This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Anybody see the Hobbit? Does video games framerates have any affect?

#31HUIPosted 1/23/2013 12:42:04 PM
TheBlueStig posted...
You might want to do some googling, there's many DVD movies that have been recorded in, and are running at NTSC Standard of 30fps for a very long time now. People have run them frame by frame and found 30 unique frames per second of run time.


So, you are arguing that movies on DVD have a 20% shorter runtime than when they were 24fps in the theater -- which is obviously untrue.

A 24fps movie has its frames stretched over a 30fps cycle on DVD. It still appears to be 24fps no mater what the frame rate is.

Your effort to point out that people are unwittingly watching 30fps movies on DVD is an exercise in futility. Of course they don't realize they're watching 30 frames per second. That's because there are only 24 individual images shown per second.
#32TheBlueStigPosted 1/23/2013 3:56:10 PM
HUI posted...
TheBlueStig posted...
You might want to do some googling, there's many DVD movies that have been recorded in, and are running at NTSC Standard of 30fps for a very long time now. People have run them frame by frame and found 30 unique frames per second of run time.


So, you are arguing that movies on DVD have a 20% shorter runtime than when they were 24fps in the theater -- which is obviously untrue.

A 24fps movie has its frames stretched over a 30fps cycle on DVD. It still appears to be 24fps no mater what the frame rate is.

Your effort to point out that people are unwittingly watching 30fps movies on DVD is an exercise in futility. Of course they don't realize they're watching 30 frames per second. That's because there are only 24 individual images shown per second.


OMFG you people can't f***ing READ.....

I never said a damn thing about run time, YOU DID.

To get something from 24fps to 29.997fps (NTSC DVD Standard) they do 1 of 2 things, they duplicate frames, or re-encode the video to run at the different framerate.

Many things in recent years have been re-encoded at the new framerate to have "30" unique frames per second instead of 24fps with 6 duplicated frames.

Try doing some research on the NTSC DVD Standard and look on some DVD conversion forums before you post again.
---
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
#33Ginsu VictimPosted 1/23/2013 5:28:59 PM
^Shot on video or digital, but not film. That's the difference.
Luckily there will always be directors looking to preserve the look of film (including grain), so 24 fps is here to stay.
---
.
I'M RUNNIN' THIS MONKEY FARM NOW, FRANKENSTEIN!!! - Capt. Rhodes, Day of the Dead (1985)
#34PorcupinePosted 1/23/2013 6:29:35 PM
The 48 fps showing of Hobbit was clearly 48 fps. Whether you like it or not is your personal taste. It's more information though, that much is fact.

I don't know if I would notice a difference between 48 fps an 60 fps though. I am sure there is a difference too, but it would be much less noticeable.
#35HUIPosted 1/24/2013 12:41:59 PM
TheBlueStig posted...
Many things in recent years have been re-encoded at the new framerate to have "30" unique frames per second instead of 24fps with 6 duplicated frames.


30 unique frames per second instead of duplicating frames? That would mean a movie filmed at 24fps would play faster, therefore reducing the runtime by 20%. So, you're wrong. Simple as that.

Why did you even point this out in the first place? It's a fool's errand.
#36Merc123Posted 1/24/2013 1:57:04 PM
Duwstai posted...
I didnt like the 48 FPS in hobbit. Its got that soap opera effect that motion interpolation on newer tvs do. Makes everything look really cheap.


This. I did not see the Hobbit in 48 FPS, only 24, but my friend has a TV that runs higher, and thats the only way i can explain how it looks is like a soap opera. I really hope that new tv's dont all start doing this, it makes big blockbuster movies look really cheap and bad.
---
http://www.facebook.com/MEmarauder - Marauder Shields Facebook page.
#37Kerr AvonPosted 1/25/2013 4:50:41 AM
TheBlueStig posted...
vigorm0rtis posted...
Your eyes can't even see 48 or 60 FPS, but your brain doesn't have to fill in as many gaps, so it makes sense (at least to me) that a person accustomed to seeing something in a higher FPS wouldn't be bothered.


Bulls***, the human eye does not see in frames per second, it never has and never will.

That whole line about "people can't differentiate high framerates" is utter crap.


Right, so an event that take a millionth of a second would be visible to you, would it? And by your logic, a frame rate of 150fps would still look jerky to the human eye, since (you claim) the human eye has no frame rate.

The human eye (or the part of the brain that decodes the signal it receives from the eye, or the part of the brain that processes that decoded signal - I don't know where the bottle neck is in the human visual system) is limited in the number of frames (changes) per second it can register. I don't know what that limit is, or even if it's identical for everyone (though I'd imagine that if it differs from person to person then the change is very small), but it must exist.
---
"PCs don't catch viruses or malware. Stupid users do." - The Cranky Hermit.
For all things N64: http://z9.invisionfree.com/Nintendo_64_Forever/
#38TheBlueStigPosted 1/25/2013 7:10:16 AM
HUI posted...
TheBlueStig posted...
Many things in recent years have been re-encoded at the new framerate to have "30" unique frames per second instead of 24fps with 6 duplicated frames.


30 unique frames per second instead of duplicating frames? That would mean a movie filmed at 24fps would play faster, therefore reducing the runtime by 20%. So, you're wrong. Simple as that.

Why did you even point this out in the first place? It's a fool's errand.


You really don't know much about re-encoding video do you?

It IS possible to go from 24fps to 30fps and NOT CHANGE THE RUN TIME.

If you think encoding the source video to a faster framerate makes the video run faster, it doesn't, never has, never will.
---
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
#39TheBlueStigPosted 1/25/2013 7:18:04 AM
Kerr Avon posted...
TheBlueStig posted...
vigorm0rtis posted...
Your eyes can't even see 48 or 60 FPS, but your brain doesn't have to fill in as many gaps, so it makes sense (at least to me) that a person accustomed to seeing something in a higher FPS wouldn't be bothered.


Bulls***, the human eye does not see in frames per second, it never has and never will.

That whole line about "people can't differentiate high framerates" is utter crap.


Right, so an event that take a millionth of a second would be visible to you, would it? And by your logic, a frame rate of 150fps would still look jerky to the human eye, since (you claim) the human eye has no frame rate.

The human eye (or the part of the brain that decodes the signal it receives from the eye, or the part of the brain that processes that decoded signal - I don't know where the bottle neck is in the human visual system) is limited in the number of frames (changes) per second it can register. I don't know what that limit is, or even if it's identical for everyone (though I'd imagine that if it differs from person to person then the change is very small), but it must exist.


Read through the topic before posting, the limit is WAY higher than the arbitrary 60fps number.

And yes, the number is different for different people, that's why you have individuals with the ability to see things and react faster than others, things like 90+mph baseball pitches, 120+mph tennis serves, 80+mph skeet targets, etc etc etc.

The total statement that most people FAIL to read is that "the UNTRAINED eye can't distinguish high framerates above 60fps", and that statement is patently false to begin with because the human eye doesn't see in frames per second.
---
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
#40WeaponX1138Posted 1/25/2013 7:28:28 AM
I saw the Hobbit in 48fps, it was very noticable, especially in the crowd scenes, but after about 20 minutes I stopped noticing it and was fine with it.

I then saw it at 24ps and enjoyed it equally. It's an adjustment to be sure, because 48fps make it seem more like a TV show and less like a movie, but that's just conditioning, your brain says "a movie looks like this" and it seems odd to see it any differently. It's a generational thing, kids today will come to know film at 48fps and that'll be that.

I will say, the 48fps made the 3d far easier to follow.
---
It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again.
GT: SilentMark1138 SteamID Silentmark1138