Anyone else fed up of the "film look"

[Trustmeimadoctor]

tbh i have never been a fan of motion blur in films i think its a bit of a waste that lovely details are getting lost in a blurry mess of unintelligible visuals.

they all seem to be striving for perfect 24p playback so it looks like film who cares if it looks like film i want a movie experience that looks like real life not like a film.

i hear 66fps is the optimal for immersion and has been shown to actually excite the brain more yet we still stick rigidly to 24fps when there is no need with digital storage recording and playback

peter jackson is recording the hobbit in 48fps so hopefully the hobbit should suffer a lot less motion blur than the lotr and every other film for that matter.

anyone else get bothered by low frame rates in films ?

[Mr Pointy]

Trustmeimadoctor said:

i hear 66fps is the optimal for immersion and has been shown to actually excite the brain more yet we still stick rigidly to 24fps when there is no need with digital storage recording and playback

Have you any idea of the storage volumes & data transfer rates that would be required to support 66fps recording at the sort of resolution movies are recorded at? It's not at all trivial.

[illmonkey]

Mr Pointy said:

Trustmeimadoctor said:

i hear 66fps is the optimal for immersion and has been shown to actually excite the brain more yet we still stick rigidly to 24fps when there is no need with digital storage recording and playback

Have you any idea of the storage volumes & data transfer rates that would be required to support 66fps recording at the sort of resolution movies are recorded at? It's not at all trivial.

You're talking about multi-million pound films. You think some storage is going to break the bank?

A friend shoots in 5000fps, think he has issues? Granted its not at 4k or such, but its a fair bit more fps.

Edited by illmonkey on Wednesday 21st September 12:09

[Trustmeimadoctor]

mr pointy yes i do actually

there are ways to combine 2 frame rates in one shot so backgrounds are 24fps but action is faster say 60fps for ease of conversion

raw 10bit 1920x1080 at 60 fps 1.5tb an hour

red 4k is about 3tb an hour

Edited by Trustmeimadoctor on Wednesday 21st September 12:36

[OldSkoolRS]

If you really do want to view content in a smoother motion way, then you could look for a display with frame creation modes. I don't know about TVs (they don't interest me much) but there are a number of projectors that have this feature. However, one model I had that did this seemed to create an odd effect on films so I ended up with it turned off, though it sounds like you might prefer this. I thought it made films seem more like ordinary TV which with a projector is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. Otherwise I think it'll be a long time waiting for native source material at higher frame rates as mentioned above, because of the increased storage and transmission issues.

I also don't mind if there is film grain on the image so maybe we seak different things from our film watching.

[marctwo]

My Philips TV has a 200Hz smooth motion mode. While it looks great when viewing credits and TV, it makes films look more like a 'making of' with a very 'video' rather than 'film' quality. I turned it off as soon as I got the set.

[Trustmeimadoctor]

i hate frame creation lol

its not just me wanting to leave 24p behind alot of directors are too it seems to be the film purists that want to stick with blurry movement

have a watch of this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkWLZy7gbLg&fea...


and