By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
SvennoJ 1 day ago
Edit Thread
Pajderman said:
SvennoJ said:

The issue is with the lighting and lack of motion blur. Shorter exposure ruins the classic 'film look'. Movies have been playing at higher fps on TV all through the boomer and gen x generations. 3:2 pulldown to put 24fps into 60hz with interlacing. So it's not a dislike of higher frame rates, it's filming in higher frame rates that is the problem / has to mature.

Studio lights having to be brighter to compensate for shorter exposure makes it look different. And less motion blur makes it look more like TV. So in your case better frame insertion is the way to go to reduce stutter.

It would be best of both worlds if the blu-ray master (or streaming) offered 2 tracks. One at 24fps and one with AI enhanced frame insertion at 60 fps. Let a super computer analyze the whole movie (from the source bit rate without compression artifacts) and create intermediate frames, then re-render it all at 60hz.

I think that type of frame insertion is on the way even doing it live by analyzing a few seconds of the movie at a time. Samsung's latest high end TVs have a neural engine and I think with time that will be standard. But mastering the blu-rays with options of different frame rates would be great. Donno how much of an audience there is though. Picture purists - the customers who buy 4K media - generally dislike the high frame rate look and despises any frame insertion algorithms in use.

Good point regarding the exposure time for the picture. For someone like me who have no real experience with photography I stupidly mostly think that a picture moment just is but when that moment is meant to be captured time is needed for the collection of the data. 

You can see the difference in Saving Private Ryan. The scene where they storm the beach was filmed with short exposure time to have it stand out, more dramatic look due to lack of motion blur. Making it look more like a documentary. That works fine in bright daylight, yet with artificial lighting, needing to have brighter lights is what made The Hobbit HFR look 'weird'. Less light is easier to control and 24fps filming has 100 years of experience behind it to make it look good.

Cameras getting better at capturing low light, and more experience at filming at higher frame rates will also make HFR movies look better. Motion blur can always be added later for classic film effect.

https://cinemashock.org/2012/07/30/45-degree-shutter-in-saving-private-ryan/

You can also see several explosions, and Janusz came up with the idea of shooting with the shutter open to 45 degrees or 90 degrees, which completely negated any blurring. Often, when you see an explosion with a 180-degree shutter it can be a thing of beauty, but a 45-degree shutter looks very frightening. [STEVEN SPIELBERG]

45 degree shutter would be exposure for 1/8th of the frame, or 5.2 (1/192) ms per frame as opposed to the standard 20.8 (1/48) ms per frame.

For HFR (48 fps) a 180 degree shutter would give you 10.4 ms per frame. I guess it's technically possible nowadays to go full 360 shutter (no shutter at all) and expose each frame for 20.8 ms or close enough to allow for time to reset the sensor for the next frame.

(The degrees are from mechanical rotary shutters, basically a plate that rotates with a gap passing before the lens. The bigger the gap the longer the exposure)