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 :)

HFR: Let's Figure This Out

PC Greene said:
For some time I've been thinking the real answer here is a high "master frame rate" (96fps?) with the ability to ramp or drop per each scene depending on the effect, emotion and wishes of the DP / Director. Having decades in music and audio production, I liken this approach to using "low fi" elements in a dynamic "high fi" mix (as I've done for years). In a perfect world, I'd prefer not to be stuck delivering just one frame rate as each deliver such a different feel. I'm not sure how this could ultimately be technically achieved, but if / when it becomes possible to always speed at HFR (possibly with MM and / or advanced HDR) and then interpolate in post without degradation, that would be a very cool and perhaps even future proof solution...
Click to expand...
True, just shooting high fps with a 360 shutter would give a lot of options to create different looks in post-production. Thats probably the best way to deal with it. At 96fps it starts to get really interesting, but more is better. :) Just dropping and combining frames should only be the start here. Hmmm, some cool software is needed to get the most out of it.
 
PC Greene said:
For some time I've been thinking the real answer here is a high "master frame rate" (96fps?) with the ability to ramp or drop per each scene depending on the effect, emotion and wishes of the DP / Director. Having decades in music and audio production, I liken this approach to using "low fi" elements in a dynamic "high fi" mix (as I've done for years). In a perfect world, I'd prefer not to be stuck delivering just one frame rate as each deliver such a different feel. I'm not sure how this could ultimately be technically achieved, but if / when it becomes possible to always speed at HFR (possibly with MM and / or advanced HDR) and then interpolate in post without degradation, that would be a very cool and perhaps even future proof solution...
Click to expand...

Very, very cool thoughts. a bit along the lines of Trumbull with mixing the HFR with regular 24p for cleaner action movements, right? Is there any software currently out there that can take advantage of mixing two or more base frame rates? I'm still working with FCP7 for many things, and know you can't nest two different sequences there. Also, you can't have a project at 48p - it can only be 24, 25, 30, 50, or 60i :/
 
BrendanLeahy said:
Very, very cool thoughts. a bit along the lines of Trumbull with mixing the HFR with regular 24p for cleaner action movements, right? Is there any software currently out there that can take advantage of mixing two or more base frame rates? I'm still working with FCP7 for many things, and know you can't nest two different sequences there. Also, you can't have a project at 48p - it can only be 24, 25, 30, 50, or 60i :/
Click to expand...

You can cheat it in multiples of 2. Basically take a 24p clip and drop it into a 48p timeline and timewarp it to 50% no interpolation. then the 24p clip just plays every frame twice, viola.


Personally I hate HFR. I want to believe that there was a reason why film was set to a standard of 24fps for playback. Simply put it looks strobbing when going slower and it looks smeared out when going faster. To me it starts to get ugly already at 30fps. at 50fps it's unbearable and 100fps is just unbearable x2. And using it to get away with Smug kind of camera moves is... well as I see it just trying to get away with ugly camera moves. Those kind of rollercoaster ride kind of camera moves could be though out in so many other ways and they would look, again according to my taste, so much better.

But yes it's a taste thing, some like to have their TV's with high refreshrate and smooth motion settings as well, which to me, just makes good films look like digibeta shot soaps.
 
Agreed Adam - I've made it my mission - when I visit a friend's house I sneak into the menus on their television and turn off that terrible 'motion blur reduction' or 'enhanced sharpness' or whatever they choose to call it. I'm always amazed people don't notice that their movies look like they were shot on a handycam until they see the difference.
 
watching documentary footage in high frame rate is fantastic. HFR really lends itself to capturing reality, it ruins fiction.
 
Tom C. Hall said:
watching documentary footage in high frame rate is fantastic. HFR really lends itself to capturing reality, it ruins fiction.
Click to expand...

Yes...because in documentary people are not acting they are just being themselves.
The problem with HFR in fiction is that no-one is that good enough of an actor
to be able to sell an audience a performance under the scrutiny that HFR gives.

As frame rate is increased, the action becomes smoother, but also the look changes. The image appears more "realistic", while the acting starts to look more "fake". Another explanation for this effect is that the lower frame rate hides subtle cues that would otherwise reveal that the actors are pretending. The mind "fills in the blanks" in the gaps between the frames. This is similar to the effect of dancing at a disco under strobe lights, which cause motion to stop and creates a dream-like otherworldly environment.
Click to expand...

http://www.quora.com/Why-does-video-at-high-frame-rates-look-cheap
 
We are in the early days of that, we just have to experiment a bit more with it and we have to see a lot more HFR-stuff.

