Yeah, all advancements start out rough. It'll be a long while till people learn how to film with it. HD changed how television does makeup and sets, all kinds of stuff.
It would probably be easier if it started in television.
There's no reason to stick to 24fps except it's what people are used to. It was a limit of technology, it wasn't picked because it looked awesome. Eventually we will move onto higher FPS, kids will love it, and older people will grumble about how old fashioned is better.
no it looks bad because it exposes the fakeness of sets
like it is in fact actively worse in some/most cases
Like people were thrilled about sound and color and HD, they became standards not long after affordable availability
Hfr has been affordably available to filmmakers for decades
yeah this isn't some bold new technology that is paving the way for the future of cinema
it only came about because of the resurgence in 3D movies, which seems to be mostly dying out again. there's no actual benefit to shooting in HFR and it actively puts a lot of people off
Wait, it's set after Dino Charge and will open with a battle involving the Dino Charge Rangers, before the torch is passed to a new team...but according to that casting announcement that new team has a teenage Kimberly as the pink ranger?
Hmm...and they're talking about Scorpina invading the Morphing Grid which now apparently can connect the past to the future.
They're going to pull a JJ Abrams Star Trek reboot, aren't they? Unless one of these articles is confused.
Actually, it was announced via the Power Rangers Instagram and FB page, and all it says is
"Naomi Scott is the Pink Ranger
It’s official! #NaomiScott will play the #PinkRanger in the @PowerRangersMovie! Coming in 2017…"
The idea that she's Kimberly is from supposedly leaked casting descriptions. All we know officially is that she's the Pink Ranger
0
Olivawgood name, isn't it?the foot of mt fujiRegistered Userregular
I do want to see a high framerate movie in its entirety at some point
But only so I can say I saw a piece of forgotten cinema history years down the road
Like people were thrilled about sound and color and HD, they became standards not long after affordable availability
Hfr has been affordably available to filmmakers for decades
Well, took only about four decades to get sound and color, and I imagine we were on a steady upward march to HD for a long while. Framerate, on the other hand, has been locked since the thirties. That's a massive hump to get over.
I bet if we took a bunch of babies and only let them watch movies in 48 fps for years, then make them shift to 96 fps, they'd suddenly have all the same objections you lot are having now.
I mean, wasn't the only reason they made 24 fps the standard was because it was the cheapest option in the thirties?
0
TrippyJingMoses supposes his toeses are roses.But Moses supposes erroneously.Registered Userregular
There's no reason to stick to 24fps except it's what people are used to. It was a limit of technology, it wasn't picked because it looked awesome. Eventually we will move onto higher FPS, kids will love it, and older people will grumble about how old fashioned is better.
no it looks bad because it exposes the fakeness of sets
like it is in fact actively worse in some/most cases
Why does it expose fakeness? What changes, exactly?
It makes them look real, and fiction relies on verisimilitude, not reality.
HFR video makes on location stuff look cheap and fake too.
I would think that HFR making real things "look cheap and fake" would be evidence enough that it's just in your head and a matter of familiarity.
Like, TOS footage from the 60s used in Deep Space Nine episodes in the 90s looked fake because of all the extra detail, and they had to fix up the footage on computers.
Every "fault" listed so far applies to HD as well. 24fps was a somewhat arbitrary choice.
I think its the scale of the effect. And was an arbitrary choice, but there is generations whose visual coding of what constitutes a film relies on it, and with HD it depends on what kind of film uses it, and the effect still isnt as distracting. As well our impressions from TV shows and home recordings inform how we interpret that frame rate. It could change over time, but I think the effect is much much more pronounced than HD and 48fps comes with a lot of other cues that signal "bad quality"
There's no reason to stick to 24fps except it's what people are used to. It was a limit of technology, it wasn't picked because it looked awesome. Eventually we will move onto higher FPS, kids will love it, and older people will grumble about how old fashioned is better.
no it looks bad because it exposes the fakeness of sets
like it is in fact actively worse in some/most cases
Why does it expose fakeness? What changes, exactly?
I remember reading an article that said something about the motion blur at 24fps being able to hide some of the physical tricks that set and prop designers use.
A higher framerate offers more visual information per second, but this is not necessarily desirable when paired with cinematography designed for a lower framerate
A higher resolution does not have the same issues because the motion of the camera, actors, and props stay the same, they just appear in greater detail. We know that nobody complains about HD
Basically, there's nothing inherently wrong with a higher framerate for film. You just have to plan your movie around the higher detail your audience will be able to see.
Also, while I was looking for that article, my search led me to a piece written by Roger Ebert--God bless him--in 1999 wherein he poo-poos digital projectors.
There is indeed nothing particularly special about 24 besides the fact that it's what film has evolved around
that's not really true, though. it's not just an arbitrary choice, there's actual science behind it beyond just limited technology
and the HD argument makes no sense because HD has nothing to do with framerate, just resolution. In fact, standard HD framerate on pretty much all internet streaming services is still 23.98
Youtube does 24, 30, 48 and 60 fps, but it's up the uploader.
