Hacker News Reader

Comment by Negitivefrags | Hacker News Reader

Unfortunately the fact that lower budget TV was recorded onto tape at 60fps in the old days of analog television has effectively ruined high frame rate for everyone.

Gemini Man just came out at 120fps in Cinemas and 60fps on blu ray and regardless of your feelings about the quality of the film, I would have thought anybody with eyes could appreciate how amazing the high frame rate looks.

But no, it’s all people moaning about how it looks like a soap opera and “so unnatural” (too lifelike).

It seems anyone who tries high frame rate is crucified for it, so directors aren’t exactly incentivised to try again.

View on HN

High framerates DO look like soap operas. It makes it feel like you're watching a play, rather than a movie, and is extremely distracting.

When I go to to people's houses, and they have a newish TV, it will invariably have frame interpolation of some kind on which effectively gives everything an approximated high frame rate. I immediately turn it off for them, and it is always met with either "oh, ya that was really bothering me" or "I can't tell the difference." I've never had someone want it turned back.

I love those TV options when they work. I hate hate hate hate juddering motion on any screen. I will agree that sometimes the quality of an actor can degrade when you get to see more frames of them per second. (As if you are able to see more nuances which makes you know they are acting.)

You're mixing up frame interpolation and original 60FPS content. That's not the same thing at all.

I agree. The best frame interpolation implementations of today, that I’ve seen, suck. In principle I think the algorithms and implementations will improve when low persistence, high refresh rate displays are commonplace (ie the 1000 Hz OLED ideal). With proper frame interpolation, you could, in theory, mimic any persistence profile you like. Like the look of CRTs? There is a filter for that. Like the look of cinema shutters? There’s a filter for that. We’re a long ways away from that though. The added latency would only be as long as one frame time of the targeted interpolation source frame rate. So 16.6 ms at 60 Hz. If that is unacceptable you can always do sample and hold or BFI (the true holy grail for gaming).

No, I'm not. The frame interpolation is actually pretty good, and approximates high framerate relatively well. It is the high framerate itself which causes this effect, however. I've seen two movies in theater at high framerate that were shot as such (The Hobbit and another I'm forgetting), as well as the ability to watch high framerate content on YouTube, and it is absolutely the high framerate that is jarring in cinematic content.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not convinced that TV upsampling is generally good, but you make a coherent point and I'm going to try it out myself :-)

My experience is different: I've seen all three Hobbit movies in HFR with 48fps and it was gorgeous whereas interpolation is not even close to what I've seen in the theaters. Cinema is not in FPS count but in camera movements and frame composition. Cheap TV shows and movies look cheap regardless of FPS count.

I almost walked out of the theater, and my whole group was on the same page. It genuinely felt like we were watching a play.

IMO 48fps was great in the Hobbit trilogy. Maybe not so much in the first one. But I wish directors would opt for higher frame rates if they have fast moving pans, especially in 3D. 3D in 24fps oftentimes looks choppy af.

By all means, keep indie and art house productions non-3D, 24fps and on celluloid. But for insane tripple a productions: higher frame rate pls.

Supposedly the Avatar sequels are gonna be in 48 or even 60. Maybe they‘ll act as a catalyst again, like the first one did for 3D.

I wonder how high frame rate will be received in the future when everyone who grew up watching 60i soap operas is gone and everyone instead grew up watching 24p content made for Netflix/Amazon Prime/AppleTV+

Reply on news.ycombinator.com