Yes, there’s just something tacky about the realism. A soap opera is the perfect comparison. Or those Disney Channel shows that have been around since the mid 2000s.
It just gives a film an almost postmodern and self-parodic feel.
Googling “soap opera effect” has revealed all to me.
I was going to come in here and post that. I don’t know what panache45, jz78817 are being so dismissive about. A higher frame rate with the subsequent “soap opera” effect can ruin a movie just as much as badly colorizing a black and white.
“Motion blur” is the new “lens flare”.
I’ll note that 48fps is a lower frame rate than 720p HD which is either 50 or 60 fps, and a format that’s been broadcast for a decade that nobody seems to have a problem with.
Yes, but material filmed at 24fps is converted to 60fps, so you’ll get things like frames of the movie staying for more than one frame of the broadcast rate, and it’s not even consistent, some will be held longer than others, since 24 doesn’t go into 60 evenly. But in the end it’s not the same as watching something filmed at 60fps. For that you’d probably need to look at live sports or something of the type.
And someone upthread asked about DVD/Bluray and 48fps, and no, they don’t support it. Some Bluray players and TV’s will support directly showing at 24fps, but otherwise you’re watching it converted to 60fps.
I really didn’t understand what was odd about it. I walked in thinking “pfft, I play video games at 60FPS all the time. There’s absolutely no way that a 48FPS movie is going to look any different than a 24FPS one, if anything it will just look smoother.”
But when the movie started it was odd. In fact, things seemed to be moving faster, somehow. I got this odd effect, where it looked like people were violently swinging their limbs as quickly as possible, almost like they sped up the footage. I almost thought the footage was sped up accidentally, so I looked at the lips. Nope, the lips were just fine.
I think I got used to it 3/4 of the way through the movie, but at the very beginning, Bilbo felt like the goddamned Flash at some points.
I think it might be similar to the Uncanny Valley Effect. Logically, a higher frame rate should be close to real life movement and our senses should perceive it as being more realistic. But in practice, viewers have experience in watching 24 fps movies and essentially ignoring the effect. A 48 fps rate is different and therefore noticeable - and by being noticeable it calls attention to the entire artificiality of the movie.
This raises an interesting question. European television is broadcast at 25 fps. American television is broadcast at 30 fps. Do people who travel between the two continents notice the difference and feel the other broadcast rate is “off”?
I’m only being dismissive of the claim that a higher frame rate “ruined” a movie for someone. That is, like, the height of snobbery. But I guess if you want to go tell Peter Jackson he’s doing it wrong, go right ahead. I’m sure he’ll go off to cry in his pile of money.
you’re accustomed to 24 fps because that’s the way it’s been done for a long time. That doesn’t mean it’s the “one true way to do it.” hell, there was no real reason for Spielberg to film Schindler’s List in B&W apart from the fact that that is what he wanted to do.
However…
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t all US broadcasting interlaced, not progressive? And that would make it 720i, not 720p, at 60 half-frames per second, not 60 full frames.
No, 720p is progressive. No interlace. Hence the “p”.
1080 can be “p” or “i”, but it’s mostly “i” in the HD world, with “p” less widespread.
48fps is meant to be a transitionary stage, and that may be one of the problems it has. 72fps is the plan, and that may be easier to take, somehow.
I read that somewhere.
I like the Soap Opera Effect, and have my TV set that way. I also had it for movies, but frame interpolation is an inexact science and it caused weird strobing in some shots so I turned it off again.
but shooting film at 48 fps isn’t interpolation, it’s doubling the real frame rate. And the complaints I’ve read about The Hobbit boil down to nothing more than the whining of useless snobs who bitch because a director dared to do something other than what they expected.
PROTIP: if the frame rate of a film “ruins” everything for you, then YOU are the one doing it wrong.
Maybe folks can find a TV or Theater that takes out every other frame from 48 fps shows. Or, better yet, have projector/TV tech that adds noticeable shutter flickering, random circles to indicate a reel change, and random ‘hairs’ that show up on screen.
I’m sure that’ll make it look right!
Well, I’m not going to disparage someone who doesn’t like 48fps. You don’t like it, I’m fine with that. And, yes, it really does look different than 24. There’s less motion blur, there’s smoother pans. I don’t agree that it’s worse, but it is different.
Correct, and I agree. I didn’t get to see the 48fps Hobbit, not sure if it even screened that way anywhere near me, but I at least like it okay in the TV equivalent form we currently have.
Huh, that doesn’t make sense. I know it’s true, but it doesn’t make sense. 30 fps equipment is more expensive than 60 fps? TVs then could display 60 fps? Broadcast formats don’t even support anything above 30 fps.
I don’t remember reading any of that the link I provided. What I remember reading is that today’s new TVs refresh at 240 fps, and add extra, artificial, produced-by-computation frames to “smooth” things out. But this smoothing (because it essentially creates a higher frame rate) creates the same “soap opera effect” that you get from watching scenes filmed at a high frame rate.
I recall that when I was in film school (such as it was), and editing 8mm and 16mm film on a cheapo hand cranked editing machine, that when I sped up the rate, of course the action sped up, but also, voila, it looked like video. I kind of liked it.
I think I have more of a problem with effects where elements of the composition are moving so fast or exist for so short a time that your brain can’t really identify them. That makes me nuts.
And all the defenses of The Hobbit come from simpering neckbearded Peter Jackson fellaters who angrily stamp their corrective shoes on Mommy’s basement floor and flare their crusty nostrils at the suggestion that their Beloved Master could ever do wrong. Now that we’ve exchanged the customary stereotypes, can we go back to discussing the topic like adults?
To use your example, if Spielberg had simultaneously released another version of Schindler’s List that was garishly colorized… green Nazis, blue Jews, a rainbow-striped Schindler… would it be snobbish whining to deem it distracting and express a preference for the B/W version?
Is this the equivalent of godwinizing a thread in Cafe Society?
The difference in temporal information is huge. The detail of objects and specially action scenes goes up by an order of magnitude. In the Hobbit, the fight choreography was a revelation. In typical 24 FPS, it would have been a blurry, juddery mess. Instead I saw every single movement of every single actor int he scene, close and far.
It was pretty amazing. So I’m all for 48 fps.