[1997] Agent : Will ! I got this really cool sci-fi movie that will blow everyone away called the Matrix! Will Smith : not interested,too complicated. [2011] Agent : Will ! I got this new Tarantino western movie. Youd be playing opposite Leo DiCaprio, Sam Jackson and Chris Waltz. Will Smith : I dont agree with the violence. [2017] Will : Anything good for me ? Agent : nothing really except this generic action movie you've done a thou..... Will smith :I'll take it !!
@@FilmmakerIQ He was the best part of RUclips Rewind, just for the memes. I give him that much. After the intro, don't have to watch the rest of it. :)
I was working on it and trust me. It was paintful!! Compare to work on HD project, this is 4k, 120fps and all this 2x because of stereo. My computer was burning and render farm as well 😁 and nobody care that is it 8x slower work
But due to less MotionBlur tracking and even roto could be a bit easier to achieve. still the massive overhead in Data and rendertime is not worth the effect imho
Say what you want but I'm still dying to see a Hardcore Henry type movie in 120fps. I want my vomit to reach several rows in front of me. I want to be carried out on a stretcher. Thank you. That is all.
They actually shot Hardcore Henry at 48 FPS and still released it in 24. It came out after the Hobbit. There's a reason why it wasn't released in 48 and it wasn't because they couldn't ;)
Brian Tyler You are one of my biggest inspiration and I am soo fortunate to see your comment just pop up here, its like finding a gem suddenly, or its like seeing your idol while walking on street. Wanted to say HIIIIIII..! And you are my top inspiration!! I’m soo happy finding your comment here, feels like everyone is in the same universe and closer then we think! :)
i met with some friends at a friend's home to see a movie , some Nic cage movie, she had one of these new tv with "softening technology" that gets rid of motion blur.. basically everything looks like 60fps.. since i work with videos and animation i was the only one in the room feeling awkward on how bad the acting looks in these tvs.. it literally looks like a rehearsal.. incredibly horrible
Perhaps it might be beneficial to film movies to display at variable framerates? Like up the framerate on scenes where it benefits it, and reduce the framerate during scenes where fast motion would make things look crazy. Perhaps that would be too jarring though.
@@desmondbrown5508 I mean have you seen Akira? It's not jarring at all, it's just... really effective. Could be different with animation though. Could also be that they never went above 24, as far as I know, just lower. Most traditional animation work runs at an average of 24 frames per second, with main objects animated at 8 to 12 fps and background objects as low as 6 to 8 fps.
@@desmondbrown5508 Great example is spiderman animated movie.... When new spidey learn more and more they bump up frame rate. So it seems he does thing more smooth.. It is great. But I would say seeing Gemini in high frame rate really loooks sooo worst then in 24.
@CYNICAL Not at all. You made a highly inflammatory passive-aggressive comment clearly designed to incite discord, a flame bait. Your conclusions are overloaded with indirect meaning and aggressive suggestions, putting words in other people's mouth, which would cause most to waste time correcting your accusations instead of arguing in favor of, or against, the point at hand. Ultimately, your desire was to devolve the entire discussion into a flame war, at which point you'd accuse others of not wanting to counter-argue your points, optionally claiming you have a stronger stance than others, when, in fact, you made no relevant points, and it was you who initially antagonized others for no reason.
Turok Hilsen But exactly this is the point! Cinema doesn‘t want to depict real life, its an art form that creates abstractions from our reality. If this isn‘t what you want to see, don‘t see cinema films, instead look at television shows and RUclips videos.
@@friedrichrengah4747 that mentality is stupid just telling people to not do something its that don't like it don't buy it mentality you know what know i will not
Hence why HFR would severely limit the range of cinema. It would force films to fall in two extremes: either very naturalistic, realistic, subtle and grounded acting, or blatantly over-the-top, stylized and artificial, with little space for films that are "in-between" in the spectrum, because of the uncanny valley effect in HFR. What do you think of my comment?
@@viperlife914 They should just hire the people that make the cinematics for blizzard and ubisoft :)) they can handle it, i mean they can't make good games anymore anyway. 60+ frames is much clearer to me at least, even in movies. But the movie has to be filmed knowing that and account for the flaws in production that they can't hide anymore.
@@HexuTV They aren't "flaws in production," it's just how films are made. Costumes look like costumes in HFR, no matter how well they're made; in 24 frames they simply look like clothing. Stunt performers look like they're performing stunts in HFR; in 24 they look like people in natural motion. These are the kinds of wonderful tricks the cinematic framerate plays on our minds and eyes. Making something look more lifelike is not the goal, making great films is.
They look terrible because they didn't reintroduce the motion blur... otherwise it would probably be no different than the acting in a primetime soap opera shot on film.
@@FilmmakerIQ Soaps were going to look terrible regardless of frame rate even with proper blur. Frame rates aren't so much a technical issue; they are an emotional one. Most people aren't going to care that much but the ones that do are very vocal. It sucks that higher frame rates got associated with terrible and cheap television shows. Shows that would be terrible and taint any frame rate.
Well said buddy..... I mean living the professional life...... of USING THE "LACK OF QUALITY" due to Low Frame rate.... as some sort of MASK....... To Prevent audience to see all Nuances and details of performance... Is sort of By default Easiness or cheating by actors... Taking them away from the true struggle of being a Truest version of their professionalism.
@@sneb3004 You know movies aren't real right? It is the art of faking and cheating to sculpt something entertaining for you to enjoy. You don't want to see the "real" you want to be taken on a journey.
thats too far lol. the style of acting should fit the story and character. perfect axample is when playing a real person in a bio pic. u cant change your style when ur playing a specific human. u have to research that persons style of movement and delivery. what they eat, wear, how they walk etc
They said the same when HD, & then 4K, came around too. Suddenly, every department needs to step up their game. A flimsy set/make-up design might fly on a camcorder, but in 4K, it's so legible. I like the observation in this video about microseconds seeming to last forever.
@@Timliu92 honestly, that last couple of minutes where they were talking about what he was going to study was so cringe. Could have done a lot more with the story.
If you want to achieve actual good motion blur, you need even more FPS in games. Even 240 is not enough. 480+ FPS is what gaming and screen technology should aim at long term. We also need screens that arent so shit at bluring the image.
Filmmaker IQ 144fps isn’t a set standard. There are monitors with up to 260hz which can display 260fps. And actually the reason is simple: more frames = smoother visuals, less frames = not as smooth visuals. It heavily depends on your habits. If you’re used to playing games at 144fps+ and don’t watch TV, 24fps will seem choppy. If you only watch Movies and TV you’ll put them in categories so 50fps looks like a soap opera and 24fps will look “cinematic” Technically though, more FPS means smoother visuals and 24fps is only the standard because we didn’t have the tech for more back in the early days. It’s the equivalent of “a car needs to make noise” when talking about EVs. Sounds like an old habit holding back technical evolution to me. Sorry if that sounds rude.
@@stairwaves yeah yeah yeah... I know... I was applauding the spirit of the comment. I know far more about frame rate than you. I've been in this conversation for years.
@@FilmmakerIQ Thank God. I was worried that you thought games must be limited to just 144 FPS. With gaming, the more frames, the better the % lows, the better the frame pacing (even delivery of frames withing a second) the better the experience. 30 is terrible, 60 is very poor. 120 and above is decent, but we really need even more.
3:45 I'm 40 years old, so I have seen plenty 24FPS movies. I do not understand why anyone could say that a movie only looks like a real movie when it has the 24FPS stutter. Maybe because you just got used to it? I just cannot wrap my head around that idea because I hate that stutter. I'm so glad that modern tv's got quite good at interpolating frames and so smooth out that HORRENDOUS 24FPS stutter. I highly enjoy HFR *movies* (the few that exist) and 24 stutters per second cant die soon enough! That said, I'm already happy with 48, 50 or 60FPS.
Here are my thoughts on HFR, that I wrote-up over on REDDIT when such a discussion came up: When Douglas Trumbull began the quest for HFR films, I think he made a crucial mistake, a misunderstanding of the nature of human vision that perpetrators of higher-frame-rates are continuing to make. Trumbull (Kubrick's special effects master), created the original HFR process, called Showscan (with special 70mm cameras and 60 fps projectors; with which he shot one of his only two movies, "Brainstorm") because he observed that the human eye had retinas which had an electrochemical "refreshment rate" of 60 cycles per second. He took this to mean that the eye was actually seeing 60 "frames" per second. But he overlooked one crucial fact: Vision isn't a mechanical process that takes place in the eyes. Eyes aren't actually "cameras." It's a mental process occurring in the brain. The brain takes the raw material being supplied by our eyes and (subconsciously) "decides" what portion of the entire field of vision should be "developed," and almost instantaneously turned into "internal movies," visuals that are as utterly fabricated as our dreams. This is a process connected to "sensory gating," and the result is this: Although there are portions of what we look at that the mind deems important, and so "develops" into the equivalent of "high def" imagery, the majority of what we look at is either sketchily seen (almost like wire-version roughs in CGI), incorrectly seen (which is why eyewitness testimony is considered most unreliable by law, as you might "Live Dream" an entirely different face on a suspect), or not seen at all --because your mind didn't bother to process that part of your field of vision. The end result of this process is that you actually see the world in a way that isn't so much like High Def, because the entire image "averages out" to something much less precise. HFR films overload the brain, by providing it with images which seem like every inch of the field of vision is crucial, and thus should be paid-attention to and "fully developed" into vision. This processing is actually making your brain work several times harder just to see "normally," which is physically exhausting, and results in the problems of "straying attention," eye-strain, and headaches so frequently reported --as well as the perception that HFR visuals seem to have a "slickness" which strikes us as artificial. Which it is; and the mind is recoiling in some sense from the way that such visuals do not "feel" organic. This isn't something that can necessarily be "gotten used to." Vision took millions of years to evolve; and this collusion of Mind and Eye is deeply ingrained, perhaps in a way that makes HFR a complete mistake. When Film was in its embryonic stage, before 24 fps became the standardized norm (which didn't happen solely for economic reasons), early filmmakers experimented with a vast array of film speeds, both much faster and much slower. The main reason that 24 fps was settled on was that it was observed/intuited to most closely reflect our own "internal visions." It was both precise yet slightly "dreamy," and thereby more-connected to both the physical process of vision, and the mental process of imagination. It felt right. And that's how Art tends to be shaped.
I do love this comment. A good experiment of how the eye is not a camera can be conducted (by myself every few days in fact) by drop something small like a computer screw onto a gray speckled carpet. The item could be right under your nose - you can feel it with your hands as you run your fingers over the carpet, but because it's your eyes aren't really seeing the big picture and your brain trying to make sense of all that noise, you won't be able to see it that screw... until you do... then you won't be able to stop seeing it.
sorry i am not native english and it late but if i do understand your comment you clame that the brain can't take HFR for long But how you explain the difference between a film and a video game because we are millions playing a 144fps (or way less but some are at 240fps) for hours and hours and do not having any probleme with it (day one no need to "gotten use to") i mean playing (be activ) is more intense that "just" watching and so i can presume if you can play at 144fps you can totaly watch something at 120fps
Zblurth For starters, when gaming with high refresh rates it’s safe to assume you’re playing on a monitor at a desk so you’re quite close to the screen and focusing on only parts of it instead of taking it in as a whole. Also games have got very realistic, however the brain can still tell the difference so there isn’t that weird feeling of something being “too real.” At least that’s as much as I understand it.
"HFR films overload the brain, by providing it with images which seem like every inch of the field of vision is crucial, and thus should be paid-attention to and "fully developed" into vision. This processing is actually making your brain work several times harder just to see "normally," which is physically exhausting, and results in the problems of "straying attention," eye-strain, and headaches so frequently reported --" I can't help but to think, after reading this, that the job of the film maker is to control what the audience is focusing on, i.e. the filmmaker is the artist that would want to precisely control what the viewer is "properly" taking from the scene. The lesson I think here is lighting technique that "narrows" attention. I guess you could do the same kind of things with the HFR film but maybe it's not understood as well as 24fps yet.
5:55 You hit it SPOT ON. Documentaries, especially nature documentaries, filmed at 120FPS would be a godsend. It would feel like we were right there watching it.
8:57 John... it is a very shallow and poorly acted film that spread its premise way too thin. The higher fps just made you realize what it really is! It just adds clarity.
Thank you for these videos. Last winter I spent some time at a friend's house and he has a great modern TV and I couldn't figure out why the image looked horrible. I didn't mention it to him but it really bothered me. I'd never heard of the soap opera effect, but that is exactly what it reminded me. When I stumbled across your channel I instantly knew what the problem was with his TV. Fast forward to last night, I was at his house and I mentioned it to him and he adjusted his TiVO to 24 FPS and like magic, the image looks great and he is watching Die Hard on Christmas in all its glory! Thank you for fixing my friends T. V.
This really confirms my thoughts, and I can’t remember who said it, but I can’t unsee it now that that I’ve heard this. The idea is that high frame rates, even just 30p, are used for newscasts, among other things, and our brains have been trained to see anything above 24p as reality, not a story to get lost in. When you were talking about not being able to see anything other than Will Smith the person as opposed to a character, that quote immediately spring to mind. Our brains get into a beautiful haze when watching 24p - they settle in for “storytime,” whether funny or dramatic, and anything at a higher frame rate doesn’t allow us the same haze.
Very interesting. This seems to have a psychological element to it. I wonder if there is some way to describe this “mental haze” that is enjoyable to be purposefully repeated. Some sort of “suspension” of some kind?
I think 120 fps goes beyond what the eyes see in real time and so it brings to the attention the details that the brain ignores and thus it messes up things
Came here to lurk in the comments shadows and see if I can learn something from bigger cinephiles than I am - didnt realize it would be the first thread. I need to learn more about 3D and fps apparently lol
One thing other countries may have as an advantage is when they dub to their own language and hire the same guy who was will smith in the fresh prince years. Around here he sounds almost the same and its way different from the guy who voices him since independence day. If dubbing films ir right or wrong is another thing but i like the irony
Low FPS gives actors and movies more weight. High FPS will make the scenes look too real and cheesy. I once tried watching my favorite show using High FPS plugin and it looked like if the actors were preparing their lines instead of playing. Soap opera lol
Now I am wondering, is it because of custom? Or is it because of Uncanny Valley? Because the reason why 24fps started was due to technical costs. Film was expensive back then, nowadays this factor shouldn't be a thing anymore. But we're still using it.
Yes we're still using it... And not just in some movies. In ALL movies. A large part IS custom. And there's customs are far more powerful than to be brushed aside.