The biggest issue with HFR is just that we are trained to that look, we totally expect it, when we watch movies. Thats 75% of everything, maybe even more. The rest of it are filmmaking issues. Filmmakers are used to use workarounds to get the most out of 24fps, think about pan-speed and camera-movement overall. It's part of the "film-look". Lots of things can be hidden with 24fps/180. Especially make-up-artists have to adjust to HFR, lighting too. Actors have to re-think about their fights against aging. ;) And yes, HFR will show you even more who is acting good or not so good, especially when it comes to close-ups.

I wish more filmmakers would embrace that tool and keep experimenting with it, instead of just throwing it away after a few short tests or after watching just one movie.

And don't put real HFR-footage into one bin with motion-interpolation or even cheap soap-operas, thats not fair. ;)

I once played around with the TRON Legacy trailer and encoded a few versions with higher fps (offline motion interpolation via AVIsynth) and i really liked the results.

P.S.: You might want to sign this petition: https://www.change.org/p/hdtv-manuf...mooth-motion-the-default-setting-on-all-hdtvs
 
Here's the real issue - film LIGHTING doesn't work with HFR photography.

Film lighting has been developed to work with 24fps photography, it use techniques that are based on static paintings to create illusion of depth, mood, space - you name it.

HFR photography creates a sense of reality/immediacy that breaks the illusion of film lighting somewhat. You suddenly wonder where that light wrapping the shoulders might be coming from, why the characters seem like cartoon cut outs, or like you are watching a stage play).

If you want to experiment with HFR cinematography versus 24fps cinematography you have to go back to first principals - you have to discard a century of cinematic lighting technique and vocabulary because a lot of it just won't work anymore - just like how marionettes no longer work if pristine high definition - because suddenly you can see the strings, and everything feels like it's the wrong scale.

24fps might 'technically' be inferior - but it's inferiority allows us to hide a lot from the mind, and at the same time give the mind cues in how to fill in the blanks.

If you want to learn the psychology of HFR video then instead of a seasoned traveller with Google maps traveling your journey across the cinematic landscape - you may well become a babe lost in the woods - because what worked before may no longer have the same intended effect.

Michael Mann's experimentation in digital is an awesome example of this - he's trying to write a new road map that does something different with digital photography (available light photography while still being moody and evocative - matching real world exteriors with interior scenes that have wide vistas, so they reality of the inside world and outside world are captured in the same frame, rather than segregating them as matte paintings or green screen as most traditional studio narrative films have for the last hundred years.

But he and his cinematographer still don't yet have all the tools, all the answers to make this technique as widely effective as traditional 24p feature film making.

HFR 3D in the Hobbit made the 3D a lot better, but it made the heavily light wrapped, heroically lit actors and characters look ridiculous, a technique that was specifically designed to create dramatic depth in 2d imagery was being used in what is ultra realistic stereoscopic presentation - and it doesn't work.

It's not because the technique itself is bad - it's because the lighting that looks great in 2D doesn't actually look great in HFR 3D.

These are linguistic issues - almost literally. It's like trying to say the same dramatic sentence when speaking twice as fast - it may well sound ridiculous, even though you can now convey twice as much information in the same time.

The technical solve for HFR photography looking perfect isn't about the combination of frame rate and shutter speed - it's about what it is that you are shooting, and how you are lighting that subject matter, and how you want the audience to feel. Solving those issues for HFR is not the work of one person - but of many, an entire industry, trying to improve upon what came before.

Now, from my point of view these solutions won't come out of the film industry - because there isn't a big enough reason for the film industry to pursue them.

Where they will come from is the games industry, from VR, where HFR experiences aren't going to be a novelty, but become mandatory - a necessary part of the experience the industry is striving to create. These industries will have enough people needing to experiment to meet the demand for their medium to create the answers that film will eventually come to use.
 
I can't say I'm really convinced that cinematic lighting is the issue with High Frame Rates, I just didn't come away from the hobbit thinking "I didn't really buy into the realism of the sets" I came out of it thinking that the motion seemed odd in places and that some of the editing choices didn't compliment those characteristics and I think these characteristics will remain in the image regardless of wether it's 2D or 3D or what the lighting is. And solutions certainly won't be coming from the games industry because this is an area where HFR is the norm and interactivity plays a key role, 24fps looks cinematic in a movie but in a video game it looks and feels sluggish, though some games are playable around 24fps such as diablo 3 but the feel of the motion still remains consistent regardless of the lighting of the game.
Anyway thats my impression.
 
