The Hobbit...

[brkl]

I agree. I'd have preferred HFR in 2D, however.

[Thrik]

Me too. My Cineworld had just implemented IMAX for The Hobbit, but unless you went 3D you were stuck with 24 FPS which as I noted above didn't seem to gel quite right with how the film was shot.

BTW does anyone know how this is going to play out once we have this on Blu-ray? I have a few-year-old VIERA and have no idea whether or not it can cope with high frame rates, although I do remember some 100Hz bollocks on the box when I bought it. Also does Blu-ray as a specification even allow for it? Hopefully so, and that the PS3 has whatever version of the specification is needed to play it properly.

[brkl]

Shouldn't be any trouble at all. I'm completely certain the Blu-ray format supports at least 60fps. And if you connect your computer to the television, I'm sure that'll show way more than 24fps. Most monitors are around 60hz, it is entirely possible yours is 100hz.

[Nachimir]

Regarding the HFR, some shots did seem like they were in fast-motion to me, particularly at the beginning, which was incredibly frustrating because I knew that the actual action wasn't playing out any faster, and my eyes are receiving more images than that per second in my everyday life. Does putting a screen around the action really make that much of a difference?

Yes!

A part of that is that your eyes move slightly further apart or closer together depending on how far away the object you're focusing on is (2D planes not a problem, but overriding the reflex can give some people eyestrain in 3D films). I'd guess most of it is just that we're conditioned by everything else we've ever seen at the cinema and on TV though.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Shouldn't be any trouble at all. I'm completely certain the Blu-ray format supports at least 60fps. And if you connect your computer to the television, I'm sure that'll show way more than 24fps. Most monitors are around 60hz, it is entirely possible yours is 100hz.

It's highly unlikely that his TV or Bluray will support 48fps without a software update from the manufacturers.

[brkl]

Huh, I had to check and you're right. If the Wikipedia page is correct, the format only supports a limited number of resolutions and framerates, which is damn weird. My primarily still camera shoots 60fps progressive video, which is unsupported by Blu-ray. Dang weird. TVs aren't so limited, though, otherwise we wouldn't have games that ran in 60 fps or more.

[ThunderPeel2001]

It's not just that. Just because your TV does 60Hz, doesn't mean it can do 24, or 48, or any number it's not designed to. Same goes for your player. They'd need to be patched by the manufacturer. Also, the BD spec isn't completely locked down, from what I hear, so it's possible that 48fps might be added in the future... but, as I say, the hardware will have to be altered to support it, too.

[Thrik]

That's not much of a problem, the PS3 can and has been updated numerous times to update Blu-ray capabilities and I'm pretty sure most Blu-ray plays have some form of online firmware update ability now.

As for TVs, that is of course the question mark that will vary tremendously between people. One way I can test mine is to connect my laptop to it via HDMI and order the GPU to output 48Hz.

I guess if the above doesn't work, a somewhat graceful fallback could be for the player to output at a refresh rate the TV can handle like 60Hz, and play the video at 48 FPS — just like what happens when gaming. No idea if all Blu-ray players could do this but a PC or the PS3 (if playing a ripped file on the HD) definitely could.

[James]

A part of that is that your eyes move slightly further apart or closer together depending on how far away the object you're focusing on is (2D planes not a problem, but overriding the reflex can give some people eyestrain in 3D films). I'd guess most of it is just that we're conditioned by everything else we've ever seen at the cinema and on TV though.

See, I get that conditioning exists, but it seems weird to me that a cinema screen is such a distinct category internally that even when depicting something closely analogous with something you might see in real life, I should experience such a strong distortion in the sense of speed. What is it that tells the brain to expect something different than the real world? You're saying that it's because it's all happening on a flat object at a set distance, is that right? Does that mean that closing one eye would alleviate the effect, or would other perspective cues still throw one's perception off? Could it be something else, like the frame rate, while faster, still being below the maximum distinctly perceivable frame rate? Or the particularly focused lighting arrangement at a cinema? Or something to do with light strobing?