@@FilmmakerIQ But because it's a custom, it doesn't mean that the custom itself can't be challenged. I do have the idea that many channels sweep HFR under the rug because "it's different". Economically seen, shooting in 24fps makes a lot of sense. Less costs for storage, CGI production and etc. But in my opinion, if companies experiment more with HFR then we can overcome the stigma that HFR is getting now. I do play a lot of videogames with HFR, so I am a bit based towards HFR.
We have had 70+ years of experience and experimentation with high frame rates in the form of video and television. This notion that HFR is new technology is born out of ignorance. We know what it looks like. Customs can be challenged but you need a reason to challenge it rather that a juvenile "because it's higher". Changing just because you think it's new is a stupider reason than keeping an old system just because it's old... you don't know what you're getting into.
And no it doesn't need to happen incrementally because it doesn't need to happen. This notion that HFR is inevitable is about as laughable as flat earth theory
So I just have a small cooking channel, nothing fancy. I barely know what I'm doing and this channel's really helped me (your discussion on ISO was super important). The other day I decided to do one of our videos in 60fps, and I wanted to share my own experience. Basically, we shoot on our balcony, recently moved apartments, and during the afternoon our new apartment has like the lighting of the surface of Mercury (even with a thin white curtain there to soften the light). Decided to try 60fps mostly as a way to set a faster shutter speed. I figured that if 60fps works for sports, maybe for a cooking video it'll be fine too. The good? For the light I was working with, yeah 1/120 did make my life a little easier. The smooth motion really worked for certain points - particularly when I was completely 'zoomed in' (blanking on the proper term there haha) on the food. Also, another really helpful thing was the ability to grab stills - I'll always include an accompanying written recipe, and usually if I grab a screenshot for a specific step it looks like total garbage. At 60fps it looked really nice. The bad? There's lots of random shots we have of either me or my wife 'walking in/walking away' from the cutting board in order to have a natural sort of transition. Those looks goofy and aggressively amateurish at 60fps. Also, because we do 'hands only' cooking, sometimes I'll be showing something & have random hand motions to accompany the narration. Those weren't as bad as walking in/out, but they also came across as a bit weird. For me and for what my particular application, the bad and good more or less cancel out. But... The ugly? Disk space, and ultimately the reason I'll never shoot in 60fps again. Like most people, I like to keep all my old footage. Usually one video ends up having ~15-18gb of stuff in there. That video? 60gb. Multiply that difference over 100+ videos. That'd be over *4 terrabytes* of extra storage I'd need. Also, transferring stuff is slower, rendering is slower (I like applying noise reduction)... and for what? Next time I'll just reach for the ND filter.
"This will be the norm" is something people that don't know what they're talking about say. As of this post, not a single other cinematic film is planned to shoot 120 fps (or even 60). Not. A. Single. One But. Yes, this will "be the norm... MARK MY WORDS!" Idiocy
@@FilmmakerIQ like I said, just give it time. You can simply look at the evolution of entertainment as a whole and come up with that easy observation. It's almost stubborn to mock the situation, almost as if showing "old timers remorse". This won't happen tomorrow.... Nor next week..... Or even next year.... But it WILL happen, certainly within your lifetime. Will it jump straight to 120fps and go from there? Highly doubtful. But through some other knowledgeable observations made by those in the industry it's only a matter of time. When it happens, you'll remember this conversation :) Hopefully I'm still around to say I told ya so ;P
@@FilmmakerIQ oh also, a quick little nugget of information you can take how you will..... It's not smart to jump in your own comment section and try belittling someone because in your mind they can't hold a candle to your "big brain" all knowing and all telling, filmmaking mind. And then to lable said person under idiocy is just plain mean.... Learn to have a discussion before being so toxic. You'll gain a larger, stronger following that will look up to you.
All the comments saying that cinematic and realistic is seperate can be translated to "Movies don't need to look good, they need to look like all the ones I remember.". Lame.
@@FilmmakerIQ Are you implying that people cannot care if they do not make movies personally? Seems elitist of you. I care ALOT how good the movies I watch look. The colors and resolution have gotten so good in the last years that frame rates is now the bottleneck (like is has been before when we went from 16 frames). Watching The Hobbit in HFR was amazing. I understand that people need to get used to the smoothness, but with more HFR exposure, they will get there. The tech need a few years to HFR content to be made without a hassle tho.
@@FilmmakerIQ The fact that you consider a russian accent fake sounding based on the frame rate says a lot about how you are not able to seperate what you are used to/bias from your evaluation. I think that this is very understandable to be honest, but the fact that you can't see/recognize it makes the base of your reasoning very wobbly.
Maybe if they remaster it in a variable framerate for home video. 120fps where it looks good, then slowly step down to 24fps where needed, using the 4 extra frames to generate artificial motion blur.
There's no such thing as variable framerate (except on phones which are a massive headache to work with). All delivery mediums are constant frame rate - they have to be for technical reasons. You could master a HFR stream and repeat frames for lower frame rates, the problem is the switching of frame rate IMMEDIATELY takes you out of the film - so it's not a good idea.
Filmmaker IQ Although James Cameron has been taking about doing exactly that for Avatar: HFR for action scenes, standard for other scenes, in the same movie. I guess we'll see what happens...
James Cameron has really backed way off... And the hfr wouldn't have been for action scenes. And it wouldn't have been for anything but the 3D version. collider.com/avatar-sequels-no-hfr-james-cameron/
Its like looking at a painting close up and seeing a picture of it in a magazine. When you are really close you start to get distracted by the details. I love your analysis of how problems looking at it in 120 just went away at 24.
They can... I mean look at video games which have cut scenes with your essentially animated... But why bother? For animation you're going in the wrong direction. I watched one of the best animated movies ever made last night: Spider-Man into the Spiderverse. Seems to me the art of animation is much more into the lower frame rates than it is in the high
@@FilmmakerIQ That's a good point. I heard somewhere that they actually animated Miles at a lower frame rate than Peter for most of the movie to convey the idea that he wasn't as smooth with his powers. And then at the end when ilhe comes into his own as Spider-Man they increased his frame rate. I thought that was a really cool idea.
I want to have access to the movie at 120 so fucking much, even though I dont care about the movie itself. I love anything high fps, but I got no 120fps cinema near me.
Look up Billy Lynns Long Halftime Walk, also by Ang Lee, also 60fps (you can get it in 60fps on the UHD, which also comes in 3D, its standard 24fps on the blu-ray)
@@RolandTechnicalDesigner Look up Billy Lynns Long Halftime Walk, also by Ang Lee, also 60fps (you can get it in 60fps on the UHD, which also comes in 3D, its standard 24fps on the blu-ray)
HFR just doesn't seem like the way we should be going. Like all art movements, we eventually move from the representation of reality towards more of an artistic interpretation. From the jump cuts introduced by French new-wave to our latest move further and further towards heavily graded aesthetics, going more 'realistic' just seems like a step backwards from a conceptual standpoint.
Similar with animation. There’s so much potential in the form but striving to look more and more like real life doesn’t do much for visual story telling.
this is so back wards high frame rate doesnt take anything away from the art it simply adds more art if everything was recorded in 120fps then people wouldnt say it looks weird its simply because high frame rate is the exeption that people think it looks odd 24 fps is so low for modern day comon we can do at least 60 as a standerd only animated movies have a fucking excuse every other movie has no excuse low frame rate doesnt look better
It's the same film today as it was in 1920s... The fact that we can pull a 4K scan on the same thing they were projecting 100 years ago means it WAS 4K in 1920. Resolution has NEVER been an issue until digital came along in the late 90s with the second Star Wars Prequel. The problem with your argument is you don't know anything about film technology. We're now on the 9th anniversary of the Hobbit and even Peter Jackson has abandoned the idea of shooting HFR. No one in the industry takes it seriously except for Ang Lee and even then the reviews are pretty dismal..
Tbh I think one of the biggest problem is that so far we haven't seen a single really good movie in HFR. What if Fury Road was shot with that technique? Pretty sure the public opinion about the technique would be different.
Rumor has it George Miller consulted with Peter Jackson about HFR and Jackson warned him against it. Fury Road is an amazing example of what is still possible inside 24 frame rate realm and Miller did things with that movie that simply would not be possible in a higher frame rate. Industry folks know a lot more about this stuff than you give them credit for.
Its seems you did not watched the movie. Go watch the behind the scenes of fury road and you will see that even in 30 fps most scenes don't have the same weight as 24. 120 would destroy that movie.
@@Magneira I dunno man. I would like to know how it is to watch action scenes in 120fps. Specially like fury road. I really think it must be something different. Why do we accept it for sports and not for movies? These debates are dumb. It is just our eyes who are used to 24 fps. Nothing more nothing less.
I see comments saying that directors and actors should change up their style of working with film. Yeah, sure. I'll give willy a call, tell him to forget all he fucking knows, but don't tell him what he should actually do.
Truth, and something that didn't bother me until a few years ago. Now I'm so used to seeing butter smooth pans and zooms in high res when I shoot videos myself, I can't stand it anymore in a movie. It's personal and a matter of taste, but there you have it. I wish, more movies would come out with higher frame rates. I guess it would require a different generation of directors, cameramen, editors, actors and audience. Maybe a little too much to ask for.
If you had paid more attention to this channel's videos, you'd know about shutter speed, and how it is occasionally tinkered with to avoid stuttering in pans and other camera movements. You must "always" respect the 180 rule, unless you want to create a specific visual effect that demands a higher or slower shutter speed. Hence, you must always keep your shutter speed at 1/48 or 1/50...you can use lower speeds to create a dreamy or drunk effect (Saving Private Ryan - DDay sequence), or higher shutter speeds to film action sequences that would stutter with the 180 shutter angle. Higher shutter speeds are also used to film muzzle flashes (they don't appear at 1/48), lightning, moving cars and other objects or occurrences that can't be ideally captured in 1/48 of a second. Shutter speed and angle requires experience to be used correctly for pans and other movements because it often turns the film into a news broadcast...even if for a short amount of time. If you are not getting satisfying results by altering the shutter speed/angle, you could even experiment with higher framerates, but you MUST ALWAYS edit and export the footage in 24FPS. Gerald Undone has a GREAT video on how to use shutter speed and higher framerates for pans and other complicated camera movements.
@@Yankeededandy62 I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree. I truly think we we will never reach a point where HFR films are the norm for movie theatres. This video touched on a few good benefits of lower frame rate. Here's my perspective. I love playing video games at a high frame rate, it's extremely jarring switching between HFR on PC to console games with 30FPS. It feels like the game is lagging because I am so accustomed to the HFR on PC. However, when I view an In-Game cutscene, If it was at HFR I would completely be taken out of the experience. I no longer feel like I'm escaping into a fictional world when I see ANYTHING at HFR. It feels too real and gimmicky. In Gameplay it's a fantastic smooth experience. In a film / cutscene, it has no place there IMO, unless you're viewing a documentary or a biography.
It's the realization that the way people talk and behave in action movies doesn't usually happen in real life. I started noticing this on the original 'Scare Tactics' where you could tell some of the people were genuinely scared. The actors who are trying to appear mysterious or ominous seemed completely out of place next to the real people. Sometimes the marks would realize something was off, but they still played along. The scares didn't go down as authentic when that happened. When they make the setting look too perfect and real, your brain expects to just see regular people, not the dramatic stylized behavior of these amazing actors. It's almost like an environmental version of the uncanny valley.
Hence why HFR would severely limit the range of cinema. It would force films to fall in two extremes: either very naturalistic, realistic and grounded acting, or blatantly over-the-top, stylistic and artificial, with little space for films that are "in-between" in the spectrum, because of the uncanny valley effect in HFR. What do you think of my comment?
It always pains me to see too fast pans at 24/25fps when everything turns into a slery mess. One of the first lessons I learned as hobby filmmaker: Pans have to be very, very slow to not get dissying or lose all visual quality. HFR really can help there, assuming one doesn't follow the 180° shutter rule.
I had a similar problems with the Hobbit films in 48fps. I saw both, but the high frame rate made it feel like I was looking at a set with actors playing a part, which I was. The fundamental problem is that HFR shows all the details, which makes it look like what it is, a performance on a set. Maybe I make that connection because I've worked on sets, but I think narrative film frame rate is a case of less is more. You need to direct and misdirect attention, and when everything is there to see that becomes harder to do. It's like a magician doing a slight-of-hand trick in slow motion which allows the audience to follow exactly what he is doing and the illusion is broken.
I saw the first Hobbit film in high frame rate as well and I agree. In documentaries and sports you WANT to see as much detail as possible because it's actual reality you are watching. Movies are not reality and the more detail you add the more your very well evolved brain can detect the reality behind the fiction. In movies we need to cheat our brain. Adding more information will not achieve that, our brains are way too good for that. We evolved to pick up tiny details in people's expressions that might indicate they are cheating us or lying to us. That something is not quite right. With high framerate we see reality, therefore we see the sets, the stunts and the acting. Not a good thing. There is such a thing as "too much information"
Look up Billy Lynns Long Halftime Walk, also by Ang Lee, also 60fps (you can get it in 60fps on the UHD, which also comes in 3D, its standard 24fps on the blu-ray)
So the point is that it's easier to suspend disbelief when everything "doesn't look real" and that makes complete sense. The whole point of movies is that you're supposed to suspend your disbelief. If everything looks real then what's the point?
Hence why HFR would severely limit the range of cinema. It would force films to fall in two extremes: either very naturalistic, realistic, subtle and grounded acting, or blatantly over-the-top, stylized and artificial, with little space for films that are "in-between" in the spectrum, because of the uncanny valley effect in HFR. What do you think of my comment?
Finally someone who understands it, I thought you were just gonna shit on high framerate the whole time and trigger me, which was not the case, very insightful video
I just watched it in 60fps. I love games at high frame rate, but here it manged to make $25m actors look like b movie extras... Maybe it wasn't quite that bad but it's crazy how the frame rate affects the perception of the acting quality.
yes, I use SVP to watch movies at 60 fps, I only watch 60 fps, not 24fps. And if bad acting I notice instantly. That's why I mostly left watching movies. Most movies suck. But there are really good ones
theres a reason that i (along with other fans) dont really like the videotaped episodes of the twilight zone. the high frame rate makes it feel like a cheap, amature stageplay, instead of the classic sci fi show we know and love.
So... according to this logic, worse technical quality = seemingly better performance by the actors? Bummer! I've just thrown away my VHS collection...
