible to make a sweeping generalization that high fps films look good or look bad. It totally depends on the film, what the director is trying to accomplish and if the cinematographer knows what they are doing.

High frame rate makes special effects look like shit.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with higher frame rate in animated or full-CGI films though.

Cameron your shit sucks too

24fps and 1/50 shutter speed helps creates a beautiful abstraction from reality, a major part of the "film look". since the advent of digital video it's been possible to capture high frame rate video but the most successful and widely used camera systems like Arri or RED mostly try their best to imitate shooting on film.

people seem to forget that the goal of most creative filmmaking isn't to capture reality, as that would be quite dull.

...

traditionalist cucks literally prefer films that look blurry and jittery

fuck off

i'm guessing you like video games but can't into art theory

His mission is clear: make Avatar 2 the Terminator 2 of the series. Make it exclusively in 48fps. People will remember it like we remember CGI used for the T-1000. Gross over $3bn.

If he cannot do it, then no one can.

> hfr looks like shit
Sounds like a creative challenge to me.

this is a good mentality
ultimately the question this, and 3d, and new viewing platforms brings up is: what is film these days? is film as we knew it dead? perhaps an outdated medium?

48fps is not fast enough to look real. 24fps isn't either but we're accostumed to it.

when movies can be displayed at at least 100 fps they will look a lot closer to real life.

it looks like a dream, it looks cinematic

With hfr you could see her shelf ears were glued on

Also it made all cgi terrible. Get back to me when cgi and shelf ear tech advance.

Thank you and I agree.

We live in a time in which visual entertainment technology is rapidly advancing. On the one hand these new technologies can be sneered at because of perceived inferiorities to the standards of today but on the other hand those with vision can take those technologies and show what new avenues they could lead down.

Maybe it will turn out that 48fps *is* a bad for for live action visual effects extravaganzas. But not enough movies have been produced yet to prove that. Filmmakers need to build off of each other's failures as much as their successes.

Personally, if many people think it makes movies look too real, like a soap opera, then I think that that points HFR in a direction. What kinds of movies or stories could benefit from looking real or like a soap opera? A drama perhaps? A historical film maybe? Documentaries?

It's well established that HFR is used in video games. What if a live action adaptation of a video game used HFR to create a subtle familiarity (granted video games use much higher FRs). Zack Snyder, opinions aside, is often accused of making video game lije movies. Maybe he would actually benefit from HFR moviemaking.

I could go on and on.

How would a martial Arts Film benefit/suffer from Hfr. I hate blurry Shakey cam fights ala Borne but I think it might be acceptable to have fight scenes off that speed minus litterally shaking the camera.

24 fps is unquestionably better. if you're a fedora tipping luddite.

Hell yes. Martial arts fights are often ultimately dance sequences. I think they would certainly stand to benefit from a HFR so that we can see the details in the choreography.

HERE IS WHY 48 FPS LOOKS LIKE SHIT

Wave your hand in front of your face, there is motion blur. Now look at this image, 24 FPS most closely resembles the level of motion blur you see in your eye.

This could be counteracted by adding motion blur in post, but would end up creating motion blur artifacts that you can see when you pause. Any screenshot would be in mid blur.

So yes, the reason 48 FPS looks weird is because it's literally wrong for portraying the human eye. It gives films an otherworldly effect which can be great if used properly, but there's a reason we still use 24 frames in 99% of movies despite the fact that digital frames don't cost money like actual film.

You can have non blurry Bourne style fight scenes in a movie at 24fps. Maybe for those exact movies with that Greengrass style it could work, but you can do locked down non shaky cam fights just as well on regular film. Look at old Jackie Chan movies. Those didn't require high frame rate to make the fights awesome

While agree that movies look weird in 48-60 fps, sport looks so great in the higher frame rates so I think it is just some mental block people have about how they expect films to look.

anyone dislike HD for looking more like real life? good home media should be fuzzy and grainy

You have literally no idea what you are talking about it, motion blur is determined by shutter angle not framerate. And even if it wasn't you are wrong conceptually- movies shot at an infinitely high framerate would most closely mimic our eyesight, because then the motion blur would be coming exclusively from our eyes.

For the record I'm not taking a position on the issue either way, I think Cameron is probably the closest to figuring out an optimal solution by switching framerate based on the shot.

> motion blur is determined by shutter angle not framerate.

Hang yourself. Motion blur is the loss of detail when an object is in motion. 24 frames copies our eye extremely closely, 48 is further away from that level. There's literally millions of movies shot at 24 fps and you're fucking stupid if you think cost is the reason.

>24 frames copies our eye extremely closely
Literally more retarded than console gaymers trying to claim that the human eye can only see 30fps

You'de be surprised. We are hugely conditioned as to what we are able to understand visually.

>6K in 10 years

Nigga Samsung and LG are already working in consumer grade 8K TVs.

I'm aware of this, keep in mind HD TV already existed in the 1990s and commercially available 4k screens were already available in 2001, it can take a really fucking long time for new technology to become mainstream

You have no idea what you're talking about. Double the frame rate means half the motion blur, which is less motion blur than our eyes see, which is why it looks like dogshit. You should stop posting, you're fucking humiliating yourself.

By that logic motion blur should be non existent since we see reality in far more than 48fps

fucking anti-art trash

>48 fps isn't half the motion blur of 24

You officially don't know what you're talking about. Less motion blur is one of the biggest selling points for high frame rates. This is not up for debate or discussion.

I dont believe you

High Framerate is already a standard in gaming nowadays but mostly because it works much better in that format.

The difference between live action and CGI is much more jarring in higher FPS

Looks like shit the same way HD film used to look before they turned up all the distortion and grain and shit in post.