Maik Müller said:
We are in the early days of that, we just have to experiment a bit more with it and we have to see a lot more HFR-stuff.

The biggest issue with HFR is just that we are trained to that look,
Click to expand...

I disagree.
Whenever some new stuff comes out and folks dare to not like it, some evangelist pops up and tells us, that we are dinosaurs that we just have to "get used to it" cause we are "trained" - which is a polite way to say,
what's wrong with you? If you don't see things the way I see them, you are ill and need professional help.

First of all, if the new tec is so wonderful and much better, why do I have to get "used to it"?
If it is so great, I should recognize it at the first glance - right?
If I don't , something is wrong with the new tec, not with me.

Fun fact: 30% of the population can't tell the difference between 24 and 48 FPS, because of a genetic disposition.

Here's my thoughts on HFR.

In a nutshell: HFR sucks!

No really, IMHO real immersion only happens when you take away information, so your brain have to compensate that - and because your own brains are generating this information you are deeply immersed.
Exactly the mesmerizing, dream like, movie magic state in a dark cinema.

48FPS or more, you double the temporal information/resolution, your brains just ingest - dang reality - soap opera effect.
Movie magic goes out of the window, and you don't care for the characters anymore, cause what you are watching is not a narrative , but a newsreel.
So 48 FPS is robbing you of one of your best story telling tools.

Some of this also has to do with projection/displays these days.

In the days of CRT TVs and before digital projection, I can't remember hearing anyone ever say, oh boy, that was juddering.
Digital TV/cinema has very harsh changes from frame to frame, while analog changes where softer an more organic.
Maybe we need some sort of motion mount not only on the camera, but also on projectors and TVs that fade in and out of single frames, rather than just switch them on and off.

Its pretty bizarre. Video guys jumped through hoops for years, to get away from 50i/60i - now that we finally have cameras that can shoot 24p, folks want back to the TV frame rates.

Maik Müller said:
Shooting that isn't a problem, you can already do that. There is an advanced menu (shortcut: up on the d-pad), where you can enter any fps-rate you want, and you can put that even in custom lists for quick-selection. Only problem, the project time base can't be set freely. It would be nice if RED adds more options here.

.
Click to expand...

Well, as long as your display isn't able to switch accordingly it will look horrible.
Most Monitors run at 60HZ natively, only a few can be switched to other frequencies.
In 50HZ countries, this is already a problem with most computer monitors, cause 25p/24p will almost always judder.
If you now come up with a mix of strange frame rates within a project, that needs to have a timeline, which is fixed to a certain frame rate,
or with a - let's say - 28 FPS time line, that's a huge mess.

IMHO 24p is still THE sweet spot - at least for a narrative.
There are some wheels, that don't need to be reinvented - they are just fine.
That is particularly true, if you deal with human perception, which is pretty much a fixed variable in your game.
 
Last edited:
With some as of yet unmade super sensor (with incredible low light sensitivity) and storage technology, I think approaching film like audio where fps=sample rate and using hardware/software to merge and blur varying amounts of these frames to display at whatever the DP wishes in post to be a great idea and likely where well eventually end up. In a perfect world the "master" sample rate would be quite high possibly 1000fps or higher. This would allow greatest flexibility in post. Of course this camera would be powered all day by a Volt sized cold fusion battery and write to laser crystalline or organic cellular memory controlled by a quantum CPU lol...



Thank you,

Björn Benckert said:
You can cheat it in multiples of 2. Basically take a 24p clip and drop it into a 48p timeline and timewarp it to 50% no interpolation. then the 24p clip just plays every frame twice, viola.


Personally I hate HFR. I want to believe that there was a reason why film was set to a standard of 24fps for playback. Simply put it looks strobbing when going slower and it looks smeared out when going faster. To me it starts to get ugly already at 30fps. at 50fps it's unbearable and 100fps is just unbearable x2. And using it to get away with Smug kind of camera moves is... well as I see it just trying to get away with ugly camera moves. Those kind of rollercoaster ride kind of camera moves could be though out in so many other ways and they would look, again according to my taste, so much better.