Because at 120fps you're seeing more of the actors mannerisms (little details in facial movements and so on), so it's easier to spot weird inconsistencies in their performance
@@runewinsevik8471 I didn't say it automatically makes a performance worse, but a bad performance or even a mediocre one is more noticeable when you can see every inch of their face in pristine super smooth quality. So actors have to adjust their performances in the future when shooting 120 fps to seem more believable
I’m glad to see there are still champions of 24fps. I’ve always been adamant that it is the ONLY frame rate. It is key in adding to the fantasy experience of watching a movie. Keep it up man!
Great review, wish i had a dolby cinema near me that was showing it in HFR just because it is pretty rare that movies come out in that format, but as you said, no one should expect HFR to become the new format. But it is cool to get a movie released in both every once in a while.
@@NostalgiNorden It depends on whether the producers feel they are destined for TV first or theatrical or how they want to play it (since it's not hard to switch between the two). But the Cinemas in Europe are 24 fps ;)
You are wrong. High productions use 24fps. It's the prosumer and consumer market who uses 25 due to tv transmission. Even though, nowadays it is not needed anymore.
@@FilmmakerIQ Nope. When i showed one of my films in sweden a couple of years back i was forced to post-covert it from 24 fps to 25 fps so that they could show it. Made the film a bit longer ;)
It made all the action look real and amazing though, when you watch real war battles documented they look just as cheap as the first shootout between the Smiths and the exploding van near the end, that’s why it felt so real/raw instead of through the lens of big budget Hollywood. The combination of the 3D + HFR made the grounded/real world action look and feel amazing/immersive, as if it was happening in front of you. That’s what you felt during the minigun scene, you just weren’t open enough to recognize it throughout the other action scenes due to 24fps obsession. That scene feels like it was performed for real, with the actors in danger crawling through a store really being torn apart by bullets. That scene is visually spectacular and makes you wonder how much better something like The Matrix’s lobby shootout would’ve been in 3D + HFR. If not for the box office failure, I totally could’ve seen this be a new standard for action-driven movies, in live action with real stunts, not CG movies like Avatar or blockbusters with lots of CG like Avengers. The format definitely has a specific place that Gemini Man used effectively. The Matrix and Mad Max Fury Road would’ve been better if shot in this format.
There mini gun shots were cool but I didn't feel scared for the actors. Other than that, don't see how looking cheap is a benefit... It just looks cheap. All those action films would look like garbage at this frame rate. We've seen the motion interpolation versions enough to know.
meh still... I saw the 120fps movie in 3D. It still doesn't look like a movie and the action wasn't amazing, it looked fake. A 3D documentary on sea life might be cool but it doesn't work for cinema.
@@FilmmakerIQ I agree that it doesnt look like a "movie", at least not a typical one, or "cinema", but this was a rare case where it didnt matter because whatever it is, it's really good, for action at least. I just saw it as a new kind of experience, not too different from the mindset I had after seeing Avatar or Tron Legacy in imax 3D, but albeit to a lesser extent cause it really was just for the action, didnt do much for the other 70% of the film outside of being cool tech demos (like you say) sometimes. I did like some of those wide ocean shots from above, not just below, or any landscape shots in general, but I agree that's just more of a cool demo thing than something meaningful for filmmaking. We just disagree on the action part.
I feel like, even if arguments can be made for the merits of higher frame rates, everyone knows how to make movies (acting, lighting, choreography, etc.) at 24fps. There are decades of practice and tricks learned for how to make stuff look good at 24, so even the most talented filmmakers and actors are kind-of at square one with HFR. It’s like QWERTY keyboards. Sure, some layouts may be faster, but people shouldn’t have to relearn how to type just for the sake of adopting some different approach.
I just saw Gemini Man on UHD Blu-ray on a 55 inch OLED. This film is a great demo for the best that UHD Blu-ray has to offer. I bought this movie only because of the 60fps and it looks great - especially near the end with the mini gun and the guy moving while on fire. HDR + 60fps made it look impressive. Afterwards, I saw it again on the accompanying Blu-ray, which has no HDR and uses only 24fps. HDR & Lighting: This movie truly shows how stunning HDR can be. Without HDR, the picture looks flatter. HDR provides depth by increasing the contrast of the picture... making it look more natural. It makes HD look like SD! However, the unnatural and gratuitous use of orange and teal lighting everywhere makes everything look like a stage. This was less annoying on the Blu-ray because of the lack of HDR. Action: There are many details that are missed in action scenes at 24fps as a result of motion blur. I prefer the bike chase at 60fps because I can tell what's going on. There was a scene where I saw something happen, but I couldn't tell what it was - but I remembered what it was from when I saw it at 60fps. I also think that the final guy looked more menacing at 60fps. At the beginning of the bike chase, there is a higher sensation of speed due to the motion blur of 24fps... but maybe it wasn't intended to look that fast. After all, the movie was shot at 120fps. At 60fps, the movement in some of the fight scenes and some of the exploding cars don't feel like they have weight to them because they just don't move how I expect them too - kind of like bad wirework in fighting movies. The fight in the catacombs and the exploding van near the end are good examples. This was less noticeable at 24fps, but it doesn't mean that it can't be improved with alternate cinematography techniques. Consider the scene in Superman 1978 where a helicopter is falling from the top of the Daily Planet building. That doesn't look good either and that is in 24fps. Acting: Linda Edmond's acting seemed worse at 60fps than 24fps... but when I went back to 60fps to compare, it was no longer a problem. However, the bad dialog in this movie couldn't have helped her situation. Clive Owen was convincing in both framerates. Conclusion: Overall, some shots don't look as great as they should, but I think they are the result of poor cinematography techniques and/or scenes that need to be done in a different way to avoid looking bad. Given that the dialog is so poor, I'm not convinced that the budget was well spent on making the movie good. As far as the movie look is concerned... - no one seemed concerned while CGI was replacing practical effects everywhere. This movie has a lot of CGI in it and it looks impressive, but still looks fake. - no one seems concerned about this ugly 50s teal washing out all the colors, making it look like people are at a bathhouse; or combining it with orange, making it look like people are at a club. - no one seems concerned about the ADD camera that is constantly moving around, making it more exhausting to watch movies. ...but here we are. I still prefer to watch it at 60fps than 24fps... because HDR is too good to give up... and the action scenes look better.
My question is simple, could a production feasibly utilize multiple frame-rates to emphasize certain shots? Such as ~30 for the majority of the film, ~60-120 for the subtle (or not so subtle) effect. If so, could that become something akin to matte painting or perspective trickery?
I always felt this way when watching soap operas as a kid. I always noticed the framerate was different, and it made the scenes ... strange. Of course, they were 60fps.
Hence why HFR would severely limit the range of cinema. It would force films to fall in two extremes: either very naturalistic, realistic, subtle and grounded acting, or blatantly over-the-top, stylized and artificial, with little space for films that are "in-between" in the spectrum, because of the uncanny valley effect in HFR. What do you think of my comment?
Allow me to put it in a exaggerated way: "We need 24 fps in order to hide all the flaws of filmmaking that would make the film feel unreal in higher framerates." If it has to be like that I'm ok with it, I get your point. But if it is possible to do good enough to make a film feel real in higher framerates I would prefer that. Any movement that is a bit faster just looks disgusting in 24 fps. And when there is a lot of fast movement I just get a headache.
In that exaggerated way you have to ask yourself this... So you want to make movie making so hard that there are fewer good movies out there? You want more people to fail? For what? Just so you can have smoother pans? That's your gold standard for cinema? Smooth motion??? I maintain that there is NO way to make the cinematic experience in HFR, because the cinematic experience demands 24 fps. As for fast action "looking disgusting" that's probably because you're watching on a computer screen with bad encoding.
@@FilmmakerIQ I don't want more people to fail. I just like to dream about a world where it is all possible in HFR. Maybe it is impossible. I don't know. There are many films that work very well with 24 fps and don't need more. And then there are films that would benefit from higher framerates. I just hope that more people try to pull it of and also succeed. That would also help lessen the impact of filmmakers and audiences being used to 24 fps and having weird feelings about HFR because they are not used to it. The effect of fast movement giving me headaches is the strongest in cinema. My hypothesis is that it is just in relation to the screen size. But of course that might be different for others.
@@FilmmakerIQ Of course this is all subjective, as it always is when talking about art. I think I made that clear in the way I wrote it. And I don't think you can just turn around the thing with the habit. As you said yourself the vast majority of films is in 24 fps. So that's what everyone is used to in the context of film.
Not the vast majority. All movies (outside of a few exceptions which fail in this respect) So if you have a problem with 24, you have a problem with all movies. So why should we care what someone who has a problem with all movies thinks about movies? I'll repeat, maybe it's that YOU aren't used to watching 24 when you use charged language like "disgusting" You don't have to watch movies, stick to video games.
Another example how hard standards are fixed in our world. I am happy that movies with tone made it and even movies with color. And already yes, there they have done the very same discussions. Movie with sound, that's not real movie. Movie with color, that's not real movie. And how long black and white movies were made. And so on. The only thing is, you are used to it. If you allow it, you will enter a new world, if you regret you stay in the past. By the way. So the movie is done in 120fps and is rendered to 24fps. This means both must be bad. On 120fps your camera work has to be different from 24fps. Lee says this in an interview and I totally agree. Even on 24fps. You have to record each scene different, depending on what is in front of your camera and what you want to tell. No sequence has the same settings. When you record a movie in 120fps, render it to 24fps and it looks like a good 24fps, something in the 120fps production went terribly wrong. Otherwise it means you can take a football TV game, render it to 24fps and it looks like movie.
I'm getting kind of tired of people who don't know about the history of film blabbing about a subject they don't understand. Color and Sound were both incredibly popular in their day when they first came along. Technicolor 2 strip was a massive hit at first. It died off because of poor quality control but was replaced with Technicolor 3 strip which stayed on for a LONG time. Sound swept the industry where nearly all the theaters converted to within 2 years of the Jazz Singer. HFR is... a disaster. This movie only played at 120fps in 14 theaters. This is now 7 years after the Hobbit supposed sparked off the HFR revolution? 7 years and 14 theaters was the best it could do? And my screening wasn't even full. HFR is closer to smell-o-vision... but hey maybe that's coming back! On the topic of 120fps to 24fps conversion, you're just flat out wrong on that. It was the same exact shots - you don't need to record the scene differently, or at least that's not they did. They added digital motion blur to make the 24fps look good. Yes you can take a football TV game and reduce it to 24 fps to make it look more epic. In my country they do that with American Football games all the time and yes it does look more epic.
@@FilmmakerIQ Here in cinema museums you find various posters against tone movie which were placed IN cinemas. And when color movie was so great, why are "Psycho" from 1960 and "Some like it hot" from 1959 in black and white? Okay in Psycho I can understand and that, because I am used to it. And it is black and white, because Hitchcock wanted it in that way. And that even he made "To Catch a Thief" in 1955 in color. He thought for Psycho it would be a good choice, because of the genre. But I hope you agree, that Psycho would have worked in color too. Otherwise you would opposite your quote. And "Some like it hot" in color would be real fun. Coming to 120fps and 24fps. Of course you have to do it different. You can move horizontally faster in 120fps, to name only one. And on green screen, which is very often used in todays movies, you need very short shutter speed, because motion blur and green screen is an absolute no go. Try it, if you don't believe. So in many scenes in todays movies you already didn't have motion blur. I am sure you did your very best in the cinema. But we have very, very, very strong filters in our heads. You are not aware how many filters there are working in your brain on how you register the environment. Not to talk about, that our eyes not work on the same frequencies, solutions, color reception and sharpness etc. at all. But what I don't understand the least. When it worked so perfect for you, to transfer a 120fps movie to a 24fps movie, why you don't simply watch the 24fps and let me have the 120fps. So why you want to convince me? And that is the real question.
Black and White in Psycho was done for budgetary reasons and to sort of give it a more independent feel since Hitchcock was coming off high dollar VistaVision shows like North by Northwest and Vertigo. That's as late as 1960. You do realize the first color films were in the 1920s right? I don't think Psycho would have worked in color. Not the same way. We have Gus Van Sant and his remake to give us a glimpse of what it looked like. I'm not blind to the filters in my head. I'm very well aware of them. But I work with them. YOU have a very blatant filter in your head. You think that High Frame Rate should be the go to. Why? I have no clue. Yes, I do greenscreen a lot - no you don't _need_ short shutter speeds. As for why can't I just let you have 120fps. I will let you have it. But these conversations are not about letting you have 120fps - they're about you FORCING THE INDUSTRY to change and give you the option - the option that all of us in the industry thinks sucks. Sorry, no it ain't happening. Make your own movies in 60fps, don't force others to.
@@FilmmakerIQ But money was not the only reason on Psycho, right. And "Some like it hot" is another good example. You cannot change a first impression. Let people answer who have seen the colored version first and you will get complete different answers. That was what I meant. Filters. What you see first has much impact. Green Screen with heavy movement you should normally do with 48fps and I am sure you know that. And even CGI is done with much more frames. No I am not forcing the industry to anything, who am I. But every time somebody of this film industry is doing it different, there are coming many out to tell everybody how bad it is. Let them simply doing it. You don't have to look at it. You live in an free country ;-). If nobody is putting his agenda in the way, the best will find it's way. The difference between us both is. I simply want to allow it and you want to forbid it.
@@LiebensteinMovies I don't want to forbid it. I just want to explain to you why it's not going to happen and why no professionals like it. I welcome everyone to try to make HFR movies of their own. Because I KNOW what the result is... I've done it myself for years.
I'm all for experimentation. In opinion the only way you can be for high frame rate is to shoot it yourself and make a real honest film with it (even if it's just you and your friends) . Until you do that you have no credibility.
@@JohnJBloomfield James Cameron once said, "Pick up a camera. Shoot something. No matter how small, no matter how cheesy, no matter whether your friends and your sister star in it. Put your name on it as director. Now you're a director [filmmaker]. Everything after that you're just negotiating your budget and your fee."
Your impressions reminds me of seeing Forest Gump again on DVD. The special effects were apparent, rather than the seamless face replacements that was all the talk when the movie was first released. I imagine you would speak out against digital SD (720x480) as showing too much detail, where the blur and noise of traditional media would hide such imperfections. Likewise, when I first saw a DLP projector in a theater, I could clearly see the pixelization of the text in the opening credits and logos. In both cases, the creators figured out how to work with the medium, and the new content is better than ever.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Traditional film has resolving power even beyond 4k. How are you so clueless about history to think everything started with standard definition???
Did not know that high frame rate was that weird to look at. I think if the cinemas were all capable of 120 fps, they would try out more movies that way. I wonder how all the gamers rate the movie in 120 fps? Whether they like the film more because of their fast games or whether that has no correlation. But not every technologie is automatically used in the future. Maybe 120 fps is like 4D cinema: A fun attraction, but nothing serious.
