3D, just a fad?

[Treblaine]

Where is should be is in framerate.

Bear with me here. For almost the entire history of cinema the standard has been 24 frames per second, but this was only chosen because it was the LOWEST POSSIBLE frame rate to give the illusion of smooth motion, but it only worked if the camera stayed very still.

Video chose 30fps due to it far more likely to be moving but any serious PC gamer knows the benefit of 60frames/sec for smooth motion over 24-30fps. 24fps only give smooth motion if the camera is very still and the action quite stationary.

This is a real problem video-philes have been grappling with for decades to counter "teh stutter" which is very apparent when you have a high quality and high resolution screen it is extremely apparent in fast moving or panning shots. They have blamed the "3:2" pulldown on 60hz screens but that is not the guilty party but in fact the problem comes down to how it is filmed.

The thing is if films, sports events and anything which has high movement, if recorded and played back at 60hz there is a huge benefit.

The best part is 60Hz cameras are not much more expensive, they are not at all harder to film with, blu-ray/HD-transmission easily has the capacity for that framerate, and screens can play it back with no modifications... whatsoever.

I can't remember where, but I remember reading somewhere about a side-effect to what you're suggesting- lots of people view live-action recordings taken at high framerates as "fake", because they've gotten used to the 24FPS standard and only see higher framerates from CGI and the like.

That's extraordinary if true, it's a damning indictment that so many people have it ingrained into them to accept a less realistic jerky depiction as more "real" simply because that's what was done before.

Surely the smoother the motion appears then the more lifelike it would appear? I mean isn't that what 3D movies are trying (and failing) to do? Yet people accept that attempt at more realism.

I think one reason it might be called "fake" (whatever that ACTUALLY means) as if motion-interpolation is used with a 120Hz refresh rate is because only every 5th frame is a "real" frame, the 4 connecting frames are made on the fly by internal computer graphics logic. But the logic is not perfect, it can look a bit shit. Though it will be smooth.

Hmm, just done a bit of research and found this:

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP169.pdf

It's a BBC White Paper investigating the benefits of recording in high-frame-rate of +60fps and it states how much of an positive advantage high-frame-rate offers, particularly for wide panning shots and action-shots. i.e. You can actually see what is going on and viewer's test were universally positive.

The good news is 2.5 times higher resolution doesn't necessarily mean 2.5-times larger size on disc, as compression is used for all video storage and broadcast and that is done from frame-to-frame. Higher frame-rates mean smaller changes between each frame so easier to code for and compress with good quality.

 

[RagnorakTres]

snipped for space

So.

What you're saying is that technology that we already have and can use but choose not to (for a variety of reasons, not least among them that people have a tendency to believe that anything filmed above 24fps is faked; they've gotten too used to it) is the future of cinema.

That makes total sense. No, really, no sarcasm at all is being used to attempt to strain the illogic of the statement you just made.

The human eye can view semi-fast motion (a person walking down the street, for example) as fluid at about 18 frames per second, with motion blur.[footnote]Video games require higher framerates than movies to appear smooth because there is no motion blur.[/footnote] "More frames per second" does not equate to "smoother viewing," because the human eye takes in information as a constant stream, not as a series of flashes. Those "flicker-free" televisions? They actually flicker at less than 1/100th of a second, so fast that the brightness of the majority of the second "eats" the darkness of the flicker.[footnote]I actually found all this info here [http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm], feel free to look around and find information to contradict me. I don't know about you, but I'm enjoying this. I've learned a lot.[/footnote]

I'm not saying improvements can't be made there, nor that they would do absolutely nothing, but it's not the direction we need to strain ourselves in. Maybe 3D isn't either, but it's a direction, and a better one than "more frames per second." I don't know what other improvements can be made to cinema (Wait...they could kill Michael Bay! That would instantaneously make every movie ever made better!) because I'm not a film techie, I'm a film aficionado, but I'm sure there are other things that can be done.

 

[Treblaine]

snipped for space

So.

What you're saying is that technology that we already have and can use but choose not to (for a variety of reasons, not least among them that people have a tendency to believe that anything filmed above 24fps is faked; they've gotten too used to it) is the future of cinema.

That makes total sense. No, really, no sarcasm at all is being used to attempt to strain the illogic of the statement you just made.

The human eye can view semi-fast motion (a person walking down the street, for example) as fluid at about 18 frames per second, with motion blur. "More frames per second" does not equate to "smoother viewing," because the human eye takes in information as a constant stream, not as a series of flashes. Those "flicker-free" televisions? They actually flicker at less than 1/100th of a second, so fast that the brightness of the majority of the second "eats" the darkness of the flicker.

I'm not saying improvements can't be made there, nor that they would do absolutely nothing, but it's not the direction we need to strain ourselves in. Maybe 3D isn't either, but it's a direction, and a better one than "more frames per second." I don't know what other improvements can be made to cinema (Wait...they could kill Michael Bay! That would instantaneously make every movie ever made better!) because I'm not a film techie, I'm a film aficionado, but I'm sure there are other things that can be done.

(I actually found all this info here [http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm], feel free to look around and find information to contradict me. I don't know about you, but I'm enjoying this. I've learned a lot.)

"What you're saying is that technology that we already have and can use but choose not to (for a variety of reasons, not least among them that people have a tendency to believe that anything filmed above 24fps is faked; they've gotten too used to it) is the future of cinema."

