It’s also worth mentioning that Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit was shot at double FPS (48 if I recall correctly), and was regarded by many as looking “off”. Based on the fact Hollywood has not made any high FPS movies since, it seems that it was generally regarded as a failed experiment.
I wonder if new display tech is contributing to this becoming ever worse of an experience? With the tv snapping to the new frames practically instantly and then waiting for 50ms with no visible changes, motion blur baked into the movie can no longer hide the judder effectively.
I haven't seen The Hobbit in cinema, so I can't comment on that experience. Maybe they just did it wrong somehow, which would be a shame.
LCD/OLED follows a "Sample and Hold" paradigm, whereas CRT/Plasma don't have the same limitations.
Film projectors would close the shutter while the film moved, and might open the shutter two or three times per frame; I wonder if you'd do well with black frame insertion than some of the modern displays do? Personally, it seemed pretty awful for me on a samsung qled, maybe it's more useful on OLED; but I also dislike motion smoothing, so clearly we have different taste.
I will agree with you that panning shots in 24 fps aren't great. I think there's some rules of thumb for cinematography to reduce audience discomfort, but not everyone follows those.
The same way I disliked the remakes of Dune and Bladerunner. I don't know exactly how to put it, but despite the gorgeous graphics they felt rather empty to me, like a facade in theme park, with not much behind it.
OR like Nina Hagen once screamed: 'TV, Teeh-Vau, Ich glotz Teeeh-Vaauuuuu... (<-imagine german pronounciation there) ...Alles so schön bunt hier...'
And while 48 fps is a major improvement from the prehistoric 24 (apparently it was chosen because of the power grid a hundred years ago??), it's still a far cry from actually smooth motion at 144 and above fps.
If rendering the whole movie at this frame rate is too difficult, it would be quite interesting to explore exporting the additional buffers (velocity, depth, etc) that allow DLSS 3 frame generation to work near perfectly in games. Can cameras even capture these?
Creating depth maps of existing images/videos is one of the interests of the field of Computer Vision, it is not a solved problem.
When I watched Avatar 2 in IMAX 3D I didn't notice the drop to 24, was that during talking/low motion scenes only? I'm sure if I looked for it I could see it, but I went into the movie not knowing that refresh rate switch occured.
We have 8k/120Hz cameras now, although I'm not too well versed in how increasing the refresh rate affects how the camera captures light, and what effects that has artistically.
Lidar is noisy, and doesn't have a 1:1 pixel mapping between image pixel and depth pixel.
Even when we had stereosopic recordings for 3D the depth map we could generate was always a bit shit. Granted things have moved on in the last few years.
> We have 8k/120Hz cameras now, although I'm not too well versed in how increasing the refresh rate affects how the camera captures light, and what effects that has artistically.
If its a RED it has shit colour sensitivity. however, generally running cameras at higher framerates require more light. but the shutter angle is generally faster than the frame rate (when you record video on your phone outside in the sun, the shutter speed is 1/1000th of a second, even though its doing 60fps)