Sure you could ask gamers... but it's kinda like getting the opinion of someone who doesn't play video games to talk about video games - it's not worth that much in the end.
I"ve been working in Hollywood for years, on everything from porn to Oscar nominees. I have never liked 24 fps, where the wheels of the stagecoach keep changing direction of rotation. It's hard to suspend disbelief when 24 fps and shallow depth of field keep getting in the way of the story. A horror story is more horrific if Freddy looks real.
There was something I didn't notice you say. The high frame rates expose imperfections in stabilization equipment. 24fps smooths that out and looks better :)
Movies have been making us all think that things that are totally fake look real on-screen. High frame rate takes the 'magic' away in my opinion and to me it makes things look like plastic. You can see that it's fake. Pretty much what John states here. 24FPS helps film makers 'hide their crimes'.
I remember a test done with "The Hobbit" in HFR, a focus group or something, and the people said that the dwarfs looked like actors in dwarf disguise. This guy has the same point.
For me it's always the CGI at HFR that looks bad. They can't hide the bad physics behind it. For animated movies, 60 fps it looks fantastic, even though I watched those interpolated, as there is no native content as of now.
Thanks for this, here you are reviewing 3D plus, so you saw a frame blended version at 60FPS from our 120FPS master. Dolby Vision did show 120/2K in HDR which was nice. I hope next time we set up a 3D cinema you can see dual laser projectors at 120 simultaneous per eye, so that I will say is a step up from what you saw at the 60 wide release. Anyway, we will keep pushing the envelope with Ang Lee as he is an awesome guy to work with as we try to make 3D a better experience. (cheers - Demetri / Gemini Stereographer)
Please don't stop doing 120fps. For now, people are laughing and saying it looks bad, but it looks awesome and so crystal clear. Ang Lee is really a visionnary and ahead of its time on that HFR film making.
@@YogueDaddy thank you Guy for your comment, it is not easy to shoot HFR projects but we need to make more so arts experiment with how the format looks and feels, after all it is all just digital information so I think the future will have more HFR projection. I am curious now to see the 3D version of Avatar 2 at 48FPS in 4K, because I think it will have better frame processing than the Hobbit.
@@demetriportelli9439 Are they still shooting it at 48FPS? I didn't even see the Hobbit and I would really like to buy the 128FPS version of Gemini Man. I think this is a real evolution for cinema and it needs to be supported.
@@YogueDaddy try to see Avatar 2 at 48FPS in 3D. Software has improved to manipulate the frames, and therefore, the result is always a better 24FPS as HFR has always given more options (more data) to deliver better 24 version of the movie, quite normal for VFX work. It is really the dual laser projector set up in the theatres that impresses me seeing 3D content properly and at the correct brightness which is very important. I don't think there is a Blue Ray standard yet to see 120 movies, which is a shame because 120 televisions are becoming more common.
We actually don't see in real life as sharp as high frame rate movies. Things in our periphery are out of focus. Distance is out of focus. Motion is blurred.
Motion blur is not necessarily a function of frame rate, but shutter time. Also IRL where you focus the image will be sharp and colored. Kinda like how a movie looks. Sharp and colored where you look. IRL our vision is pretty dang good. Also motion blur in high frame rate movies can be made to look more realistic.
The shutter speed is capped by the frame rate. Also shooting conventions tie the shutter speed to the frame rate so to say that the motion blur is not a function of frame rate really isn't correct. Also our vision is crap. A plastic lens on a toy you get at the 99 cent store would probably beat out the biological lens in our eyeball. It's amazing how much our brain processes the crappy signal. I mean just the existence of the blind spot is evidence of how bad our vision really is
same feel with the "Hobbit" movie..the sets looked like...sets. It takes away from the most important part of filmmaking, to imerse the viewers into a "feeling", to take them into an emotional ride, the less information they get the better their brain can fill it up with imagination. And that is the ultimate purpose of movies...to take our minds into a journey. Sadly, HFR and too much resolution...just gives out too much information. They have their place (documentaries, live sports, games etc) ...but not in movies.
The Hobbit in HFR amusingly makes the films look like cheap knock-offs of Tolkien (Asylum, mainland European TV). You spend 300 million on a movie, and it ends up looking like it cost barely a million.
Look up Billy Lynns Long Halftime Walk, also by Ang Lee, also 60fps (you can get it in 60fps on the UHD, which also comes in 3D, its standard 24fps on the blu-ray)
I agree, I remember when I watched the hobbit. It’s so weird it’s like watching a play with close ups. Higher frame rates kill the illusion of another world by putting you too deep into it. I like how James Cameron put it too, It’s a veil. Something. About 24 FPS flattens the information in a certain way, making it less real and allowing you to focus on the story instead of feeling like you’re in it too. It feels like the difference between watching tv vs looking through a portal to a different world.
Today, I watched Gemini Man in 60fps out of curiosity as to how this gimmick was utilized. Until today, any clips I caught of it in 60fps looked totally wrong and terrible to me. However, something happened today that I thought was impossible. I got used to it. I mean yeah, every once in a while someone would make a big movement and I would be caught off guard, but overall I got used to it. So used to it that watching clips of movies at 24fps feel kind of herky jerky to me. Please send help. Update: My brain is back to normal.
"It looks very, very good. But it doesn't look like a movie" Yep dude, mad respect. I love high framerates and any chance I can get I love to watch stuff thats been interpolated... But, for enjoying a movie for the first time or just wanting to watch a classic, sometimes the good ol' 24FPS is the way to go, it just feels more wholesome.
Not sure I've seen any HFR movies, but from your description the effect is similar to the 'motion smoothing' setting on modern HD TV sets, and that typically seems to be enabled by default. When I'm visiting someone and watching a movie with that setting turned on, I might ask them (as politely as possible) if they really can't see how cheap and artificial everything looks. Often I'll get a blank look in response. When I do them the 'favour' of finding that setting and disabling it - it's usually buried deep in the menu system somewhere - the reaction will usually be 'Oh yeah! That's much better!' :)
Motion smoothing uses rough AI algorithms to predict what frames in between the actually real frames would look like, nothing like actually displaying more frames.
this shit's like saying black&white is better than color. lets look at acting from the 30's, 50's, 70's and acting from the 21st century! there's a huge difference between them. and there has always been a noticeable difference between real life reacting and cinematic/theater acting. the more dramatic they try to make a scene the less real it actually looks, but most people dont notice this because thats what they're used to seeing. i, for one, get the same level of believability from both live action and animated movies. but just as some people cant take animated movies seriously, its the same with some people and HFR. in reality it all has to do with what you're used to. because lets be real, of course HFR is gonna look weird to you when 99.99% percent of your life you've only seen 24fps movies. even a movie that is only from first person perspective is gonna look weird to a normal person. there's no such thing as objectively better frame rate. movies are an art form so its up to the director to use whatever framerate they want. i think the future is definitely gonna be in dynamic framerates that changes depending on the scene or whatever, but its gonna be a long time before that becomes a thing. first, people have to abandon this retarded notion of 24fps.
Anything I've ever seen that is higher framerate looks amateur, like someone was just running around with a camcorder playing director, even if the cinematography and lighting and everything else looks right - the higher framerate just looks WRONG.
Same. Everybody looks "slimy" to me or something. Same goes for the AutoMotion (blurring) that comes default on most modern TVs. Everything looks low-budget and ridiculous. Many of my friends/family can't tell the difference, but I want to tear out my eyes!!
Absolutely, higher frame rates make you super aware that you are watching actors. My theory is that it's not just the frame rate, same effect is achieved (not every time but quite often) when people are trying to use other hyper realistic tools like a documentary shooting style for example. The thing is when we watch a movie we know it's not real so when it's initially stylised we sort of surrender to the rules of the universe created in that specific movie. But as soon as the movie is trying to be too much like life, we immediately notice everything that's fake about it because it becomes too apparent. My painting teacher once told me - every painting is a small world with its unique rules. I think it's the same with movies. You set your own rules and the viewer will spend those 2 hours believing in your world. You try to fool them into believing your film is real and it comes out as a fake.
Hence why HFR would severely limit the range of cinema. It would force films to fall in two extremes: either very naturalistic and grounded acting, or blatantly over-the-top, stylistic and artificial, with little space for films that are "in-between" in the spectrum, because of the uncanny valley effect in HFR. What do you think of my comment?
I had the same feelings when I watched one of the Hobbit movies in cinema on 48 fps. It felt like watching a soap program on TV where you could TELL the acting. With 24 fps that feeling/effect vanishes.
Wicked Mouse seeing Hobbit 1 at a Peter Jackson-approved cinema was amazing. Like being on a theme park ride. They key was super-bright projection and high quality 3D goggles... I liked it
Producers of Gemini Man would like to thank you as you're probably the only man alive who paid to see the film twice.
The movie is not that bad. Rambo last blood was way worse. Now everybody gonna hate nd troll me for that comment.
LOL
Hah, Dan Olson (Folding Ideas) did it too.
@@nelumbonucifera7537 He went the extra mile & watched a third time for us. We don't deserve that kind of sacrifice.
I would see it twice in hfr the action looked amazing
I can imagine the face of the cgi team when they were told to make a life like model of Will Smith... and the render it at 120 fps
they didn't make a life like model of will smith but okay.......
Bruno Winovski actually funny enough the second Will Smith is full cgi like the person it’s actually pretty crazy
@@brunowinovski2928 the face is completely cgi
@@brunowinovski2928 They did. The younger Will Smith clone is 100% CGI. It's not just the face or anything. The whole body is from scratch as well.
@@brunowinovski2928 big dumb dumb
[1997]
Agent : Will ! I got this really cool sci-fi movie that will blow everyone away called the Matrix!
Will Smith : not interested,too complicated.
[2011]
Agent : Will ! I got this new Tarantino western movie. Youd be playing opposite Leo DiCaprio, Sam Jackson and Chris Waltz.
Will Smith : I dont agree with the violence.
[2017]
Will : Anything good for me ?
Agent : nothing really except this generic action movie you've done a thou.....
Will smith :I'll take it !!
Don't be so mean to Willy... I'm sure they'll invite him to do the RUclips rewind next month
At least he didn't use the chance to promote his son once again
@@FilmmakerIQ He was the best part of RUclips Rewind, just for the memes. I give him that much. After the intro, don't have to watch the rest of it. :)
i dont think this is a generic movie... in fact i think this is a remake
h8 2 c it
HFR was torture for the CGI team.
Correction. Torture for the render computers. For the team is the same. Just output the timeline at 120fps and the software feel the spaces.
@@OneTap__ Wrong. I'm not a professional but it sounds painful if you have to rotoscope
I was working on it and trust me. It was paintful!! Compare to work on HD project, this is 4k, 120fps and all this 2x because of stereo. My computer was burning and render farm as well 😁 and nobody care that is it 8x slower work
Rotoscope in stereo is nightmare 😂
But due to less MotionBlur tracking and even roto could be a bit easier to achieve. still the massive overhead in Data and rendertime is not worth the effect imho
Say what you want but I'm still dying to see a Hardcore Henry type movie in 120fps.
I want my vomit to reach several rows in front of me. I want to be carried out on a stretcher.
Thank you. That is all.
Considering that movie is inspired by FPS videos, 120 fps makes sense on those.
Vomit? Higher fps makes it easier not to vomit though
_Hardcore Henry_ COULD'VE worked in 240 fps
They actually shot Hardcore Henry at 48 FPS and still released it in 24. It came out after the Hobbit.
There's a reason why it wasn't released in 48 and it wasn't because they couldn't ;)
I love that movie too. So unique and different to the other hollywood movies
Will Smith's stunt double thanks you for recognizing him.
lol
I watched the movie in 6ofps and never noticed it. I'll make sure to notice it next time.
This is fascinating. I had never heard someone mention the issue with seeing through the acting too much in high frame rate.
Brian Tyler You are one of my biggest inspiration and I am soo fortunate to see your comment just pop up here, its like finding a gem suddenly, or its like seeing your idol while walking on street. Wanted to say HIIIIIII..! And you are my top inspiration!! I’m soo happy finding your comment here, feels like everyone is in the same universe and closer then we think! :)
i met with some friends at a friend's home to see a movie , some Nic cage movie, she had one of these new tv with "softening technology" that gets rid of motion blur.. basically everything looks like 60fps.. since i work with videos and animation i was the only one in the room feeling awkward on how bad the acting looks in these tvs.. it literally looks like a rehearsal.. incredibly horrible
Perhaps it might be beneficial to film movies to display at variable framerates? Like up the framerate on scenes where it benefits it, and reduce the framerate during scenes where fast motion would make things look crazy. Perhaps that would be too jarring though.
@@desmondbrown5508 I mean have you seen Akira? It's not jarring at all, it's just... really effective. Could be different with animation though. Could also be that they never went above 24, as far as I know, just lower. Most traditional animation work runs at an average of 24 frames per second, with main objects animated at 8 to 12 fps and background objects as low as 6 to 8 fps.
@@desmondbrown5508 Great example is spiderman animated movie.... When new spidey learn more and more they bump up frame rate. So it seems he does thing more smooth.. It is great. But I would say seeing Gemini in high frame rate really loooks sooo worst then in 24.
so 24fps masks bad acting and low-speed action scenes.
thats the only defense of 24fps i can see. Thats not a positive imo.
@CYNICAL Look out everyone, we have a rabid keyboard viking overe here.
@CYNICAL Not at all. You made a highly inflammatory passive-aggressive comment clearly designed to incite discord, a flame bait. Your conclusions are overloaded with indirect meaning and aggressive suggestions, putting words in other people's mouth, which would cause most to waste time correcting your accusations instead of arguing in favor of, or against, the point at hand.
Ultimately, your desire was to devolve the entire discussion into a flame war, at which point you'd accuse others of not wanting to counter-argue your points, optionally claiming you have a stronger stance than others, when, in fact, you made no relevant points, and it was you who initially antagonized others for no reason.
@CYNICAL He burned you so bad that even khaleesi is jealous.
@CYNICAL His copy/pasta triggered you, admit it!
The more accurate the picture, the more obvious the flaws.
Works well for real life, not so much for imagination.
Turok Hilsen But exactly this is the point! Cinema doesn‘t want to depict real life, its an art form that creates abstractions from our reality. If this isn‘t what you want to see, don‘t see cinema films, instead look at television shows and RUclips videos.
@@friedrichrengah4747 that mentality is stupid just telling people to not do something its that don't like it don't buy it mentality you know what know i will not
Hence why HFR would severely limit the range of cinema. It would force films to fall in two extremes: either very naturalistic, realistic, subtle and grounded acting, or blatantly over-the-top, stylized and artificial, with little space for films that are "in-between" in the spectrum, because of the uncanny valley effect in HFR.