But yes it's a taste thing, some like to have their TV's with high refreshrate and smooth motion settings as well, which to me, just makes good films look like digibeta shot soaps.
Click to expand...
 
Frank Glencairn said:
I disagree.
Whenever some new stuff comes out and folks dare to not like it, some evangelist pops up and tells us, that we are dinosaurs that we just have to "get used to it" cause we are "trained" - which is a polite way to say,
what's wrong with you? If you don't see things the way I see them, you are ill and need professional help.

First of all, if the new tec is so wonderful and much better, why do I have to get "used to it"?
If it is so great, I should recognize it at the first glance - right?
If I don't , something is wrong with the new tec, not with me.

Fun fact: 30% of the population can't tell the difference between 24 and 48 FPS, because of a genetic disposition.

Here's my thoughts on HFR.

In a nutshell: HFR sucks!

No really, IMHO real immersion only happens when you take away information, so your brain have to compensate that - and because your own brains are generating this information you are deeply immersed.
Exactly the mesmerizing, dream like, movie magic state in a dark cinema.

48FPS or more, you double the temporal information/resolution, your brains just ingest - dang reality - soap opera effect.
Movie magic goes out of the window, and you don't care for the characters anymore, cause what you are watching is not a narrative , but a newsreel.
So 48 FPS is robbing you of one of your best story telling tools.

Some of this also has to do with projection/displays these days.

In the days of CRT TVs and before digital projection, I can't remember hearing anyone ever say, oh boy, that was juddering.
Digital TV/cinema has very harsh changes from frame to frame, while analog changes where softer an more organic.
Maybe we need some sort of motion mount not only on the camera, but also on projectors and TVs that fade in and out of single frames, rather than just switch them on and off.

Its pretty bizarre. Video guys jumped through hoops for years, to get away from 50i/60i - now that we finally have cameras that can shoot 24p, folks want back to the TV frame rates.



Well, as long as your display isn't able to switch accordingly it will look horrible.
Most Monitors run at 60HZ natively, only a few can be switched to other frequencies.
In 50HZ countries, this is already a problem with most computer monitors, cause 25p/24p will almost always judder.
If you now come up with a mix of strange frame rates within a project, that needs to have a timeline, which is fixed to a certain frame rate,
or with a - let's say - 28 FPS time line, that's a huge mess.

IMHO 24p is still THE sweet spot - at least for a narrative.
There are some wheels, that don't need to be reinvented - they are just fine.
That is particularly true, if you deal with human perception, which is pretty much a fixed variable in your game.
Click to expand...

Some years ago there was an experiment done where kittens were raised in two groups... one in a room with vertical stripes and the other in a room with horizontal stripes. It was determined that the ones raised in the horizontal room saw the world horizontally and the ones raised in the room with vertical stripes saw the world vertically.

Conditioning is a well established fact.
 
Elsie N said:
Some years ago there was an experiment done where kittens were raised in two groups... one in a room with vertical stripes and the other in a room with horizontal stripes. It was determined that the ones raised in the horizontal room saw the world horizontally and the ones raised in the room with vertical stripes saw the world vertically.

Conditioning is a well established fact.
Click to expand...

Frank Glencairn said:
How can you "see the world vertically or horizontally"?
What method did they use to determine this? Did they just ask the cats?
Click to expand...

Scientific methods have their ways. But you are concentrating on the wrong part of my post.
 
I'll finally chime in here. I've been apart of a few R&D teams dealing with HFR, hell they didn't even really call it that until the Hobbit, but okay.

Primarily the concerned technologies were 24p, 30p, 48p, 60p, 72p, 96p, and 120p.

A few things that are important.

60p is pretty much where human vision tops out in "individualizing" frames.

72p is something a bit further as there are some people who can see "more" than 60p.

The globe is round and big. In some countries 30p and 60p is actually favored for narrative, fictional, and documentary work. However, in the regions many of "us" are in a movie is a 24p experience.

Lot's and lot's of tests really in regards to shutter speed/angle and it's relationship to predictable motion on the human eye per frame rate have been done. Frame cycling out the higher frame rate playback on a group of about 30 each time gives you a lot of "data".

This was done several years ago, but the data stands as "humans" haven't changed.

One interesting observation I had that led to some additional testing was the relationship between viewing distance and screen size. This actually led to some of the more interesting concepts, at least to me.

