Frame Rates: In a quick google search, I can't find good clips of 30p vs. 60p. But as a thought experiment, think about how interpolating 24p to 60p makes stuff look weird. Film makers talk about 60p making stuff "too real". The cinematographer in the linked editorial uses the phrase "I know too much".
Perhaps this is tied to the concept of the uncanny valley. This is supposed to be art, not reality, and moving it closer to reality (but not all the way there) makes it kind of creepy.
Let's look at it from the other side. Consider high motion content. This could be "high motion" due to camera movement, or movement of subjects/objects within the scene, or both. Taking high motion content and down-converting it from 60p to 30p also makes it look weird. Smooth motion is no longer smooth. I find this very distracting in sports. It's supposed to be as real as possible.
Consider the difference between NFL TV coverage and NFL Films (do they still exist?). They have very different looks. One is the real deal. The other is historical commentary on past events. Dropping the frame rate removes immediacy and puts events in a curio box.
Beyond the aesthetics, I just find low frame rate images of sports to be visually distracting. 24p is insufficient to convey smooth motion, and my eyes are bothered by the "slide show" aspect of low frame rates.
Another aspect of frame rate is video gamers. Gamers spend vast sums of money to acheive high frame rates. 60p really isn't quite enough, and they will pay to render at higher rates. Part of this is "lag". They don't want to waste tens of milliseconds for the next image to appear. But also they get used to the look. I think this will be a motivator for improvement of rates.
Youtube is finally bucking. Fuck yeah!
I think I understand why motion Interpolation would cheapen the look of 24fps procuctions, and not that I disagree but I don't understand how the frame rate can make the lighting and production look poor. Slow motion cinematography doesn't have the cheap look of soap operas from the 1970s (whereas my viewing of Lord of the Rings on a high def set did) Is this because slow motion footage is typically played back at 24 or 30 fps?
Motion interpolation shouldn't screw up lighting, etc. However, TV's that have motion interpolation often have noise reduction. Film grain looks like noise to a noise reduction circuit. So there could be that visual aspect. Also, TV's tend to be set too bright and have the saturation cranked up. This crap sells TV. For critical viewing, it's important to get to know all the menus and submenus and advanced menus, etc. on the TV set.
Slo-mo is a whole different deal. Suppose you capture at 240 fps and playback at 24 fps. Another camera captures at 600 fps and plays back at 60 fps. They will both have the same apparent slo-mo effect (10x). One will have video-like smoothness, and the other will look like film.
I read an article that Ray Harryhausen's films didn't look "real" because of the lack of motion blur.
Yes. Lack of motion blur is a problem. There was a zombie movie (28 days later) that used a fast shutter speed (which reduces motion blur) on purpose. They wanted it to look weird.
Back to video games. In computer generated imagery, motion blur is hard. Spatial blur (to soften out jaggy edges) is hard. So they endeavor to crank up frame rate and resolution as a brute force way to address those two issues. In CGI for cinema, they take the time to do the proper spatial and temporal filtering.
I don't know if NFL films still exist but I think they were beautiful. Shot on film at high frame rates, I always wished the games could look as good.
|
Frame Rates: In a quick google search, I can't find good clips of 30p vs. 60p. But as a thought experiment, think about how interpolating 24p to 60p makes stuff look weird. Film makers talk about 60p making stuff "too real". The cinematographer in the linked editorial uses the phrase "I know too much".
Perhaps this is tied to the concept of the uncanny valley. This is supposed to be art, not reality, and moving it closer to reality (but not all the way there) makes it kind of creepy.
Let's look at it from the other side. Consider high motion content. This could be "high motion" due to camera movement, or movement of subjects/objects within the scene, or both. Taking high motion content and down-converting it from 60p to 30p also makes it look weird. Smooth motion is no longer smooth. I find this very distracting in sports. It's supposed to be as real as possible.
Consider the difference between NFL TV coverage and NFL Films (do they still exist?). They have very different looks. One is the real deal. The other is historical commentary on past events. Dropping the frame rate removes immediacy and puts events in a curio box.
Beyond the aesthetics, I just find low frame rate images of sports to be visually distracting. 24p is insufficient to convey smooth motion, and my eyes are bothered by the "slide show" aspect of low frame rates.
Another aspect of frame rate is video gamers. Gamers spend vast sums of money to acheive high frame rates. 60p really isn't quite enough, and they will pay to render at higher rates. Part of this is "lag". They don't want to waste tens of milliseconds for the next image to appear. But also they get used to the look. I think this will be a motivator for improvement of rates.
Youtube is finally bucking. Fuck yeah!
- mark 11-03-2014 2:47 am
I think I understand why motion Interpolation would cheapen the look of 24fps procuctions, and not that I disagree but I don't understand how the frame rate can make the lighting and production look poor. Slow motion cinematography doesn't have the cheap look of soap operas from the 1970s (whereas my viewing of Lord of the Rings on a high def set did) Is this because slow motion footage is typically played back at 24 or 30 fps?
- steve 11-03-2014 9:05 am [add a comment]
Motion interpolation shouldn't screw up lighting, etc. However, TV's that have motion interpolation often have noise reduction. Film grain looks like noise to a noise reduction circuit. So there could be that visual aspect. Also, TV's tend to be set too bright and have the saturation cranked up. This crap sells TV. For critical viewing, it's important to get to know all the menus and submenus and advanced menus, etc. on the TV set.
Slo-mo is a whole different deal. Suppose you capture at 240 fps and playback at 24 fps. Another camera captures at 600 fps and plays back at 60 fps. They will both have the same apparent slo-mo effect (10x). One will have video-like smoothness, and the other will look like film.
- mark 11-03-2014 7:55 pm [add a comment]
I read an article that Ray Harryhausen's films didn't look "real" because of the lack of motion blur.
- steve 11-03-2014 9:24 am [add a comment]
Yes. Lack of motion blur is a problem. There was a zombie movie (28 days later) that used a fast shutter speed (which reduces motion blur) on purpose. They wanted it to look weird.
Back to video games. In computer generated imagery, motion blur is hard. Spatial blur (to soften out jaggy edges) is hard. So they endeavor to crank up frame rate and resolution as a brute force way to address those two issues. In CGI for cinema, they take the time to do the proper spatial and temporal filtering.
- mark 11-03-2014 8:04 pm [add a comment]
I don't know if NFL films still exist but I think they were beautiful. Shot on film at high frame rates, I always wished the games could look as good.
- steve 11-03-2014 9:28 am [add a comment]