Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

For increased realism, what's more important: Higher Resolution or Frame Rate?

D

David Zhang

New member
Joined
Jul 13, 2019
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hi. To achieve max realism, would you choose higher resolution (4K over 1080) or choose higher frame rate (60P over 30P)? Or put another way, if the final delivery is 4K 60P what's easier to to get a better result in post, upscaling or frame interpolating? Unfortunately I'm limited to cameras that only do 4K/30P or 1080/60P. The shooting is outdoors, on boat, POV, moving people, some on/under water.
 
Last edited:
That is a good question. I'm going to have to say 60fps over 4K on this one, even though I don't like high frame rates. You want realism, so you're probably going to have to go for that, if you are the one making the decision.

OTOH, there's no reason why you can't shoot 4K at 30fps, at a narrower shutter angle, and interpolate frames. I cannot say anything about that as I have no experience with that technique, but wait for some advice. Also, why not do some test shooting, if you have the cameras handy?
 
I can't stand HFR, hate it with passion. It always looks like cheap BBC TV production. Resolution also only goes so far before you reach diminishing returns. To me it's the HDR, that adds the most of realism.
And did I mention, that I hate HFR?:prrr:
 
If you want it to look like shitty video and think that is what realism is looking like then go high framerate. Personally i cant stand it and would avoid it as far as possible.
 
If there only was an variable fps format...I do love the look of 25/24p when the camera have a slow pace and the action to. But I hate long action sequence of motionblur. On the flip side I prrsonal like slower cameras anyway which is fine at 25p.

If your final delivery has to be in 60p, I choose that before 4k. But is it a reason to use 60p on it on the first place? One benefit of 24/25p delivery is the ability to overcrank. But I guess it will not be used in this project anyway as it screams fiction.
 
David Zhang said:
Hi. To achieve max realism, would you choose higher resolution (4K over 1080) or choose higher frame rate (60P over 30P)? Or put another way, if the final delivery is 4K 60P what's easier to to get a better result in post, upscaling or frame interpolating? Unfortunately I'm limited to cameras that only do 4K/30P or 1080/60P. The shooting is outdoors, on boat, POV, moving people, some on/under water.
Click to expand...

Try a VR headset and you know it soon enough.

Today, 24 fps is an artistic choice.
 
Some key questions:

What are you delivering to? Broadcast, Internet/Social Media?

Is 4K a necessary spec for your work?

Are you shooting fiction, or documentary? Handheld, or Tripod?


The answer to these questions will lead you to the choice you're after.

60fps equals the "news" or "old soap opera" TV look. Its smooth, but it also amplifies everything you see on screen:the camera movement, the production value of the scenery becomes much more apparent, the acting of the actors much more unforgiving.

There are many examples of films aiming for "realism" that are actually shot at 25/24fps. Dogma style shooting, Cinema Veritee from the French back in the 60'ies, handheld, natural lighting or less lighting as possible, location sound, editing style, acting and overall script and dialogue approach... All these can give a more realistic and convincing film that just shooting 60fps.

The Frame rate choice implies a completely different approach to everything else. So choose wisely! Personally, I would choose 25/24fps 4K.
 
What are the recording codec options on your cameras?

Whichever way you choose, Acrovid Interlink is a modest cost utility that supports high quality scaling and frame rate interpolation transcodes. Transcoding camera originals to Prores, Cineform, or Avid DNXHD/HR high quality 10 bit 4:2:2 intraframe DI format for editing depending on your post platform will improve your delivery quality quite a bit compared to typical AVC camera originals.

I’m on a PC platform, so I have gotten in the habit of transcoding EVERYTHING regardless of original source to high quality 10bit 4:2:2 Cineform at delivery format and frame rate with 48kHz/24bit audio prior to editing. Makes editing much more efficient and less problematic. Prores is the logical choice for Mac. You only need to go to 10 bit or higher 4:4:4:4 DI if you plan on heavy compositing or graphics as part of finishing.

I’d take the low frame rate film aesthetic advice with a grain of salt. Younger audiences raised on TV, Youtube and video games seem to prefer the HFR aesthetic. It is a creative choice.
 
Another thing to consider is shutterspeed. We are used to the motion blur at 23.98 @1/48, but I sometimes shoot wildlife and beauty at higher shutterspeed because I like these sharper.
 
If we're talking about realism as in presenting reality to the viewer without artistic interpretation, I would argue that all the answers above are necessary: High framerate, high dynamic range, high resolution. You also need stereoscopic capture and display, AKA VR. You also should provide a single uninterrupted take. The FoV should encompass the entirety of the eye's FoV. The audio should be truly binaural in its mix.

Without all of that, I think the goal of providing a "real" experience is not worth chasing, because what we do is more like painting than taking a non-artistic photograph. We interpret time with cuts. We interpret viewpoint with focal length and camera position. We tell the viewer where to look when we rack focus. We suggest dramatic tension with camera movement. We mix in music from seemingly nowhere. We design color palettes with our creative departments. Etc., etc., etc. The viewer can still get into this experience but it isn't real -- there's a willing suspension of disbelief.

Instead, test all the parameters you can and see what tools you want to use to present your story. You might find that resolution makes more sense or you might find that higher framerate is more in your favor for the piece. As far as an actual answer to your question, I think current upscaling algorithms are better than current frame-blending algorithms. In my opinion, interpolating the 4K/30 to 60 frames is going to look worse than shooting 1080/60 and upscaling it to 4K. But again, you should do some testing of your own and decide what you want to show the audience.
 
Adam, well said! To emphasize the same point a different way, consider lighting. We don't light a scene in order to convey the most information; we light so as to convey the most IMPORTANT information. That information may be a detail. It may be a mood. Bit might focus the eye on what cannot be seen.

If all you care about is maximizing measurable information data rates, then read the scientific literature (much of it developed and/or contextualized by Doug Trumbull). But most of us are here for the art-be it commercial, narrative, documentary, or passion
 
Appreciate all the feedback, some food for thought! Initially I was curious about the state of upscaling vs frame interpolation (from a technical perspective), but as many mentioned, results will depend on actual shooting, subject. Ultimately some tests are probably required.

I think I've embraced HFR more than many others. For action, documentary capture, I find it provides a sense of presense.

Resolution will be easy to test. Since I'll be limited to action type cameras, there's not much choice: Sony or GoPro. I suspect a 1" sensor RX0 @ 1080P would yield a comparable output to whatever GoPros provide at 4K once optics, codecs and bitrates are factored in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top