What do you think of my comment?
@@viperlife914 They should just hire the people that make the cinematics for blizzard and ubisoft :)) they can handle it, i mean they can't make good games anymore anyway. 60+ frames is much clearer to me at least, even in movies. But the movie has to be filmed knowing that and account for the flaws in production that they can't hide anymore.
@@HexuTV They aren't "flaws in production," it's just how films are made. Costumes look like costumes in HFR, no matter how well they're made; in 24 frames they simply look like clothing. Stunt performers look like they're performing stunts in HFR; in 24 they look like people in natural motion. These are the kinds of wonderful tricks the cinematic framerate plays on our minds and eyes. Making something look more lifelike is not the goal, making great films is.
John.
If I convert all soap opera shows to 24 fps, will the actors finally feel competent in their acting skills?
ABC thinks so, all their uploads are at 24 for some stupid reason and it looks terrible.
@@FilmmakerIQ
I know right.
_(By the way, I was just kidding about their acting skills and 24fps.)_
They look terrible because they didn't reintroduce the motion blur... otherwise it would probably be no different than the acting in a primetime soap opera shot on film.
@@FilmmakerIQ Soaps were going to look terrible regardless of frame rate even with proper blur. Frame rates aren't so much a technical issue; they are an emotional one. Most people aren't going to care that much but the ones that do are very vocal.
It sucks that higher frame rates got associated with terrible and cheap television shows. Shows that would be terrible and taint any frame rate.
@@Daniel-lb3jw There is a theory out there that there's a biological reason why lower frame rates do look dreamier. I'll cover it in the future video
You should've done this video in 120fps :)
When I get Alibaba Pictures to finance I'll do just that!
Charlie Clumsy at the risk that you might be able tell his bad acting?
Would youtube even allow you to upload that?
@@FilmmakerIQ They may just give 10 cent.
Yeah RUclips wouldn’t even show the 120 fps it would be limited to 60.
I would even go so far as to say actors need to change their style of acting when its shot at high frame rates.
Well said buddy..... I mean living the professional life...... of USING THE "LACK OF QUALITY" due to Low Frame rate.... as some sort of MASK....... To Prevent audience to see all Nuances and details of performance...
Is sort of By default Easiness or cheating by actors...
Taking them away from the true struggle of being a Truest version of their professionalism.
@@sneb3004 You know movies aren't real right? It is the art of faking and cheating to sculpt something entertaining for you to enjoy. You don't want to see the "real" you want to be taken on a journey.
That’s what he said in the video basically
thats too far lol. the style of acting should fit the story and character. perfect axample is when playing a real person in a bio pic. u cant change your style when ur playing a specific human. u have to research that persons style of movement and delivery. what they eat, wear, how they walk etc
They said the same when HD, & then 4K, came around too. Suddenly, every department needs to step up their game. A flimsy set/make-up design might fly on a camcorder, but in 4K, it's so legible. I like the observation in this video about microseconds seeming to last forever.
The writing in this film was absolutely terrible. Special effects were alright, but holy shit the dialogue was horrid.
There is Daniel Benioff among script writers.
Ikr? The dialogue is either exposition or in-your-face-telling-the-audience-what-they-will-do-next.
It really felt like dialogue that we've heard from other & better movies.
@@Timliu92 honestly, that last couple of minutes where they were talking about what he was going to study was so cringe. Could have done a lot more with the story.
I went to like this comment and then realized I haven’t even seen it just heard all the reviews
games - 144 fps
movies - 24 fps
Don't understand why that concept is so hard to grasp for so many gamers.
If you want to achieve actual good motion blur, you need even more FPS in games. Even 240 is not enough. 480+ FPS is what gaming and screen technology should aim at long term.
We also need screens that arent so shit at bluring the image.
Filmmaker IQ 144fps isn’t a set standard. There are monitors with up to 260hz which can display 260fps.
And actually the reason is simple: more frames = smoother visuals, less frames = not as smooth visuals.
It heavily depends on your habits. If you’re used to playing games at 144fps+ and don’t watch TV, 24fps will seem choppy. If you only watch Movies and TV you’ll put them in categories so 50fps looks like a soap opera and 24fps will look “cinematic”
Technically though, more FPS means smoother visuals and 24fps is only the standard because we didn’t have the tech for more back in the early days. It’s the equivalent of “a car needs to make noise” when talking about EVs. Sounds like an old habit holding back technical evolution to me. Sorry if that sounds rude.
@@stairwaves yeah yeah yeah... I know... I was applauding the spirit of the comment.
I know far more about frame rate than you. I've been in this conversation for years.
@@FilmmakerIQ Thank God. I was worried that you thought games must be limited to just 144 FPS.
With gaming, the more frames, the better the % lows, the better the frame pacing (even delivery of frames withing a second) the better the experience. 30 is terrible, 60 is very poor. 120 and above is decent, but we really need even more.
3:45 I'm 40 years old, so I have seen plenty 24FPS movies. I do not understand why anyone could say that a movie only looks like a real movie when it has the 24FPS stutter. Maybe because you just got used to it? I just cannot wrap my head around that idea because I hate that stutter. I'm so glad that modern tv's got quite good at interpolating frames and so smooth out that HORRENDOUS 24FPS stutter. I highly enjoy HFR *movies* (the few that exist) and 24 stutters per second cant die soon enough! That said, I'm already happy with 48, 50 or 60FPS.
YoU dOn'T kNoW wHaT yOu'Re TaLkInG aBoUt I kNoW eVeRyThInG
All about the suspension of disbelief. That’s cinema.
Short, accurate & well said.
Here are my thoughts on HFR, that I wrote-up over on REDDIT when such a discussion came up:
When Douglas Trumbull began the quest for HFR films, I think he made a crucial mistake, a misunderstanding of the nature of human vision that perpetrators of higher-frame-rates are continuing to make.
Trumbull (Kubrick's special effects master), created the original HFR process, called Showscan (with special 70mm cameras and 60 fps projectors; with which he shot one of his only two movies, "Brainstorm") because he observed that the human eye had retinas which had an electrochemical "refreshment rate" of 60 cycles per second. He took this to mean that the eye was actually seeing 60 "frames" per second.
But he overlooked one crucial fact: Vision isn't a mechanical process that takes place in the eyes. Eyes aren't actually "cameras." It's a mental process occurring in the brain. The brain takes the raw material being supplied by our eyes and (subconsciously) "decides" what portion of the entire field of vision should be "developed," and almost instantaneously turned into "internal movies," visuals that are as utterly fabricated as our dreams. This is a process connected to "sensory gating," and the result is this:
Although there are portions of what we look at that the mind deems important, and so "develops" into the equivalent of "high def" imagery, the majority of what we look at is either sketchily seen (almost like wire-version roughs in CGI), incorrectly seen (which is why eyewitness testimony is considered most unreliable by law, as you might "Live Dream" an entirely different face on a suspect), or not seen at all --because your mind didn't bother to process that part of your field of vision.
The end result of this process is that you actually see the world in a way that isn't so much like High Def, because the entire image "averages out" to something much less precise.
HFR films overload the brain, by providing it with images which seem like every inch of the field of vision is crucial, and thus should be paid-attention to and "fully developed" into vision. This processing is actually making your brain work several times harder just to see "normally," which is physically exhausting, and results in the problems of "straying attention," eye-strain, and headaches so frequently reported --as well as the perception that HFR visuals seem to have a "slickness" which strikes us as artificial. Which it is; and the mind is recoiling in some sense from the way that such visuals do not "feel" organic.
This isn't something that can necessarily be "gotten used to." Vision took millions of years to evolve; and this collusion of Mind and Eye is deeply ingrained, perhaps in a way that makes HFR a complete mistake.
When Film was in its embryonic stage, before 24 fps became the standardized norm (which didn't happen solely for economic reasons), early filmmakers experimented with a vast array of film speeds, both much faster and much slower. The main reason that 24 fps was settled on was that it was observed/intuited to most closely reflect our own "internal visions." It was both precise yet slightly "dreamy," and thereby more-connected to both the physical process of vision, and the mental process of imagination.
It felt right. And that's how Art tends to be shaped.
TLDR but I see long post, I like
I do love this comment.
A good experiment of how the eye is not a camera can be conducted (by myself every few days in fact) by drop something small like a computer screw onto a gray speckled carpet. The item could be right under your nose - you can feel it with your hands as you run your fingers over the carpet, but because it's your eyes aren't really seeing the big picture and your brain trying to make sense of all that noise, you won't be able to see it that screw... until you do... then you won't be able to stop seeing it.
sorry i am not native english and it late but if i do understand your comment you clame that the brain can't take HFR for long
But how you explain the difference between a film and a video game because we are millions playing a 144fps (or way less but some are at 240fps) for hours and hours and do not having any probleme with it (day one no need to "gotten use to")
i mean playing (be activ) is more intense that "just" watching and so i can presume if you can play at 144fps you can totaly watch something at 120fps
Zblurth For starters, when gaming with high refresh rates it’s safe to assume you’re playing on a monitor at a desk so you’re quite close to the screen and focusing on only parts of it instead of taking it in as a whole. Also games have got very realistic, however the brain can still tell the difference so there isn’t that weird feeling of something being “too real.” At least that’s as much as I understand it.
"HFR films overload the brain, by providing it with images which seem like every inch of the field of vision is crucial, and thus should be paid-attention to and "fully developed" into vision. This processing is actually making your brain work several times harder just to see "normally," which is physically exhausting, and results in the problems of "straying attention," eye-strain, and headaches so frequently reported --"
I can't help but to think, after reading this, that the job of the film maker is to control what the audience is focusing on, i.e. the filmmaker is the artist that would want to precisely control what the viewer is "properly" taking from the scene. The lesson I think here is lighting technique that "narrows" attention. I guess you could do the same kind of things with the HFR film but maybe it's not understood as well as 24fps yet.
5:55 You hit it SPOT ON. Documentaries, especially nature documentaries, filmed at 120FPS would be a godsend. It would feel like we were right there watching it.
also motorsports, (i mean you are filming Racecars going at 200+ kmh speeds) Formula 1, MotoGP, WEC are casted officially at 4K 60 FPS
@@FurryestXit would look slower as he said in video
Actors might seem to act even better at a much lower frame rate than 24fps : at 1fps, when I see them on magazine pages
@@tyrone1 Actually it depends on how long you look at it. If you look at it for 10 seconds, then it was a 0.1FPS video.
@@DanielVanderwel big brain
Or 1fph
8:57 John... it is a very shallow and poorly acted film that spread its premise way too thin.
The higher fps just made you realize what it really is! It just adds clarity.
Its kind what he was playing at
Thank you for these videos. Last winter I spent some time at a friend's house and he has a great modern TV and I couldn't figure out why the image looked horrible. I didn't mention it to him but it really bothered me. I'd never heard of the soap opera effect, but that is exactly what it reminded me. When I stumbled across your channel I instantly knew what the problem was with his TV. Fast forward to last night, I was at his house and I mentioned it to him and he adjusted his TiVO to 24 FPS and like magic, the image looks great and he is watching Die Hard on Christmas in all its glory!
Thank you for fixing my friends T. V.
This really confirms my thoughts, and I can’t remember who said it, but I can’t unsee it now that that I’ve heard this. The idea is that high frame rates, even just 30p, are used for newscasts, among other things, and our brains have been trained to see anything above 24p as reality, not a story to get lost in. When you were talking about not being able to see anything other than Will Smith the person as opposed to a character, that quote immediately spring to mind. Our brains get into a beautiful haze when watching 24p - they settle in for “storytime,” whether funny or dramatic, and anything at a higher frame rate doesn’t allow us the same haze.
Very interesting. This seems to have a psychological element to it.
I wonder if there is some way to describe this “mental haze” that is enjoyable to be purposefully repeated.
Some sort of “suspension” of some kind?
Like cause content is great but also because he chose the most iconic moment in mexican telenovelas. LOL
HolaPlaneta I came here to ask what that clip was from! What is it and why so iconic?
maldita liciada... (María la del barrio o la del mar?)
Gaia T.I del Barrio
Was that the same actor from the "Psych" telenovela episode?
Imo
HFR - more realistic or more natural
24fps - Cinematic
I go to the cinema to escape reality, not watch a video of a family vacation 😏
I think 120 fps goes beyond what the eyes see in real time and so it brings to the attention the details that the brain ignores and thus it messes up things
@@irisfailsafe it's 3D so 120fps turns out as 60fps as it usually splits 60 frames per eye, so you see only 60fps.
Came here to lurk in the comments shadows and see if I can learn something from bigger cinephiles than I am - didnt realize it would be the first thread. I need to learn more about 3D and fps apparently lol
HFR - more realistic or more natural my ass.......dude shake your hand in front of your eyes............exactly.
One thing other countries may have as an advantage is when they dub to their own language and hire the same guy who was will smith in the fresh prince years. Around here he sounds almost the same and its way different from the guy who voices him since independence day. If dubbing films ir right or wrong is another thing but i like the irony
Low FPS gives actors and movies more weight. High FPS will make the scenes look too real and cheesy. I once tried watching my favorite show using High FPS plugin and it looked like if the actors were preparing their lines instead of playing. Soap opera lol
Now I am wondering, is it because of custom? Or is it because of Uncanny Valley? Because the reason why 24fps started was due to technical costs. Film was expensive back then, nowadays this factor shouldn't be a thing anymore. But we're still using it.
Yes we're still using it... And not just in some movies. In ALL movies. A large part IS custom. And there's customs are far more powerful than to be brushed aside.
@@FilmmakerIQ But because it's a custom, it doesn't mean that the custom itself can't be challenged. I do have the idea that many channels sweep HFR under the rug because "it's different".
Economically seen, shooting in 24fps makes a lot of sense. Less costs for storage, CGI production and etc.
But in my opinion, if companies experiment more with HFR then we can overcome the stigma that HFR is getting now.
I do play a lot of videogames with HFR, so I am a bit based towards HFR.
We have had 70+ years of experience and experimentation with high frame rates in the form of video and television. This notion that HFR is new technology is born out of ignorance. We know what it looks like.
Customs can be challenged but you need a reason to challenge it rather that a juvenile "because it's higher". Changing just because you think it's new is a stupider reason than keeping an old system just because it's old... you don't know what you're getting into.
And no it doesn't need to happen incrementally because it doesn't need to happen. This notion that HFR is inevitable is about as laughable as flat earth theory
It even sucks in 24FPS since it was shot at 1/240 Shutter speed, and you can't convert shutter speed.
