Why does 48 fps look like a soap opera?

Funkymonk said:
Yes 48fps definitely looks like soap operas or kind of like live high def tv/news broadcast.

I am not a fan. But in general its a matter of what you are use to. For me it takes me out of the "moment" out of the movie and makes it seem too real to the point where you know its fake, you know thr is a set and you know they have a shit ton of make-up on.
Click to expand...

I kind of got this feeling when I first got a HD TV. I previously had a 26 inch CRT TV, when I switched, some things just didnt look right. Like you said, looked to real. TV isn't meant to be too real.
Although I think in time we will all just get used to it and it will be the norm.
 
I am happy for this thread, because I thought the exact same thing watching The Last Samurai on my friends TV who had the fake higher frame rate thing turned on. I kept saying "It looks like a soap opera" and my friend kept saying he couldnt tell the difference at all and it looked the same to him. Glad to know I'm not crazy.

I think what it really looked like was actors on a movie set, instead of the illusion that I am seeing a samurai in 18th century Japan.
 
There's a technical reason for it that is hard to explain when I'm lazy on computer at work...but I knew it would look weird.

I'm a little worried I will be completely distracted by it when I watch the movie this weekend. :(
 
Tooth and Nail said:
There's a technical reason for it that is hard to explain when I'm lazy on computer at work...but I knew it would look weird.

I'm a little worried I will be completely distracted by it when I watch the movie this weekend. :(
Click to expand...

Once you get used to it it actually makes some scenes look amazing. The really cinematic shots of the scenery and the combat is awesome.

The really intimate scenes with Gandalf, Bilbo and Frodo are sort of weird.
 
Bottom line it's a total fuck up and a complete flop...

But it will lead us to something better. Sometimes you have to take a step back
before you can take a leap forward.

Kudos to Jackson for being the Guinea pig at willing to take a risk at least.
 
If you are unhappy with 48fps, you can simply just watch it in 24fps. You'll be missing half of the frames but you won't even notice since that's what your eyes are used to.

Seeing it in 48fps is a "feature". It will be 24fps on Blu-ray when it comes out.
 
Because some tv shows are filmed in 60 fps, and The Hobbit using digital instead of film exacerbates that artificial look.
 
Yeah I have a big issue on this subject.
I mean, of course I have notes on both, the Pro's and the Con's... But mostly cons.

I'm not so hyped on the new digital age of film. And definitely not for this entire 3D generation. I have no problems with big blockbuster action films going into it. Its what those movies are made for.
Not so much the story as the fun experience.

But when production companies and higher ups pressure Directors and Film Makers to consider making their film 3D friendly... With plenty of time devoted on getting these 3D shots.. It pisses me off.
Its so gimmicky to me. They have entire movies made just to be viewed in 3D.. So fuck off with the real film-makers.


Warner Bros nagged the shit out of Nolan to film Inception and Rises in 3D. And its all for the money. Fuck that. Id rather watch the movie for the movie. The sad occurrence of the Film Industry overlords having their way with directors by laying down the money hungry, greed-ridden requirements...
It really takes away from the quality of the movie.
The film makers have to take time and energy away from their vision to fit in so 'SUPER RAD 3D SHOTS!" "WATCH SHIA LABEOUF TIE HIS SHOE IN 3D VISION!"
will be in the film to attract more mindless androids to the theater.

And with all that pressure and detour from what the movie was intended to be.. Im sure the film-maker loses a lot of the original excitement, drive, and vision of what he wanted to do.
----------------------------------



On the other hand... It may be hard to believe after all that text vomit of hate... But 3d CAN work sometimes as well. Its the same deal with CGI. If its used the right way, and in the right context... It wont look as stupid and seem like pure gimmick.
----------------------



Finally.

As for digital. Maybe its just because I grew up seeing movies shot on actual film...
But I just prefer the look. And I respect Paul Thomas Anderson and Tarantino a lot for staying devoted to that style of movie making. But again..

Same as before.. Digital can be perfectly fine for me when used the right way.
 
I haven't read all of the posts; so, I hope I'm not being redundant. In the 90's I was involved in making video games - "3D" style playfields. The system power was very low back then. We hoped for somewhere above 20 fps. Less than 20fps was noticeably bad. Frame rates above 30 were a big improvement. I can't see why more fps would be a bad thing. One person pointed out that things that weren't real stood out poorly with more realism in the film speed. In a fantasy world that could make sense. I've seen samples of the costumes at the Boston Science Museum touring LOTR exhibit. The costumes looked great to me.
 