General findings are pretty much in line with what we "know" and what have since become standards. Though personally I didn't think 48 fps was going to "land". That was a shocker actually and I was totally off because I thought those who were interested in the HFR effect would strive to achieve 60p for playback.

Anyways.

Long and short answer. HFR is a creative choice and also a "technical" thing. Humans find motion pictures generally pleasing in the 24-60p realm. Types of content actually come into play for those who prefer 24p for certain types of work. Personally I feel that up to 60p is very "okay" for certain types of projects when done right. Particularly people like action oriented content at higher frame rates, like sporting events. Tennis at 60p provides a slightly more immersive experience as they eye is often tracking onto a small object that's moving rather quickly. On topic to that, this is an arena where 4K and 4K+ also help.

The bigger jump up to 120p seemed to only have benefits in larger viewing venues. For example, where the viewing angle and screen size would be larger. Essentially something like IMAX. A quick way to visualize this would be imagining two rollers moving fabric in a loop in front of your face where the viewing display would be. One side black and one side white. Ramping up the speed to emulate the various frame rates we are discussing here allows you to both have the predictive and more "glass-like" effect. However, at 120p at smaller display sizes didn't give us to much more than 60p in reality. However, now imagine those rollers about the size and width of a building. Much more surface area to cover and the faster movement from 120p certain helps with the "strobing" (description term not-literal) between the transition between white and black.

Back to 24p and why 24p at 180 degree shutter works. Also why 30p at 180 degrees works. Our human brains are predicting things all the time. If you stood about 8 feet away from me and I tossed you my keys and at about 2 feet away from your hand I asked you to close your eyes, there's a good chance your brain would do the work and allow you to catch the keys. Or at a minimum nearly catch them. The motion blur we experience helps "ease" us into the next frame at these lower rates and feels rather natural to many.

Onto shutter speed and angle. Traditionally the logic of 180 degrees no matter what the frame rate is would be utilized for motion picture production. However, obviously the faster the shutter speed/narrower the shutter angle creates less and less motion blur. So our brains don't register it "softly". Too softly and we feel like something is amiss. To harshly and we feel the steps between the motion. This of course can by used for aesthetic use as it's a creative choice and when it comes to creative choices there is no one answer. However, at higher frame rates the traditional 180 degree rule isn't often worth the squeeze as the frames are cycling so fast in front of us that something closer to or actually at 360 degrees is more ideal. There's a moment around 72p where 360 degrees on the shutter angle where much of the common motion blur becomes a non-issue. At 120fps at 1/120th it's not an issue at all for most motion as well.

So basically what I'm saying is some may find it useful shooting with a slower shutter speed or larger shutter angle at higher frame rates to help add some of that blur back, but there is a limit to "the feels".

And that's what this is all about really. It's the feeling. The sensation of motion and how our brains digest it. And that's where we are back to the weird balance between the creative and technical choices. As to what's "right" and what's "wrong", there actually isn't a true answer. The actual answer in this case more or less comes in the form of "this is why this works and this is why it doesn't". Separating preference from perception is the real trick here.

I know personally and due to the standards that have now been made we'll be seeing much of our UHD 4K and 8K content at 24-60p. Personally I like the look of motion picture work at 24p. However, I also like the look of faster motion work like sports at 60p. I also think wildlife and various other types of content benefit from the faster frame rates. For me and what "movies are" 24p "is what they are". I'm totally cool with that. However, we'll be seeing more and more HFR productions in larger varieties of content and yes there will be 60p features. And yes, we'll need cameras that really support that concept for standard narrative shooting practices as well. 120p in my mind is real specialty zone, but Mr. Trumbull and other exploring up there are trying to find the "ultimate" in a game where most are looking for the "natural". It's certainly another viable frame rate though.

I've avoided the 3D chatter in all of this, but the general concept of HFR and 3D does contribute to a smoother 3D effect for stereoscopic viewing and can effect the inherent intensity of light as it's being beamed into our noggins. 3D is yet another arena where we'll be seeing more and more HFR deployed.

The true answer is up to the creator and how they want the audience to experience their content. The shutter speed and angle combined with the given frame rate effect the additional layer of feeling of what's perceived as natural.
 
I think a mix is a good solution. When watching 24p i often get annoyed on fast scenes since it gets to much motionblur! But watching slow scenes like bilbo opening his diary i like the look of 24p.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top