Once it's filmed, it's done.
They added digital motion blur.
@@FilmmakerIQ Oh...I don't think that's a proper solution but it's going to be less unpleasant at least.
So I just have a small cooking channel, nothing fancy. I barely know what I'm doing and this channel's really helped me (your discussion on ISO was super important). The other day I decided to do one of our videos in 60fps, and I wanted to share my own experience.
Basically, we shoot on our balcony, recently moved apartments, and during the afternoon our new apartment has like the lighting of the surface of Mercury (even with a thin white curtain there to soften the light). Decided to try 60fps mostly as a way to set a faster shutter speed. I figured that if 60fps works for sports, maybe for a cooking video it'll be fine too.
The good? For the light I was working with, yeah 1/120 did make my life a little easier. The smooth motion really worked for certain points - particularly when I was completely 'zoomed in' (blanking on the proper term there haha) on the food. Also, another really helpful thing was the ability to grab stills - I'll always include an accompanying written recipe, and usually if I grab a screenshot for a specific step it looks like total garbage. At 60fps it looked really nice.
The bad? There's lots of random shots we have of either me or my wife 'walking in/walking away' from the cutting board in order to have a natural sort of transition. Those looks goofy and aggressively amateurish at 60fps. Also, because we do 'hands only' cooking, sometimes I'll be showing something & have random hand motions to accompany the narration. Those weren't as bad as walking in/out, but they also came across as a bit weird.
For me and for what my particular application, the bad and good more or less cancel out. But...
The ugly? Disk space, and ultimately the reason I'll never shoot in 60fps again. Like most people, I like to keep all my old footage. Usually one video ends up having ~15-18gb of stuff in there. That video? 60gb. Multiply that difference over 100+ videos. That'd be over *4 terrabytes* of extra storage I'd need. Also, transferring stuff is slower, rendering is slower (I like applying noise reduction)... and for what?
Next time I'll just reach for the ND filter.
For the record I did shoot a web cooking show in 60fps... for reality stuff it's okay.
this will soon be the norm believe it or not, its just a matter of everyone getting used to it and it then creating a new "standard" .
"This will be the norm" is something people that don't know what they're talking about say.
As of this post, not a single other cinematic film is planned to shoot 120 fps (or even 60). Not. A. Single. One
But. Yes, this will "be the norm... MARK MY WORDS!"
Idiocy
@@FilmmakerIQ like I said, just give it time. You can simply look at the evolution of entertainment as a whole and come up with that easy observation. It's almost stubborn to mock the situation, almost as if showing "old timers remorse". This won't happen tomorrow.... Nor next week..... Or even next year.... But it WILL happen, certainly within your lifetime. Will it jump straight to 120fps and go from there? Highly doubtful. But through some other knowledgeable observations made by those in the industry it's only a matter of time. When it happens, you'll remember this conversation :)
Hopefully I'm still around to say I told ya so ;P
@@FilmmakerIQ oh also, a quick little nugget of information you can take how you will..... It's not smart to jump in your own comment section and try belittling someone because in your mind they can't hold a candle to your "big brain" all knowing and all telling, filmmaking mind. And then to lable said person under idiocy is just plain mean.... Learn to have a discussion before being so toxic. You'll gain a larger, stronger following that will look up to you.
Theme: used to 24FPS? here it is, 120FPS.
Video: 30FPS
The video is 24FPS though?
@@itIsI988 no youtube is shot at 24-60 almost all the time. And for youtube 60fps is so much better
@@dr.chimpanz.1324 This video in particular is 24FPS. Look at the stats for nerds.
The _real_ experts are always in the comments. Do I need "/s"?
@@itIsI988 That's nerdy, but lol, have your upvote.
All the comments saying that cinematic and realistic is seperate can be translated to "Movies don't need to look good, they need to look like all the ones I remember.". Lame.
Spoken like someone who doesn't care enough to actually make movies.
@@FilmmakerIQ Are you implying that people cannot care if they do not make movies personally? Seems elitist of you.
I care ALOT how good the movies I watch look. The colors and resolution have gotten so good in the last years that frame rates is now the bottleneck (like is has been before when we went from 16 frames).
Watching The Hobbit in HFR was amazing. I understand that people need to get used to the smoothness, but with more HFR exposure, they will get there. The tech need a few years to HFR content to be made without a hassle tho.
@@FilmmakerIQ The fact that you consider a russian accent fake sounding based on the frame rate says a lot about how you are not able to seperate what you are used to/bias from your evaluation. I think that this is very understandable to be honest, but the fact that you can't see/recognize it makes the base of your reasoning very wobbly.
Maybe if they remaster it in a variable framerate for home video. 120fps where it looks good, then slowly step down to 24fps where needed, using the 4 extra frames to generate artificial motion blur.
There's no such thing as variable framerate (except on phones which are a massive headache to work with). All delivery mediums are constant frame rate - they have to be for technical reasons. You could master a HFR stream and repeat frames for lower frame rates, the problem is the switching of frame rate IMMEDIATELY takes you out of the film - so it's not a good idea.
Filmmaker IQ Although James Cameron has been taking about doing exactly that for Avatar: HFR for action scenes, standard for other scenes, in the same movie. I guess we'll see what happens...
James Cameron has really backed way off... And the hfr wouldn't have been for action scenes. And it wouldn't have been for anything but the 3D version. collider.com/avatar-sequels-no-hfr-james-cameron/
Its like looking at a painting close up and seeing a picture of it in a magazine. When you are really close you start to get distracted by the details. I love your analysis of how problems looking at it in 120 just went away at 24.
What about 120fps animated films? Do you think that would work?
They can... I mean look at video games which have cut scenes with your essentially animated... But why bother? For animation you're going in the wrong direction.
I watched one of the best animated movies ever made last night: Spider-Man into the Spiderverse. Seems to me the art of animation is much more into the lower frame rates than it is in the high
@@FilmmakerIQ That's a good point. I heard somewhere that they actually animated Miles at a lower frame rate than Peter for most of the movie to convey the idea that he wasn't as smooth with his powers. And then at the end when ilhe comes into his own as Spider-Man they increased his frame rate. I thought that was a really cool idea.
In the Blu-ray release they should have the option if you want to see it in 120FPS or traditional 24FPS
Two discs
I want to have access to the movie at 120 so fucking much, even though I dont care about the movie itself. I love anything high fps, but I got no 120fps cinema near me.
Look up Billy Lynns Long Halftime Walk, also by Ang Lee, also 60fps (you can get it in 60fps on the UHD, which also comes in 3D, its standard 24fps on the blu-ray)
@@RolandTechnicalDesigner Look up Billy Lynns Long Halftime Walk, also by Ang Lee, also 60fps (you can get it in 60fps on the UHD, which also comes in 3D, its standard 24fps on the blu-ray)
The use of Soraya in a fight scene ups the production value 😂
I pseudo-render most of my TV series or movies in 60fps. I cant go back to 24fps anymore
HFR just doesn't seem like the way we should be going. Like all art movements, we eventually move from the representation of reality towards more of an artistic interpretation. From the jump cuts introduced by French new-wave to our latest move further and further towards heavily graded aesthetics, going more 'realistic' just seems like a step backwards from a conceptual standpoint.
I was just rewatching Jean Renoir on the topic... www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/jean-renoir-on-technology-and-art/amp
Similar with animation. There’s so much potential in the form but striving to look more and more like real life doesn’t do much for visual story telling.
this is so back wards high frame rate doesnt take anything away from the art it simply adds more art if everything was recorded in 120fps then people wouldnt say it looks weird its simply because high frame rate is the exeption that people think it looks odd 24 fps is so low for modern day comon we can do at least 60 as a standerd only animated movies have a fucking excuse every other movie has no excuse low frame rate doesnt look better
Newsflash... Film doesn't have a resolution. They're scanning old silent films from the 1920s at 4K.
It's the same film today as it was in 1920s... The fact that we can pull a 4K scan on the same thing they were projecting 100 years ago means it WAS 4K in 1920. Resolution has NEVER been an issue until digital came along in the late 90s with the second Star Wars Prequel.
The problem with your argument is you don't know anything about film technology. We're now on the 9th anniversary of the Hobbit and even Peter Jackson has abandoned the idea of shooting HFR. No one in the industry takes it seriously except for Ang Lee and even then the reviews are pretty dismal..
Tbh I think one of the biggest problem is that so far we haven't seen a single really good movie in HFR.
What if Fury Road was shot with that technique? Pretty sure the public opinion about the technique would be different.
Rumor has it George Miller consulted with Peter Jackson about HFR and Jackson warned him against it. Fury Road is an amazing example of what is still possible inside 24 frame rate realm and Miller did things with that movie that simply would not be possible in a higher frame rate.
Industry folks know a lot more about this stuff than you give them credit for.
That’d be horrible
I believe it would've looked superb.
Its seems you did not watched the movie. Go watch the behind the scenes of fury road and you will see that even in 30 fps most scenes don't have the same weight as 24. 120 would destroy that movie.
@@Magneira I dunno man. I would like to know how it is to watch action scenes in 120fps. Specially like fury road. I really think it must be something different. Why do we accept it for sports and not for movies? These debates are dumb. It is just our eyes who are used to 24 fps. Nothing more nothing less.
I see comments saying that directors and actors should change up their style of working with film.
Yeah, sure. I'll give willy a call, tell him to forget all he fucking knows, but don't tell him what he should actually do.
Panning on 24FPS looks like a computer struggling to run a game.
Truth, and something that didn't bother me until a few years ago. Now I'm so used to seeing butter smooth pans and zooms in high res when I shoot videos myself, I can't stand it anymore in a movie. It's personal and a matter of taste, but there you have it. I wish, more movies would come out with higher frame rates. I guess it would require a different generation of directors, cameramen, editors, actors and audience. Maybe a little too much to ask for.
If you had paid more attention to this channel's videos, you'd know about shutter speed, and how it is occasionally tinkered with to avoid stuttering in pans and other camera movements. You must "always" respect the 180 rule, unless you want to create a specific visual effect that demands a higher or slower shutter speed. Hence, you must always keep your shutter speed at 1/48 or 1/50...you can use lower speeds to create a dreamy or drunk effect (Saving Private Ryan - DDay sequence), or higher shutter speeds to film action sequences that would stutter with the 180 shutter angle. Higher shutter speeds are also used to film muzzle flashes (they don't appear at 1/48), lightning, moving cars and other objects or occurrences that can't be ideally captured in 1/48 of a second. Shutter speed and angle requires experience to be used correctly for pans and other movements because it often turns the film into a news broadcast...even if for a short amount of time.
If you are not getting satisfying results by altering the shutter speed/angle, you could even experiment with higher framerates, but you MUST ALWAYS edit and export the footage in 24FPS. Gerald Undone has a GREAT video on how to use shutter speed and higher framerates for pans and other complicated camera movements.
@@Yankeededandy62 I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree. I truly think we we will never reach a point where HFR films are the norm for movie theatres. This video touched on a few good benefits of lower frame rate. Here's my perspective. I love playing video games at a high frame rate, it's extremely jarring switching between HFR on PC to console games with 30FPS. It feels like the game is lagging because I am so accustomed to the HFR on PC. However, when I view an In-Game cutscene, If it was at HFR I would completely be taken out of the experience. I no longer feel like I'm escaping into a fictional world when I see ANYTHING at HFR. It feels too real and gimmicky. In Gameplay it's a fantastic smooth experience. In a film / cutscene, it has no place there IMO, unless you're viewing a documentary or a biography.
I fucking hate it. It hurts my eyes
Dux Nihilo Just in big theaters though
It's the realization that the way people talk and behave in action movies doesn't usually happen in real life. I started noticing this on the original 'Scare Tactics' where you could tell some of the people were genuinely scared. The actors who are trying to appear mysterious or ominous seemed completely out of place next to the real people. Sometimes the marks would realize something was off, but they still played along. The scares didn't go down as authentic when that happened.
When they make the setting look too perfect and real, your brain expects to just see regular people, not the dramatic stylized behavior of these amazing actors. It's almost like an environmental version of the uncanny valley.
Hence why HFR would severely limit the range of cinema. It would force films to fall in two extremes: either very naturalistic, realistic and grounded acting, or blatantly over-the-top, stylistic and artificial, with little space for films that are "in-between" in the spectrum, because of the uncanny valley effect in HFR.
What do you think of my comment?
wow! I was searching for this video forever. thank you!
It always pains me to see too fast pans at 24/25fps when everything turns into a slery mess. One of the first lessons I learned as hobby filmmaker: Pans have to be very, very slow to not get dissying or lose all visual quality.
HFR really can help there, assuming one doesn't follow the 180° shutter rule.
I had a similar problems with the Hobbit films in 48fps. I saw both, but the high frame rate made it feel like I was looking at a set with actors playing a part, which I was. The fundamental problem is that HFR shows all the details, which makes it look like what it is, a performance on a set. Maybe I make that connection because I've worked on sets, but I think narrative film frame rate is a case of less is more. You need to direct and misdirect attention, and when everything is there to see that becomes harder to do. It's like a magician doing a slight-of-hand trick in slow motion which allows the audience to follow exactly what he is doing and the illusion is broken.
I saw the first Hobbit film in high frame rate as well and I agree. In documentaries and sports you WANT to see as much detail as possible because it's actual reality you are watching. Movies are not reality and the more detail you add the more your very well evolved brain can detect the reality behind the fiction. In movies we need to cheat our brain. Adding more information will not achieve that, our brains are way too good for that. We evolved to pick up tiny details in people's expressions that might indicate they are cheating us or lying to us. That something is not quite right. With high framerate we see reality, therefore we see the sets, the stunts and the acting. Not a good thing. There is such a thing as "too much information"
One day hfr movies will be staple and then gemini man will be remembered as the first to do so and create the conversation.
You mean lose $75 million at the box office because it was a complete flop? HFR will be remembered the way Smell-o-vision is.
Look up Billy Lynns Long Halftime Walk, also by Ang Lee, also 60fps (you can get it in 60fps on the UHD, which also comes in 3D, its standard 24fps on the blu-ray)
So the point is that it's easier to suspend disbelief when everything "doesn't look real" and that makes complete sense. The whole point of movies is that you're supposed to suspend your disbelief. If everything looks real then what's the point?
Hence why HFR would severely limit the range of cinema. It would force films to fall in two extremes: either very naturalistic, realistic, subtle and grounded acting, or blatantly over-the-top, stylized and artificial, with little space for films that are "in-between" in the spectrum, because of the uncanny valley effect in HFR.
What do you think of my comment?