This web comic is where I first heard about the problem (read the roll over text);

http://xkcd.com/732/


But it still looked weird to me the first few times I saw higher frame rate things.
 
peytonlucy said:
I haven't read all of the posts; so, I hope I'm not being redundant. In the 90's I was involved in making video games - "3D" style playfields. The system power was very low back then. We hoped for somewhere above 20 fps. Less than 20fps was noticeably bad. Frame rates above 30 were a big improvement. I can't see why more fps would be a bad thing. One person pointed out that things that weren't real stood out poorly with more realism in the film speed. In a fantasy world that could make sense. I've seen samples of the costumes at the Boston Science Museum touring LOTR exhibit. The costumes looked great to me.
Click to expand...

Comparing video games to film in terms of frame rates is apples and oranges.
 
Because 48p is closer to reality, I have shot in high fps formats and the result is always a sense of amplified and strange reality. Sort of a flim version of the "uncanny valley"

24 fps is like a canvas for the story because it holds each still image just long enough to achieve a unique look -much like the hiss of a cassette or the tone of a record needle -it provides persepctive or presence of a medium.

Most Video work I do for Music and Production where they are braodcasting are always looking to convert 60i and 59.97 systems to 24p for IMAG and other applications to achieve the film look where possible.

The 48p pulldown for broadcast formats will look very strange.
 
Magooglie said:
It looks very real. So real that it kind of comes back on itself and all the fake things look very fake.
Click to expand...

I thought that they made it all blurry so that the aging actresses still look young and sexy.
 
groo said:
I thought that they made it all blurry so that the aging actresses still look young and sexy.
Click to expand...

That is done by rolling "skin detail" processing down, and if necessary rolling out a slightly "soft focus" -sometimes turning on auto flares can knock down the random texture on a challenged complexion lulz

I do it all the time when shading a camera that is shooting an old raisin.
 
SevenSamurai said:
That is done by rolling "skin detail" processing down, and if necessary rolling out a slightly "soft focus" -sometimes turning on auto flares can knock down the random texture on a challenged complexion lulz

I do it all the time when shading a camera that is shooting an old raisin.
Click to expand...

So if I did what you say my balls would look like plums?
 
The reason it looks like crap is because you are already used to seeing the cheap crap in the similar (and established) format of (higher frames per second) lousy home camcorder recordings. Yep. Same dealy, same effect.

Did it ever stop looking like crap? Because home camcorders did and still do this. Does camcorder or surveillance vid look "fancier" because you've seen it for 20 years already? You should be "used to it by now" and it should look better than film :rolleyes:

Also, same problem with CGI. Too sharp everywhere, too perfectly shaded and moves funny (too smooth, like a cartoon). Machines that make CGI can't tell something's wrong because they see/measure it just like that, mostly. It never goes away. Because it actually is LITERALLY soulless and fake, like polyester clothing (the material of the future) . Hopefully you don't hold your breath for it to suddenly feel like a superior experience

When you take a camcorder and take the framerate down to 24 frames per sec (as film does), it has that cinematic film effect. Higher than that and it looks like vomit. Interestingly, slash the framerate into 16 or 8 and it still has that good classic feel to it. Perhaps that's what memories/thoughts look like.(?) At least, that's what they feel like
 
Last edited:
peytonlucy said:
I haven't read all of the posts; so, I hope I'm not being redundant. In the 90's I was involved in making video games - "3D" style playfields. The system power was very low back then. We hoped for somewhere above 20 fps. Less than 20fps was noticeably bad. Frame rates above 30 were a big improvement. I can't see why more fps would be a bad thing. One person pointed out that things that weren't real stood out poorly with more realism in the film speed. In a fantasy world that could make sense. I've seen samples of the costumes at the Boston Science Museum touring LOTR exhibit. The costumes looked great to me.
Click to expand...

In video games and animated movies, as well as certain pieces of live-action movies (sweeping views, scenes with heavy CGI, etc) it can look great. However, smaller scale scenes look ridiculous. It is painfully obvious they are on a set, which is about the last thing you want in a movie.
 
I couldn't tell a big difference, other than the video quality being really clear. I will say there was too much obvious CGI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,962
Messages
58,331,152
Members
176,002
Latest member
Shock7

Share this page

Back
Top