I guess if the above doesn't work, a somewhat graceful fallback could be for the player to output at a refresh rate the TV can handle like 60Hz, and play the video at 48 FPS — just like what happens when gaming. No idea if all Blu-ray players could do this but a PC or the PS3 (if playing a ripped file on the HD) definitely could.

I guess that'd be a software issue. It'd be similar 2:3 pulldown process films are put through to show in NTSC, although I guess that normally happens at the manufacture stage. Maybe they'll just release the films at interpolated 60 fps. Also, I think it would have to work slightly differently in progressive scan.

[Gormongous]

See, I get that conditioning exists, but it seems weird to me that a cinema screen is such a distinct category internally that even when depicting something closely analogous with something you might see in real life, I should experience such a strong distortion in the sense of speed. What is it that tells the brain to expect something different than the real world? You're saying that it's because it's all happening on a flat object at a set distance, is that right? Does that mean that closing one eye would alleviate the effect, or would other perspective cues still throw one's perception off? Could it be something else, like the frame rate, while faster, still being below the maximum distinctly perceivable frame rate? Or the particularly focused lighting arrangement at a cinema? Or something to do with light strobing?

Back when we all used CRT monitors with variable refresh rates, I used to get really bad headaches from flicker on frequencies below 60 Hz, despite being told over and over that my eyes and brain couldn't perceive the difference. I really do believe that there could be an uncanny valley effect going on with 48 fps: it doesn't have the same distancing effect of traditional film framerates, but it's still readily distinguishable from real life.

[ThunderPeel2001]

That's not much of a problem, the PS3 can and has been updated numerous times to update Blu-ray capabilities and I'm pretty sure most Blu-ray plays have some form of online firmware update ability now.

Yes, as I said, it would require the manufacturers updating the players (and TVs). I'm not convinced they'll spend the money just for one movie.

As for TVs, interpolation would be a massive shame, as it would make the image judder slightly. PAL TVs already handle 50Hz out of the box, but it would still result in the 4% PAL speed up that so many people dislike.

Really the solution is firmware upgrades... but I see that as a potential deal breaker for manufacturers. New hardware, maybe, but free upgrades for old hardware? Much less likely.

[Thrik]

Yes, as I said, it would require the manufacturers updating the players (and TVs). I'm not convinced they'll spend the money just for one movie.

As for TVs, interpolation would be a massive shame, as it would make the image judder slightly. PAL TVs already handle 50Hz out of the box, but it would still result in the 4% PAL speed up that so many people dislike.

Really the solution is firmware upgrades... but I see that as a potential deal breaker for manufacturers. New hardware, maybe, but free upgrades for old hardware? Much less likely.

What the Blu-ray specification supports is handled independently. All the manufacturers have to do is roll out the latest version of the specification to their devices, which they already do. Existing Blu-ray players should be fine in this regard so long as people make use of the firmware updates available to them (many are online-enabled so it's an absolute cinch).

As you rightly point out, the real issue is the TVs. I suspect most manufacturers will be aware of the whole Hobbit hoopla and will throw in 48Hz support for future models. If the industry can motivate cinemas in places around the world to implement support for high frame rates, they'll certainly be working on TV manufacturers too. In fact Panasonic has already started supporting 48Hz.

Of course older TVs are stuck, but I guess interpolation wouldn't be that bad in such cases and juddering is surely minimised by virtue of it being far less obvious due to the number of frames squeezed into every second.

[ThunderPeel2001]

What the Blu-ray specification supports is handled independently. All the manufacturers have to do is roll out the latest version of the specification to their devices, which they already do. Existing Blu-ray players should be fine in this regard so long as people make use of the firmware updates available to them (many are online-enabled so it's an absolute cinch).

As you rightly point out, the real issue is the TVs. I suspect most manufacturers will be aware of the whole Hobbit hoopla and will throw in 48Hz support for future models. If the industry can motivate cinemas in places around the world to implement support for high frame rates, they'll certainly be working on TV manufacturers too. In fact Panasonic has already started supporting 48Hz.

Of course older TVs are stuck, but I guess interpolation wouldn't be that bad in such cases and juddering is surely minimised by virtue of it being far less obvious due to the number of frames squeezed into every second.

