I was dubious, as you should be when anyone definitively states the human mind can only perceive X frames per second. We don't think at 24 frames per second. I've seen silly things on the Internet about how we think at 40 frames per second. But there is no perception limit. Tim J. Smith, an expert in visual cognition at Birkbeck University, confirmed to Tested :.
The light reflected from a real-visual scene hits our retinas as a continuous stream except when we blink or move our eyes , not a discrete series of frames as in film so no increase in frame rate will ever exceed the presentation rate of reality. The human brain is perfectly capable of processing the infinite "frames" of continuous motion in real life, so there should be no physical issue with adapting to 48fps. Rather, we have trained ourselves over several decades to expect 24fps and the associated artifacts when we go to the theater.
I asked Michael J. Berry II, associate professor at the Princeton Neuroscience Institute, if we can likewise train ourselves to expect 48fps. Berry responded:.
Our visual systems are clearly capable of handling higher frame rates, as all stroboscopically delivered visual stimuli will have less information than real images in the world, which we can clearly process. So the issue is really one of 'familiarity', in the sense of having an expectation of what movies 'should' look like. This view is supported by Marty Banks, a professor of optometry and vision science at UC Berkeley, who explained to Vulture:.
The motion is not as smooth. Brightness is not as great. We've adjusted to that, and we accept it. So when we see a projection that is closer to reality than what we are used to, our brains go, 'Whoa! I think that's what's happening to people. Things look unusually sharp [in The Hobbit ], and we're seeing something closer to reality. If people are frustrated, it's because this seems a violation of what has been considered normal. Look at how people reacted when color was first introduced, or Hi-Definition, or Dolby sound.
There were negative reactions to all of those at first, too. But now if you don't have them, you feel deprived. So the good news is, yes, we can adapt. Never discount the brain's astonishing plasticity. It simply may take time. In April, Jackson estimated we could adjust to 48fps by watching the first " 10 minutes or so " of the movie. Based on anecdotal evidence, it clearly takes more than ten minutes for many.
That is a crucial point for the future of 48fps. Unlike 3D, there is no surcharge for HFR screenings, so studios and theaters have no direct financial incentive to push 48fps. Warner Bros. Three movies over two years may not be enough exposure to adjust to 48fps, but if the audiencevoting with their dollarstill largely rejects the technology, HFR could stall again as it did in the s despite Trumbull's efforts.
The turning point for The Rite of Spring was that second run of shows, when a curious audience went to the theater with an open mind, and found the beauty in Stravinsky's work. The success of The Rite of Spring allowed other composers to experiment the way Stravinsky had, which opened up a new path in the evolution of classical music.
There will be drawbacks if we convert cinema to 48fps. Jackson noted in his introductory Facebook post :. I saw a new movie in the cinema on Sunday and I kept getting distracted by the juddery panning and blurring.
We're getting spoilt! Devin Faraci of Badass Digest raises a valid point: If familiarization with 48fps renders the 24fps viewing experience unpleasant, this could be yet another barrier between future generations and a century of classic movies. He argues:. But widespread adoption of HFR is only going to make that divide much more serious, much deeper.
There are older films like The Wizard of Oz or Lawrence of Arabia that, even when seen with modern sensibilities, work for modern audiences. It seems to me that such a future is one with a very clear dividing line, as clear as the division between silents and talkieson one side are the movies people see, and on the other side is plus years of cinema history. We are still years away from a complete transformation to 48fps if it comes, so it remains to be seen if 24fps will eventually look strange to all of us.
Even the unlikely worst case scenario, where 24fps strains our eyes every time we see it, does not justify rejection of 48fps.
A movie must always be viewed in the context of its time period, whether it is silent, black and white, marked by an old-fashioned acting style, or filled with crude effects. Maybe one day a low frame rate will be added to the list of considerations. It will be worth it to accomplish the next logical evolution of film technology with all the promised benefits of 48fps.
When in doubt, do not resist the new to protect the old. Critics are fighting for the art they love as they know it, and I respect that. But this is not an issue we can judge solely based on our own first subjective experience. Presentation in 24fps has treated us very well over the years, but 48fps offers something even greater. It is our responsibility as cinephiles to give it a chance.
