[baby]

It doesn't look film-y is exactly the kind of excuses we used to hear in the past. The reality is that once you've watched movies in 48/60fps you can't really go back to slow framerate movies as you see them blurry and stuttering. I personally can't wait for 24fps to be a thing of the past. Especially for action movies.

[dx034]

At which point it will look like a youtube video to many, not like a movie in the cinema. High frame rates haven't been successful for several years, I don't see why this should change. Same for 3D. Maybe there will be another trend that enables it, but as of now 3D wasn't a great success.

[baby]

> but as of now 3D wasn't a great success

I too find 3D gimmicky often, but probably because the technology varies grandly between production, cameras and theater displays. On the other hand, there are 3D movies every day in every big cinemas and 3D TVs as well. So I'm not sure we can say that it wasn't a great success.

> High frame rates haven't been successful for several years

The number of cinemas that can display 48fps is not great, the number of cinemas that can display 60fps is zero? So I don't know how you can say that "High frame rates haven't been successful for several years".

Actually if you look on Youtube, high FPS videos are successful.

> At which point it will look like a youtube video to many, not like a movie in the cinema

There are some great youtube videos out there, don't know why you're saying this. Cinema is what you're defining as 24fps, sure because you're used to it. If tomorrow we start watching a lot of 60fps movies then you will define it as Cinema. Objectively 60fps is better for action movies anyway, the rest will follow.

[KaiserPro]

> The number of cinemas that can display 48fps is not great, the number of cinemas that can display 60fps is zero?

any cinema that can do 3D can do 48FPS, at least.

RealD uses a single projector, with an electrically controlled circular polarising filter on the front.

This is why 3D in cinema for any kind of action is terrible, because you get juddering nastyness.

To get round this, some places project at 96 FPS(well I thought it was 144, but that might be the limit of the projector where I worke)

[baby]

> any cinema that can do 3D can do 48FPS, at least.

You'll have to explain to me why they weren't showing The Hobbit in 48fps then. You sometimes had to go to a different country to see it in 48fps.

[KaiserPro]

because buying the film in HFR costs extra...

[riffraff]

AFAIU 3D TVs are not a thing anymore

http://www.businessinsider.com/3d-tv-is-dead-2017-1

[mikeash]

I think it will change because high frame rates look much better. It's not what people are used to, but what people are used to changes over time.

3D has two major problems. First is that the technology sucks. The glasses are heavy, bulky, and don't do a particularly good job of filtering out the opposite eye's channel. Second is that filmmakers don't understand how to do 3D at all. Every 3D film I've seen loves to add parallax where there should not be parallax. They don't understand that binocular depth perception only works out to a few dozen feet, which causes anything with observable parallax to be perceived to be nearby, and that in turn causes large objects to look tiny. Seeing a spaceship or airplane or mountain that looks like a toy because the filmmakers decided to "pop" it out of the screen is the exact opposite of a cinematic experience.

High frame rate doesn't have this problem. The technology is good, and using it properly in films doesn't appear to be a failing.

[kpil]

Exactly!

Fake parallax that just turn epic scenes and scenery into tabletop models.

It's obvious, but why do they ruin their efforts like that. Don't they watch their own movies after post 3d editing?

I think even Avatar made it too far. I think I've whatched some animated films that didn't blow totally, but almost every other film that I have seen in 3d was a disappointment.

[mikeash]

This is complete speculation, but my guess is something like: the people who might understand this (skilled directors and such) are used to 2D and don't much care for 3D, and the people who push 3D (executives) are too obsessed with making things "pop" to realize what they're doing.

[KaiserPro]

True 3D cameras are a massive pain in the arse

Either they are huge, to get two cameras side by side, or they have a half-silvered mirror arrangement (with colour disparity)

Add to that the rigs wobble (vomit inducing) and the distance between the cameras is far to wide, it all looks a bit poop, or requires a huge amount of post work to make fly.

So the normal thing to do is manually cut out each object (rotoscope) and adjust the divergence to place it in 3d.

every object, every frame.

it mostly looks a bit poop.

Not to mention is normally done quickly, like clash of the titans was converted in ~1 month.

[KaiserPro]

Having worked in the industry, I've seen UltraHD with a proper setup. (with the 192 channel sound)

for documentaries and sports, yeah, its brilliant.

But for "film"? it sucks.

why?

Because it looks like a play, but with bad acting. Everything that we have learnt, subconsciously, about film, is based on 24 FPS. Any action of any narrative substance in a modern film is linked to a slowmo. This relies on 24FPS. Because things are smooth, we register it as different.

Now, I suspect where High framerate will be a thing is in VR. But thats a new medium, in the same way the talkies were.

[baby]

Watch a bunch of 60fps movies and I assure you that you will look back at 24fps movies and think those look weird.

[KaiserPro]

... I have, I do, I see lots of them.

ultraHD is 8k @ 60fps.

its great for sports and nature documentaries. films look like plays. actors look stilted and wooden.