Oh FFFFFUUUUUUUUU- Do you REALISE how many weasel words you use there?!?!?!

#1 You made up that crap about "anything above 24fps appears fake" and never supplied an ouce of proof nor even a supporting quote. And you have been proven wrong on that anyway with real world data, if you had bothered to read the BBC's White paper on this that I provided for you.

#2 BLATANT Weasel Words when you say "chose not to" when you have NO IDEA the reasoning of Hollywood and the BBC. How can you say the deliberately dismissed and banned any plans for hi-frame-rate when it could be simply that they failed to adopt it. Remember you have to get EVERYONE to agree on a new standard and at the moment everyone has just jumped on the 3D bandwagon. Maybe THAT is why there has not been wide adoption. Maybe it's simply that high-frame-rate is not as "marketable" as 3D gimmickry.

Also, don't be sarcastic about not being sarcastic... that is just beyond annoying and incredibly counter-productive and immature.

I have played games like Crysis and Killzone 2 with fully mapped motion blur per-object at 18-frames per second and I'll tell you it looks like crap. You can see the blur, each object is blurred and the judder is still there and incredibly obvious. His "18fps quake" analogy is one of the many examples of baseless speculation that make up the foundation of his argument.

If you had bothered to read the white paper I provided it details how motion of the camera causes sever loss in Temporal Resolution. That is, blurring (through shutter effects) to hide the judder effect.

Flicker free televisions are a completely irrelevant issue if the source material is still at 24 frames/sec. Flicker is NOT the issue here, the issue is NOT the frame appearing to go black for a second. The issue is directors are LIMITED to static shots due to framerate limitations, and audiences literally cannot see what is going on in fast action scenes.

Bottom Line: Higher Framerates Improve Visual Quality: and that's a fact.
Even you article mentions this before going off on a tangent, cinematographers are FORCED to introduce blur (it's to do with shutter speed) to reduce the obviousness of judder from low-frame rate. A higher frame-rate FINALLY frees the camera from having to be locked down and allows for wide panning shots and fast action with a wide shutter.

High frame rate makes a director's job easier, 3D only makes his or her art harder. higher framerate instantly and significantly improve the audience's viewing experience and reduces hassle, while 3D only causes more hassle.

Please, you admit you are not a film techie, so don't be so snide about disagreeing with me and ESPECIALLY with the BBC technicians who put a lot of effort into their White Paper.

 

[Nova5]

After having tried a couple of 3D options in the last few weeks at the local electronics retailer, I feel it's safe to say that 3D is the "HDDVD" of the TV market. It'll fail, and fail hard. People don't want to replace the HDTVs they've just been able to afford (if at all), and an elitist group of rich pricks isn't enough to support an entire market.

Not to mention this will drive up development costs for everything, from TV shows to games.

 

[benoitowns]

No, I think 3D is here to stay. I'm afraid TV companies have run out of new things to sell us after we all got HD, so now they have to come up with something new. I think it's gonna become the standard very soon, within five years or so.

Good argument though =)

Well they could always make it more HD, so there would be like SD quality, HD quality, and HDer quality. And eventually there could even be Uber HD quality.

The only problem with that is that it's already hard to justify 1080P on anything smaller than about 45". Most people can't tell the difference between 720P and 1080P on smaller sets. To jump higher than 1080P would be excessive.

NO one is arguing that it would be excessive, but people would buy it anyway. Yay for consumerism.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I'm reasonably convinced that 3D is neither a fad nor the end goal but rather a step towards the holo-deck (or a reasonable analog such as the Matrix) that can be achieved using current technology for a price that is low enough to be palatable for early adopters.

Assuming they can resolve a few problems with the technology (namely that my brain does not like processing information in such a fashion and revolts by trying to implode) I'm more or less satisfied with the idea. Few movies or shows would be improved if presented in 3D however. Indeed even Avatar - the poster child for the concept was almost exactly as entertaining in 2d as 3D.

 

[RagnorakTres]

snip

White paper? I didn't see that, I'll look back through your posts. Apologies.

In any case:

I never denied that higher framerates didn't improve visual quality. Or if I did, that is not what I meant. You're supposed to read my mind! XD

I suppose what I meant for my final point was that yes, higher framerates can and do improve visual quality in 2 dimensions. However, in my opinion (based solely on what I've seen), we can pursue that line of technology with freedom at any point. It's not the direction I think the movie industry's time is best spent on. I don't know that 3D tanks are either (stereoscopic glasses can go to hell, they give me headaches), but it seems like a technology that can be used to move more than just the movie industry further. Higher framerates as far as I can see (though I do not claim to be omniscient) only benefit those people who use video cameras and film movies (and, I suppose, video game developers). 3D tanks, on the other hand: with the correct software, they can help in criminal investigations, telephoning, VR research, movie and game industries and probably dozens or hundreds of other inane uses I can't think of right now because it's 1 in the morning.

I suppose I'm thinking more in terms of technology in general than technology for the movie industry. Anyway, I found the BBC paper you linked and I'll have a response up after I've read it and thought about how to twist its words into my argument. XD
EDIT:
You've proven, if nothing else, that higher framerates do indeed result in better picture quality. That was an interesting paper, though again, I can see no real benefit to any fields outside of cinema, television and video games. When I speak of 3D, I'm generally thinking about holograms (or tanks, a euphemism I picked up from reading too much Heinlein), which, as I said above, can conceivably be utilized in more ways to a greater societal benefit.