I like how they get Ai Weiwei to review films on this channel, really didn't know he was a film affecianado.
Finally someone who understands it, I thought you were just gonna shit on high framerate the whole time and trigger me, which was not the case, very insightful video
I just watched it in 60fps. I love games at high frame rate, but here it manged to make $25m actors look like b movie extras... Maybe it wasn't quite that bad but it's crazy how the frame rate affects the perception of the acting quality.
It just shows how acting really is... 24 fps just hides it a little.
yes, I use SVP to watch movies at 60 fps, I only watch 60 fps, not 24fps. And if bad acting I notice instantly. That's why I mostly left watching movies. Most movies suck. But there are really good ones
@@kissadev. There are actually good actors.
theres a reason that i (along with other fans) dont really like the videotaped episodes of the twilight zone. the high frame rate makes it feel like a cheap, amature stageplay, instead of the classic sci fi show we know and love.
Didn't they change the style they moved the camera when they adopted tape?
So... according to this logic, worse technical quality = seemingly better performance by the actors? Bummer! I've just thrown away my VHS collection...
Because at 120fps you're seeing more of the actors mannerisms (little details in facial movements and so on), so it's easier to spot weird inconsistencies in their performance
@@RyanKhanna yep, that explains all that bad acting in tv shows... 🙄
@@runewinsevik8471 I didn't say it automatically makes a performance worse, but a bad performance or even a mediocre one is more noticeable when you can see every inch of their face in pristine super smooth quality. So actors have to adjust their performances in the future when shooting 120 fps to seem more believable
"Maldita lisiada!!!!!!" kudos for the soap opera clip
I’m glad to see there are still champions of 24fps. I’ve always been adamant that it is the ONLY frame rate. It is key in adding to the fantasy experience of watching a movie. Keep it up man!
is there also an arbitrary limit on resolution, or color garmet that you'd like to share?
How do you describe the relationship between 24fps and a “fantasy” element?
What makes 24fps “fantasy”?
My brain hates 120fps, 24fps gives a dreamy feel, your brain "fills in the blanks", cinema needs this effect. Well, at least I feel that it does.
Great review, wish i had a dolby cinema near me that was showing it in HFR just because it is pretty rare that movies come out in that format, but as you said, no one should expect HFR to become the new format. But it is cool to get a movie released in both every once in a while.
There are actually tons of movies with an above 24 fps frame rate.
They are called european films and are shot at 25 fps ;)
Believe it or not, most European films are still 24.
"The cinema is truth 24 frames-per-second"
Jean Luc Godard
@@FilmmakerIQ I have a friend that just worked in France(Mr Godards home country) and it was 25 fps all the way so..... ;)
@@NostalgiNorden It depends on whether the producers feel they are destined for TV first or theatrical or how they want to play it (since it's not hard to switch between the two). But the Cinemas in Europe are 24 fps ;)
You are wrong. High productions use 24fps.
It's the prosumer and consumer market who uses 25 due to tv transmission. Even though, nowadays it is not needed anymore.
@@FilmmakerIQ Nope. When i showed one of my films in sweden a couple of years back i was forced to post-covert it from 24 fps to 25 fps so that they could show it. Made the film a bit longer ;)
It made all the action look real and amazing though, when you watch real war battles documented they look just as cheap as the first shootout between the Smiths and the exploding van near the end, that’s why it felt so real/raw instead of through the lens of big budget Hollywood. The combination of the 3D + HFR made the grounded/real world action look and feel amazing/immersive, as if it was happening in front of you. That’s what you felt during the minigun scene, you just weren’t open enough to recognize it throughout the other action scenes due to 24fps obsession. That scene feels like it was performed for real, with the actors in danger crawling through a store really being torn apart by bullets. That scene is visually spectacular and makes you wonder how much better something like The Matrix’s lobby shootout would’ve been in 3D + HFR. If not for the box office failure, I totally could’ve seen this be a new standard for action-driven movies, in live action with real stunts, not CG movies like Avatar or blockbusters with lots of CG like Avengers. The format definitely has a specific place that Gemini Man used effectively. The Matrix and Mad Max Fury Road would’ve been better if shot in this format.
There mini gun shots were cool but I didn't feel scared for the actors. Other than that, don't see how looking cheap is a benefit... It just looks cheap.
All those action films would look like garbage at this frame rate. We've seen the motion interpolation versions enough to know.
@@FilmmakerIQ
Not in 3D tho, natively shot. I agree that in 2D its garbage, I've never seen good HFR in 2D.
meh still... I saw the 120fps movie in 3D. It still doesn't look like a movie and the action wasn't amazing, it looked fake. A 3D documentary on sea life might be cool but it doesn't work for cinema.
@@FilmmakerIQ
I agree that it doesnt look like a "movie", at least not a typical one, or "cinema", but this was a rare case where it didnt matter because whatever it is, it's really good, for action at least. I just saw it as a new kind of experience, not too different from the mindset I had after seeing Avatar or Tron Legacy in imax 3D, but albeit to a lesser extent cause it really was just for the action, didnt do much for the other 70% of the film outside of being cool tech demos (like you say) sometimes. I did like some of those wide ocean shots from above, not just below, or any landscape shots in general, but I agree that's just more of a cool demo thing than something meaningful for filmmaking. We just disagree on the action part.
I suggest you watch it in 24fps - the fight scenes and chase scenes work better in the slow frame rate.
I feel like, even if arguments can be made for the merits of higher frame rates, everyone knows how to make movies (acting, lighting, choreography, etc.) at 24fps. There are decades of practice and tricks learned for how to make stuff look good at 24, so even the most talented filmmakers and actors are kind-of at square one with HFR.
It’s like QWERTY keyboards. Sure, some layouts may be faster, but people shouldn’t have to relearn how to type just for the sake of adopting some different approach.
High framerates are best for documentaries, 3D animations, virtual reality and natural content, but it definitely destroys the atmosphere in movies.
Great video - so refreshing to watch some content on RUclips about film which is thoughtful and nuanced.
I just saw Gemini Man on UHD Blu-ray on a 55 inch OLED. This film is a great demo for the best that UHD Blu-ray has to offer. I bought this movie only because of the 60fps and it looks great - especially near the end with the mini gun and the guy moving while on fire. HDR + 60fps made it look impressive.
Afterwards, I saw it again on the accompanying Blu-ray, which has no HDR and uses only 24fps.
HDR & Lighting:
This movie truly shows how stunning HDR can be. Without HDR, the picture looks flatter. HDR provides depth by increasing the contrast of the picture... making it look more natural. It makes HD look like SD! However, the unnatural and gratuitous use of orange and teal lighting everywhere makes everything look like a stage. This was less annoying on the Blu-ray because of the lack of HDR.
Action:
There are many details that are missed in action scenes at 24fps as a result of motion blur. I prefer the bike chase at 60fps because I can tell what's going on. There was a scene where I saw something happen, but I couldn't tell what it was - but I remembered what it was from when I saw it at 60fps. I also think that the final guy looked more menacing at 60fps.
At the beginning of the bike chase, there is a higher sensation of speed due to the motion blur of 24fps... but maybe it wasn't intended to look that fast. After all, the movie was shot at 120fps.
At 60fps, the movement in some of the fight scenes and some of the exploding cars don't feel like they have weight to them because they just don't move how I expect them too - kind of like bad wirework in fighting movies. The fight in the catacombs and the exploding van near the end are good examples. This was less noticeable at 24fps, but it doesn't mean that it can't be improved with alternate cinematography techniques. Consider the scene in Superman 1978 where a helicopter is falling from the top of the Daily Planet building. That doesn't look good either and that is in 24fps.
Acting:
Linda Edmond's acting seemed worse at 60fps than 24fps... but when I went back to 60fps to compare, it was no longer a problem. However, the bad dialog in this movie couldn't have helped her situation. Clive Owen was convincing in both framerates.
Conclusion:
Overall, some shots don't look as great as they should, but I think they are the result of poor cinematography techniques and/or scenes that need to be done in a different way to avoid looking bad. Given that the dialog is so poor, I'm not convinced that the budget was well spent on making the movie good.
As far as the movie look is concerned...
- no one seemed concerned while CGI was replacing practical effects everywhere. This movie has a lot of CGI in it and it looks impressive, but still looks fake.
- no one seems concerned about this ugly 50s teal washing out all the colors, making it look like people are at a bathhouse; or combining it with orange, making it look like people are at a club.
- no one seems concerned about the ADD camera that is constantly moving around, making it more exhausting to watch movies.
...but here we are.
I still prefer to watch it at 60fps than 24fps... because HDR is too good to give up... and the action scenes look better.
So just use go pro in movies.60 fps looks cheap budget movie
i love to watch anything at min at 60fps since i feel it's more realistic
My question is simple, could a production feasibly utilize multiple frame-rates to emphasize certain shots? Such as ~30 for the majority of the film, ~60-120 for the subtle (or not so subtle) effect. If so, could that become something akin to matte painting or perspective trickery?
I always felt this way when watching soap operas as a kid. I always noticed the framerate was different, and it made the scenes ... strange. Of course, they were 60fps.
Yes. Makes it look fake
24 fps is high enough to sell the illusion of motion. Going higher only gets in the way of all the other illusions you're trying to sell.
Hence why HFR would severely limit the range of cinema. It would force films to fall in two extremes: either very naturalistic, realistic, subtle and grounded acting, or blatantly over-the-top, stylized and artificial, with little space for films that are "in-between" in the spectrum, because of the uncanny valley effect in HFR.
What do you think of my comment?
Allow me to put it in a exaggerated way: "We need 24 fps in order to hide all the flaws of filmmaking that would make the film feel unreal in higher framerates."
If it has to be like that I'm ok with it, I get your point.
But if it is possible to do good enough to make a film feel real in higher framerates I would prefer that.
Any movement that is a bit faster just looks disgusting in 24 fps. And when there is a lot of fast movement I just get a headache.
In that exaggerated way you have to ask yourself this... So you want to make movie making so hard that there are fewer good movies out there? You want more people to fail? For what? Just so you can have smoother pans? That's your gold standard for cinema? Smooth motion???
I maintain that there is NO way to make the cinematic experience in HFR, because the cinematic experience demands 24 fps.
As for fast action "looking disgusting" that's probably because you're watching on a computer screen with bad encoding.
@@FilmmakerIQ I don't want more people to fail. I just like to dream about a world where it is all possible in HFR. Maybe it is impossible. I don't know.
There are many films that work very well with 24 fps and don't need more. And then there are films that would benefit from higher framerates. I just hope that more people try to pull it of and also succeed. That would also help lessen the impact of filmmakers and audiences being used to 24 fps and having weird feelings about HFR because they are not used to it.
The effect of fast movement giving me headaches is the strongest in cinema. My hypothesis is that it is just in relation to the screen size. But of course that might be different for others.
Have you considered that it's YOU who is not used to 24fps?
This all centers on that crucial point. All this is based on YOU. Not anyone else.
@@FilmmakerIQ Of course this is all subjective, as it always is when talking about art. I think I made that clear in the way I wrote it.
And I don't think you can just turn around the thing with the habit. As you said yourself the vast majority of films is in 24 fps. So that's what everyone is used to in the context of film.
Not the vast majority. All movies (outside of a few exceptions which fail in this respect)
So if you have a problem with 24, you have a problem with all movies.
So why should we care what someone who has a problem with all movies thinks about movies?
I'll repeat, maybe it's that YOU aren't used to watching 24 when you use charged language like "disgusting"
You don't have to watch movies, stick to video games.
Another example how hard standards are fixed in our world. I am happy that movies with tone made it and even movies with color. And already yes, there they have done the very same discussions. Movie with sound, that's not real movie. Movie with color, that's not real movie. And how long black and white movies were made. And so on. The only thing is, you are used to it. If you allow it, you will enter a new world, if you regret you stay in the past.
By the way. So the movie is done in 120fps and is rendered to 24fps. This means both must be bad. On 120fps your camera work has to be different from 24fps. Lee says this in an interview and I totally agree. Even on 24fps. You have to record each scene different, depending on what is in front of your camera and what you want to tell. No sequence has the same settings. When you record a movie in 120fps, render it to 24fps and it looks like a good 24fps, something in the 120fps production went terribly wrong. Otherwise it means you can take a football TV game, render it to 24fps and it looks like movie.
I'm getting kind of tired of people who don't know about the history of film blabbing about a subject they don't understand. Color and Sound were both incredibly popular in their day when they first came along. Technicolor 2 strip was a massive hit at first. It died off because of poor quality control but was replaced with Technicolor 3 strip which stayed on for a LONG time. Sound swept the industry where nearly all the theaters converted to within 2 years of the Jazz Singer.
HFR is... a disaster. This movie only played at 120fps in 14 theaters. This is now 7 years after the Hobbit supposed sparked off the HFR revolution? 7 years and 14 theaters was the best it could do? And my screening wasn't even full. HFR is closer to smell-o-vision... but hey maybe that's coming back!
On the topic of 120fps to 24fps conversion, you're just flat out wrong on that. It was the same exact shots - you don't need to record the scene differently, or at least that's not they did. They added digital motion blur to make the 24fps look good.
Yes you can take a football TV game and reduce it to 24 fps to make it look more epic. In my country they do that with American Football games all the time and yes it does look more epic.
@@FilmmakerIQ Here in cinema museums you find various posters against tone movie which were placed IN cinemas. And when color movie was so great, why are "Psycho" from 1960 and "Some like it hot" from 1959 in black and white?
Okay in Psycho I can understand and that, because I am used to it. And it is black and white, because Hitchcock wanted it in that way. And that even he made "To Catch a Thief" in 1955 in color. He thought for Psycho it would be a good choice, because of the genre. But I hope you agree, that Psycho would have worked in color too. Otherwise you would opposite your quote. And "Some like it hot" in color would be real fun.
Coming to 120fps and 24fps. Of course you have to do it different. You can move horizontally faster in 120fps, to name only one. And on green screen, which is very often used in todays movies, you need very short shutter speed, because motion blur and green screen is an absolute no go. Try it, if you don't believe. So in many scenes in todays movies you already didn't have motion blur.
I am sure you did your very best in the cinema. But we have very, very, very strong filters in our heads. You are not aware how many filters there are working in your brain on how you register the environment. Not to talk about, that our eyes not work on the same frequencies, solutions, color reception and sharpness etc. at all.
But what I don't understand the least. When it worked so perfect for you, to transfer a 120fps movie to a 24fps movie, why you don't simply watch the 24fps and let me have the 120fps. So why you want to convince me? And that is the real question.