The updates that are rolled are usually AACS key updates. Nothing more complicated than that. I'm not sure why you believe it would be so easy for them to justify issuing mass updates for all their players. It would cost a shitload of money... for one movie... to watch it in a format the average person doesn't even know or care about.

The PS3 is the obvious exception, but I'm not even convinced Sony will spend the money to add 48fps for that.

We'll just have to wait and see how much demand there is.

[Thrik]

The updates that are rolled are usually AACS key updates. Nothing more complicated than that. I'm not sure why you believe it would be so easy for them to justify issuing mass updates for all their players. It would cost a shitload of money... for one movie... to watch it in a format the average person doesn't even know or care about.

The PS3 is the obvious exception, but I'm not even convinced Sony will spend the money to add 48fps for that.

We'll just have to wait and see how much demand there is.

I don't know what you're even disagreeing with here. Are you saying you don't think the Blu-ray specification will be adjusted in the future to include proper 48 FPS support, and that Blu-ray player and TV manufacturers won't acknowledge that by including support for the latest specification in their hardware? And that some manufacturers won't then roll out firmware updates that include the aforementioned support?

Because I think that's exactly the way it's going go. I also think more films are going to go for HFR now The Hobbit has been a huge success. If you don't agree then I guess we'll just see over the next year or so.

[ThunderPeel2001]

I don't know what you're even disagreeing with here. Are you saying you don't think the Blu-ray specification will be adjusted in the future to include proper 48 FPS support, and that Blu-ray player and TV manufacturers won't acknowledge that by including support for the latest specification in their hardware? And that some manufacturers won't then roll out firmware updates that include the aforementioned support?

Because I think that's exactly the way it's going go. I also think more films are going to go for HFR now The Hobbit has been a huge success. If you don't agree then I guess we'll just see over the next year or so.

Even if the BDA do hash out a HFR spec (and it would be quite a big jump from 1080/24p to 1080/48p), there's no guarantee that it will then be adopted by every manufacturer, and even less that they'll go back and add support for older players.

Right now The Hobbit is the only film in production with a non-standard frame rate, and even though the film itself was successful, cinema-goers were not overwhelmingly demanding HFR. In fact it was shown in 24fps in most places

Cameron has talked about using 60fps for Avatar 2 and 3, but given the lacklustre response to HFR in The Hobbit, I'm not sure he's going to follow through.

So yes, taking all this into account, I remain very skeptical that any manufacturer will spend money writing patches for existing players to support 48fps.

Time, as you say, will tell!

[brkl]

Avatar would be a nice test bed for the motion blur issue, since all of it is artificial anyway. I wonder if I'm right at all, but I feel like the amount or lack of motion blur is what throws people off.

[Frenetic Pony]

I'm pretty sure the lackluster response for HFR was from critics and not audiences. Not too say that I've seen many singing HFR's praises, but I've not seen anyone besides melodramatic media people whine about it either. Besides, Cameron will do whatever he wants. He still holds 2 of the top 5 highest grossing movie of all time spots, no one's going to contradict him.

[ThunderPeel2001]

I'm pretty sure the lackluster response for HFR was from critics and not audiences. Not too say that I've seen many singing HFR's praises, but I've not seen anyone besides melodramatic media people whine about it either. Besides, Cameron will do whatever he wants. He still holds 2 of the top 5 highest grossing movie of all time spots, no one's going to contradict him.

Yes, but not whining doesn't equal demand.

Cameron will do what he wants, sure, but that doesn't mean he's not paying attention to what's going on. Jackson did what he wanted, too, and nobody (except hardcore film lovers) cared.

HFR was an interesting experiment, but so far it's failed. I wonder if variable frame rate might work? 24fps for actor moments, HFR for action scenes?

[James]

This guy is experimenting along those lines.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Hey, Trumbull is back! Hopefully this new film won't be a repeat of Brainstorm.

[melmer]

[James]

Hey, I was just recently looking up Middle-earth timelines on Wikipedia. Not that the timing of that is at all surprising, but... whatever. That thing's nicely presented.

[melmer]

i follow http://visual.ly/ on facebook, every now and then a nice little infographic pops up