0
TrippyJingMoses supposes his toeses are roses.But Moses supposes erroneously.Registered Userregular
At the time, they needed to standardize in order to sync up the film and the audio, and the cheapest option was 24.
And the HD argument does makes sense, from a certain perspective. You can find talk online from people who switched from CRTs to HDTVs and suddenly everything looked all fake and weird to them.
I do not think it is a very controversial postulate that far fewer people have a problem with HD than HFR
Yeah.
I actually thought I had trouble with HD, but it turned out to be HFR that I hated. HD was totally alright.
HFR just kept making everything look like Canadian soap operas. To the point where once, when I saw a movie on TV in HFR, I asked why everyone was watching Degrassi.
Posts
But right now, in 2015, 48fps looks like dogshit
It would probably be easier if it started in television.
if anything happens between now and 2020 that prevents me seeing Godzilla fight King Kong, I will be so miffed
Oh yeah, someone mentioned He-Man earlier in the thread and I forgot to post this.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
Hfr has been affordably available to filmmakers for decades
no it looks bad because it exposes the fakeness of sets
like it is in fact actively worse in some/most cases
my parents looked at me like I was having a fit
To be fair... Your parents look at you like that a lot
https://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/wishlist/1JI9WWSRW1YJI
yeah this isn't some bold new technology that is paving the way for the future of cinema
it only came about because of the resurgence in 3D movies, which seems to be mostly dying out again. there's no actual benefit to shooting in HFR and it actively puts a lot of people off
Steam // Secret Satan
Actually, it was announced via the Power Rangers Instagram and FB page, and all it says is
"Naomi Scott is the Pink Ranger
It’s official! #NaomiScott will play the #PinkRanger in the @PowerRangersMovie! Coming in 2017…"
The idea that she's Kimberly is from supposedly leaked casting descriptions. All we know officially is that she's the Pink Ranger
But only so I can say I saw a piece of forgotten cinema history years down the road
Like saying I saw CINERAMA when it was a thing
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
Cinerama was fucking dope tho
Doper than high frame rate certainly
But not dope enough to last!
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
ultra low framerate cinema is where it's really at
Well, took only about four decades to get sound and color, and I imagine we were on a steady upward march to HD for a long while. Framerate, on the other hand, has been locked since the thirties. That's a massive hump to get over.
I bet if we took a bunch of babies and only let them watch movies in 48 fps for years, then make them shift to 96 fps, they'd suddenly have all the same objections you lot are having now.
I mean, wasn't the only reason they made 24 fps the standard was because it was the cheapest option in the thirties?
Why does it expose fakeness? What changes, exactly?
HFR video makes on location stuff look cheap and fake too.
I would think that HFR making real things "look cheap and fake" would be evidence enough that it's just in your head and a matter of familiarity.
Like, TOS footage from the 60s used in Deep Space Nine episodes in the 90s looked fake because of all the extra detail, and they had to fix up the footage on computers.
I think its the scale of the effect. And was an arbitrary choice, but there is generations whose visual coding of what constitutes a film relies on it, and with HD it depends on what kind of film uses it, and the effect still isnt as distracting. As well our impressions from TV shows and home recordings inform how we interpret that frame rate. It could change over time, but I think the effect is much much more pronounced than HD and 48fps comes with a lot of other cues that signal "bad quality"
I remember reading an article that said something about the motion blur at 24fps being able to hide some of the physical tricks that set and prop designers use.
I'll see if I can find that again.
A higher resolution does not have the same issues because the motion of the camera, actors, and props stay the same, they just appear in greater detail. We know that nobody complains about HD
http://accidentalscientist.com/2014/12/why-movies-look-weird-at-48fps-and-games-are-better-at-60fps-and-the-uncanny-valley.html
Those Power Rangers clips just lead me to watch the Green Ranger vs Ryu
I feel better about life
I don't like that jackson just chose to double it for his hfr
Also, while I was looking for that article, my search led me to a piece written by Roger Ebert--God bless him--in 1999 wherein he poo-poos digital projectors.
http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/start-the-revolution-without-digital
I got to the part about an array of 20 18-gig hard drives and thought, "Oh, right, hard drives used to be tiny over a decade ago."
that's not really true, though. it's not just an arbitrary choice, there's actual science behind it beyond just limited technology
and the HD argument makes no sense because HD has nothing to do with framerate, just resolution. In fact, standard HD framerate on pretty much all internet streaming services is still 23.98
And the HD argument does makes sense, from a certain perspective. You can find talk online from people who switched from CRTs to HDTVs and suddenly everything looked all fake and weird to them.
Yeah.
I actually thought I had trouble with HD, but it turned out to be HFR that I hated. HD was totally alright.
HFR just kept making everything look like Canadian soap operas. To the point where once, when I saw a movie on TV in HFR, I asked why everyone was watching Degrassi.
Why I fear the ocean.