Black and White in Psycho was done for budgetary reasons and to sort of give it a more independent feel since Hitchcock was coming off high dollar VistaVision shows like North by Northwest and Vertigo. That's as late as 1960. You do realize the first color films were in the 1920s right?
I don't think Psycho would have worked in color. Not the same way. We have Gus Van Sant and his remake to give us a glimpse of what it looked like.
I'm not blind to the filters in my head. I'm very well aware of them. But I work with them. YOU have a very blatant filter in your head. You think that High Frame Rate should be the go to. Why? I have no clue.
Yes, I do greenscreen a lot - no you don't _need_ short shutter speeds.
As for why can't I just let you have 120fps. I will let you have it. But these conversations are not about letting you have 120fps - they're about you FORCING THE INDUSTRY to change and give you the option - the option that all of us in the industry thinks sucks. Sorry, no it ain't happening.
Make your own movies in 60fps, don't force others to.
@@FilmmakerIQ But money was not the only reason on Psycho, right. And "Some like it hot" is another good example.
You cannot change a first impression. Let people answer who have seen the colored version first and you will get complete different answers. That was what I meant. Filters. What you see first has much impact.
Green Screen with heavy movement you should normally do with 48fps and I am sure you know that. And even CGI is done with much more frames.
No I am not forcing the industry to anything, who am I. But every time somebody of this film industry is doing it different, there are coming many out to tell everybody how bad it is. Let them simply doing it. You don't have to look at it. You live in an free country ;-). If nobody is putting his agenda in the way, the best will find it's way.
The difference between us both is. I simply want to allow it and you want to forbid it.
@@LiebensteinMovies I don't want to forbid it. I just want to explain to you why it's not going to happen and why no professionals like it.
I welcome everyone to try to make HFR movies of their own. Because I KNOW what the result is... I've done it myself for years.
I'm actually here just to see what you think as I try to find my own way.
I'm all for experimentation. In opinion the only way you can be for high frame rate is to shoot it yourself and make a real honest film with it (even if it's just you and your friends) . Until you do that you have no credibility.
@@FilmmakerIQ I'm a photographer really - just playing with video/audio for a bit of fun. Certainly not a 'fimmaker'
@@JohnJBloomfield James Cameron once said, "Pick up a camera. Shoot something. No matter how small, no matter how cheesy, no matter whether your friends and your sister star in it. Put your name on it as director. Now you're a director [filmmaker]. Everything after that you're just negotiating your budget and your fee."
Thanks. You've put into words some of the things I've been trying to explain to friends for over a decade with much effort.
Your impressions reminds me of seeing Forest Gump again on DVD. The special effects were apparent, rather than the seamless face replacements that was all the talk when the movie was first released.
I imagine you would speak out against digital SD (720x480) as showing too much detail, where the blur and noise of traditional media would hide such imperfections.
Likewise, when I first saw a DLP projector in a theater, I could clearly see the pixelization of the text in the opening credits and logos.
In both cases, the creators figured out how to work with the medium, and the new content is better than ever.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Traditional film has resolving power even beyond 4k. How are you so clueless about history to think everything started with standard definition???
When movie hasn't details, it was related to cheap duplication. At least, this way they forced digital cinema
Did not know that high frame rate was that weird to look at. I think if the cinemas were all capable of 120 fps, they would try out more movies that way. I wonder how all the gamers rate the movie in 120 fps? Whether they like the film more because of their fast games or whether that has no correlation.
But not every technologie is automatically used in the future. Maybe 120 fps is like 4D cinema: A fun attraction, but nothing serious.
Sure you could ask gamers... but it's kinda like getting the opinion of someone who doesn't play video games to talk about video games - it's not worth that much in the end.
@@FilmmakerIQ So kinda like your opinion then.
Why would you value my opinion on video games? I don't expect you to.
@@FilmmakerIQ not everyone is an artist, but everyone IS a critic.
I"ve been working in Hollywood for years, on everything from porn to Oscar nominees. I have never liked 24 fps, where the wheels of the stagecoach keep changing direction of rotation. It's hard to suspend disbelief when 24 fps and shallow depth of field keep getting in the way of the story. A horror story is more horrific if Freddy looks real.
There was something I didn't notice you say. The high frame rates expose imperfections in stabilization equipment. 24fps smooths that out and looks better :)
So, could improvements in stabilization equipment and better motion blurring for HFR fix these issues?
I've heard the same argument for why high definition is bad: You can see all the flaws on the actors, standard definition is easier.
Movies have been making us all think that things that are totally fake look real on-screen. High frame rate takes the 'magic' away in my opinion and to me it makes things look like plastic. You can see that it's fake. Pretty much what John states here. 24FPS helps film makers 'hide their crimes'.
I remember a test done with "The Hobbit" in HFR, a focus group or something, and the people said that the dwarfs looked like actors in dwarf disguise. This guy has the same point.
For me it's always the CGI at HFR that looks bad. They can't hide the bad physics behind it.
For animated movies, 60 fps it looks fantastic, even though I watched those interpolated, as there is no native content as of now.
That 24% Rotten Tomato score was well earned. Poor movie.
It has 84 audience score
@@withnail-and-i Audiences these days are mostly made up of ADD crack-heads who like explosions and cute quips by their leading character in capes
@@TheGoodfella2012 and critic score is a bunch of liberal retards who only vote on the political aspects
Vindawg you a hater
@@gregb7337 Me and every film critic out there
Thanks for this, here you are reviewing 3D plus, so you saw a frame blended version at 60FPS from our 120FPS master. Dolby Vision did show 120/2K in HDR which was nice. I hope next time we set up a 3D cinema you can see dual laser projectors at 120 simultaneous per eye, so that I will say is a step up from what you saw at the 60 wide release. Anyway, we will keep pushing the envelope with Ang Lee as he is an awesome guy to work with as we try to make 3D a better experience. (cheers - Demetri / Gemini Stereographer)
Please don't stop doing 120fps. For now, people are laughing and saying it looks bad, but it looks awesome and so crystal clear. Ang Lee is really a visionnary and ahead of its time on that HFR film making.
@@YogueDaddy thank you Guy for your comment, it is not easy to shoot HFR projects but we need to make more so arts experiment with how the format looks and feels, after all it is all just digital information so I think the future will have more HFR projection. I am curious now to see the 3D version of Avatar 2 at 48FPS in 4K, because I think it will have better frame processing than the Hobbit.
@@demetriportelli9439 Are they still shooting it at 48FPS? I didn't even see the Hobbit and I would really like to buy the 128FPS version of Gemini Man. I think this is a real evolution for cinema and it needs to be supported.
@@YogueDaddy try to see Avatar 2 at 48FPS in 3D. Software has improved to manipulate the frames, and therefore, the result is always a better 24FPS as HFR has always given more options (more data) to deliver better 24 version of the movie, quite normal for VFX work. It is really the dual laser projector set up in the theatres that impresses me seeing 3D content properly and at the correct brightness which is very important. I don't think there is a Blue Ray standard yet to see 120 movies, which is a shame because 120 televisions are becoming more common.
@1:33 Inda-what?
We actually don't see in real life as sharp as high frame rate movies.
Things in our periphery are out of focus.
Distance is out of focus.
Motion is blurred.
Motion blur is not necessarily a function of frame rate, but shutter time. Also IRL where you focus the image will be sharp and colored. Kinda like how a movie looks. Sharp and colored where you look.
IRL our vision is pretty dang good. Also motion blur in high frame rate movies can be made to look more realistic.
The shutter speed is capped by the frame rate. Also shooting conventions tie the shutter speed to the frame rate so to say that the motion blur is not a function of frame rate really isn't correct.
Also our vision is crap. A plastic lens on a toy you get at the 99 cent store would probably beat out the biological lens in our eyeball. It's amazing how much our brain processes the crappy signal. I mean just the existence of the blind spot is evidence of how bad our vision really is
Nice content. Thanks for sharing your experience 😊
Malayali poliyaada
Yeda
How do they transfer from 120 fps to 24 fps and "create" a natural motion blur? Is it like an "optical flow" type of thing or what?
Yeah - it's reverse Motion Interpolation essentially.
same feel with the "Hobbit" movie..the sets looked like...sets. It takes away from the most important part of filmmaking, to imerse the viewers into a "feeling", to take them into an emotional ride, the less information they get the better their brain can fill it up with imagination. And that is the ultimate purpose of movies...to take our minds into a journey. Sadly, HFR and too much resolution...just gives out too much information. They have their place (documentaries, live sports, games etc) ...but not in movies.
The Hobbit in HFR amusingly makes the films look like cheap knock-offs of Tolkien (Asylum, mainland European TV). You spend 300 million on a movie, and it ends up looking like it cost barely a million.
What about cinematic games like the Tomb Raider series?
@XY ZW yeah the 300 million usd budget was just too small
@XY ZW influencers. duh.
Interesting take on it and we’ll made.
I think there should be an art where frame rates are specifically selected for each scene.
I'm sure there's an art installation that could do that. It's not as useful as you think.
This is fascinating - I hadn't even heard of HFR before this and I just sat through this whole video.
CDbiggen same here man
Same with me. It sounds wild
Look up Billy Lynns Long Halftime Walk, also by Ang Lee, also 60fps (you can get it in 60fps on the UHD, which also comes in 3D, its standard 24fps on the blu-ray)
I agree, I remember when I watched the hobbit. It’s so weird it’s like watching a play with close ups. Higher frame rates kill the illusion of another world by putting you too deep into it. I like how James Cameron put it too, It’s a veil. Something. About 24 FPS flattens the information in a certain way, making it less real and allowing you to focus on the story instead of feeling like you’re in it too. It feels like the difference between watching tv vs looking through a portal to a different world.
Today, I watched Gemini Man in 60fps out of curiosity as to how this gimmick was utilized. Until today, any clips I caught of it in 60fps looked totally wrong and terrible to me. However, something happened today that I thought was impossible. I got used to it. I mean yeah, every once in a while someone would make a big movement and I would be caught off guard, but overall I got used to it. So used to it that watching clips of movies at 24fps feel kind of herky jerky to me. Please send help.
Update: My brain is back to normal.
"It looks very, very good. But it doesn't look like a movie" Yep dude, mad respect. I love high framerates and any chance I can get I love to watch stuff thats been interpolated... But, for enjoying a movie for the first time or just wanting to watch a classic, sometimes the good ol' 24FPS is the way to go, it just feels more wholesome.
Not sure I've seen any HFR movies, but from your description the effect is similar to the 'motion smoothing' setting on modern HD TV sets, and that typically seems to be enabled by default.
When I'm visiting someone and watching a movie with that setting turned on, I might ask them (as politely as possible) if they really can't see how cheap and artificial everything looks. Often I'll get a blank look in response. When I do them the 'favour' of finding that setting and disabling it - it's usually buried deep in the menu system somewhere - the reaction will usually be 'Oh yeah! That's much better!' :)
Motion smoothing uses rough AI algorithms to predict what frames in between the actually real frames would look like, nothing like actually displaying more frames.
this shit's like saying black&white is better than color.
lets look at acting from the 30's, 50's, 70's and acting from the 21st century! there's a huge difference between them. and there has always been a noticeable difference between real life reacting and cinematic/theater acting. the more dramatic they try to make a scene the less real it actually looks, but most people dont notice this because thats what they're used to seeing.
i, for one, get the same level of believability from both live action and animated movies. but just as some people cant take animated movies seriously, its the same with some people and HFR. in reality it all has to do with what you're used to. because lets be real, of course HFR is gonna look weird to you when 99.99% percent of your life you've only seen 24fps movies. even a movie that is only from first person perspective is gonna look weird to a normal person. there's no such thing as objectively better frame rate. movies are an art form so its up to the director to use whatever framerate they want.
i think the future is definitely gonna be in dynamic framerates that changes depending on the scene or whatever, but its gonna be a long time before that becomes a thing. first, people have to abandon this retarded notion of 24fps.
May still be good for documentaries or live opera streams then.
I don't disagree ;)
And if cgi becomes more powerful animation movies.
Ox King documentaries would be cool, to bad nature and animals are disappearing
Anything I've ever seen that is higher framerate looks amateur, like someone was just running around with a camcorder playing director, even if the cinematography and lighting and everything else looks right - the higher framerate just looks WRONG.
Same. Everybody looks "slimy" to me or something. Same goes for the AutoMotion (blurring) that comes default on most modern TVs. Everything looks low-budget and ridiculous. Many of my friends/family can't tell the difference, but I want to tear out my eyes!!
Thats why real film camera is better than digicam they use today
I got really annoyed when I rendered a 60fps movie and used it without realizing before the screening. It felt off.
The theater you went to was the one I got to all the time since it's the closest. Now I'm feeling grateful.
Absolutely, higher frame rates make you super aware that you are watching actors. My theory is that it's not just the frame rate, same effect is achieved (not every time but quite often) when people are trying to use other hyper realistic tools like a documentary shooting style for example. The thing is when we watch a movie we know it's not real so when it's initially stylised we sort of surrender to the rules of the universe created in that specific movie. But as soon as the movie is trying to be too much like life, we immediately notice everything that's fake about it because it becomes too apparent. My painting teacher once told me - every painting is a small world with its unique rules. I think it's the same with movies. You set your own rules and the viewer will spend those 2 hours believing in your world. You try to fool them into believing your film is real and it comes out as a fake.
Exactly.
Hence why HFR would severely limit the range of cinema. It would force films to fall in two extremes: either very naturalistic and grounded acting, or blatantly over-the-top, stylistic and artificial, with little space for films that are "in-between" in the spectrum, because of the uncanny valley effect in HFR.
What do you think of my comment?
So in other words, the problem is you.
You getting that Gandalf the Grey look John 😂
Gemini man is another After Earth
Shoulda got Jaden to play the clone...
3:38 sheer nonsense, a movie has no "look", we are just used to it
You really need to learn more about movies...
Somehow his speech pattern reminds me of Michio Kaku.
24 fps is definitely better for film, since motionblur makes everything flow better. High fps just takes away a great stylistic aspect of film.
You can add in motion blur in post processing if needed.
@@cassidy8307Motion Blur isn't in 120 fps films because it looks like shit
I had the same feelings when I watched one of the Hobbit movies in cinema on 48 fps. It felt like watching a soap program on TV where you could TELL the acting. With 24 fps that feeling/effect vanishes.
Wicked Mouse seeing Hobbit 1 at a Peter Jackson-approved cinema was amazing. Like being on a theme park ride. They key was super-bright projection and high quality 3D goggles... I liked it
This is EXACTLY how I felt watching the Hobbit Desolation of Smaug. Felt so fake. I felt awkward watching that movie.