See The Hobbit in 48fps. See the sequels in 48fps. Keep an open mind and try to see what Peter Jackson sees. Film Crit Hulk addressed this idea in the field of film criticism with his great essay on " tangible details.
HFR is noticeably different. Our subconscious knows it doesn't like this difference, but we don't immediately consciously understand why.
When it comes time to explain why we don't like HFR, we latch on to familiar experiences soap operas, behind-the-scenes documentaries to justify our position. FX Guide has a great in-depth behind-the-scenes feature that highlights how Weta handled all the changes from Lord of the Rings. Visual effects supervisor Eric Saindon notes, "We really went over the top and scanned every single set that it was shot on, which was absolutely beneficial.
We had 3D scans of everythingwe knew the placement of everything when we got it back in the 3D world. My best guess says he is basing that on the critical flicker fusion. The graphs below from Camera Technica suggest that the CFF tops out around hz based on the brightness, area, and distance of the image, respectively. But this estimate would not hold for all viewing experiences. And regardless, the issue of frame rate perception is more complicated than just looking at CFF, explained well in this detailed guide.
Perhaps fearing more audience backlash, Jackson has decided not to release any 48 fps trailers for the film — saving the faster frame rate for its debut in theaters on December Of course in this case 48 fps could be used just for the scenes which need to be in slo-mo, with the rest of the film recorded in 24 fps.
Even for full-speed scenes, 48 fps has advantages. Action scenes are definitely smoother and more lifelike. These changes may be disconcerting to those used to viewing movies at 24 fps, but new moviegoers could quickly become addicted and not want to go back. Just like the rush to color led to a flurry of colorized versions of black and white classics, we may well see post-production 48 fps renderings of existing movies. There is another big reason studios and theater chains will be pushing 3D — money.
With increasingly capable home theater setups and internet streaming competing with theaters, the movie business needs to differentiate its offerings in any way it can. But why do they think that the screen quality is better? Is it maybe because of a higher resolution? Or do they just use other settings? There is a huge difference in the feeling of the film based upon the Frames Per Second it was shot in.
There are a number of films that were shot using a digital camera, but at a higher 30FPS that were reviewed to have a "poor quality or feel" because the faster shutter rate gave it a television feeling. Many faster 30FPS digital cameras often produced a cleaner, sharper, wider range of color image that was perceived to be to different from traditional film stock. That the color space and feel of film could not be reproduced digitally.
Much of this is true. Today, many digital cameras now use all the same lens, hardware and mounts that older traditional film cameras used. The sensors are much more refined and adjusted to give a more natural color space. Post-processing has also greatly improved to reproduce many film stocks as a digital filter. If you were speaking to someone who was not technical, but experienced in the film industry.
He may have experienced producing films at 30FPS which were much sharper and cleaner then traditional 24FPS film stock. As a result. I can totally understand his perspective that 30FPS has a higher quality image. Today, it's better to clarify that the difference is not frame rate, but film versus digital. Additionally, frames per second can have a direct impact on the type of motion blur produced in an image.
The higher the frame rate the less motion blur there is. Resulting in a cleaner sharper image for objects in motion. Quoting Peter Jackson:. It goes. And you've got this incredibly vivid, realistic looking image.
And you've got sharpness because there's no motion blur, so everything is much sharper. And plus we're shooting with cameras that are 5K cameras, so they're super sharp. Eliminating motion blur, even subtle motion blur we might not be consciously aware of, makes it appear sharper. There are two key issues with higher frame rates. One is simply that more information can be transmitted at higher frame rates if the recording was done at the higher rate: just showing the same frame twice as some TVs do doesn't really make much difference.
The second is supposed to be that double rate overcomes a major limitation of 3D which is a loss of brightness on the projected image. Other things being equal, more information should be good. But there is a problem with giving more information in a medium that is primarily about creating an illusion.
Cinema maintains the illusion in many cases because of what it can hide from the audience. We don't shoot in outer space to get special effects in star Wars but join set-based action with imaginary images shot with models, computers, paintings and so on.
The illusion relies on not being able to see the join.
0コメント