Next big thing, more frames per second?

jasong · 2014-09-05, 23:29

We all know about 3d tv, how it started with the headache inducing red-blue cardboard glasses, and then later evolved into the various theaters polarized light method, still headache inducing for some people.

But there's another technology which may be better and doesn't need any action on our part, at least for the theater experience, video shown at faster than the normal frames per second. In tests (was quick with the editing, not sure if the link actually talks about testing) people got more enjoyment from fast-frame video, even when there wasn't a lot of fast action on the screen. I don't remember if they warned the movie-goers about the change in number of frames, obviously that would skew the data a bit.

So, what do you think? With the new 3d video projectors, we obviously have the ability to double the frames with no change of the hardware. But would you be more likely to go to the movies and/or pay extra for this upgraded video experience?

Quote:

Film critics have noted that the much sharper image looks akin to video games, HDTV, live theater or a cheap home movie.

Yeah, and we can't have cars because they scare the horses on the road.

TheMawn · 2014-09-06, 16:31

I've seen a couple of movies in theaters displayed at the doubled 48 FPS instead of the usual 24 FPS. Even though stuff was happening at the correct speed, it "felt" twice as fast. It didn't take long to get used to, though, and I couldn't really tell you if 48 was better than 24 after an hour or two.

I never saw the first Hobbit movie in theaters and that I think was the first really big release filmed at 48, and it gave a lot of people headaches. My friends and I couldn't understand this because we game at 60 FPS, so it doesn't seem right that 48 would be so difficult to digest.

A lot of people think the human eye sees ~30 FPS but this is bogus. Gaming at 30 is awful for me, and in the same way, the pros who invest in 120hz monitors can't stand 60. The eye can distinguish frames more or less as fast as it can be trained to see, and it's just a matter of becoming accustomed to the faster rates. I do believe that 48 FPS was "too much" for the average person in that they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 48 or 64 or 32 or whatever you want.

Pick two objects nearby with a fair distance between them, and quickly glance from one to the other, and try to notice the quality of the image of whatever is in between your two targets. Notice that it is "blurred". In real life, any action happening too fast is blurry (think of the wheels on a car spinning so fast that they appear to spin backward). In the movie, though, each frame is crystal clear and that blurring is gone. This is what was troubling people, I think.

Mark Rose · 2014-09-06, 17:02

I, for one, won't miss the strobing effect of 24 fps movies. Though it's a lot better now that everything is using digital projectors and there's no longer the black flash between frames.

kladner · 2014-09-07, 04:24

Quote:

.....(think of the wheels on a car spinning so fast that they appear to spin backward).

That is a movie effect. It's a product of the frame rate versus the rate of rotation of the wheel.

Xyzzy · 2014-09-07, 04:44

Xyzzy · 2014-09-07, 04:46

Quote:

That is a movie effect. It's a product of the frame rate versus the rate of rotation of the wheel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagon-wheel_effect

LaurV · 2014-09-07, 04:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by kladner

That is a movie effect. It's a product of the frame rate versus the rate of rotation of the wheel.

..versus the scanning frequency of your eyes. The effect is not only in the movies, connect a 12V fan to an adjustable power supply and and play with the knobs, you will see it moving backwards for some values of the speed. The effect is stronger under fluorescent lights than under the sun or incandescent bulbs, due to the fact that the frequency of the tubes interferes too.

kladner · 2014-09-07, 04:57

I have to disagree. It is a stroboscopic effect which would not occur in sunlight or incandescent lighting, which do not pulse/flicker like fluorescent lamps, strobe lights, or the frames of a movie.

EDIT: I see from Mike's post that a related effect can be seen under constant lighting. But that is a different effect from what is seen in a movie or on TV.

LaurV · 2014-09-07, 04:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagon-wheel_effect

crosspost, we knew about the stroboscopic effect, but the link you posted is very interesting, especially the part about the dangers for industrial machines. We didn't think to it up to now! We learn something new every day!

LaurV · 2014-09-07, 05:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by kladner

I have to disagree.

We live in a free world (say some). Ye free to do so.
But after you finish disagreeing, read Xyzzy's link, and try my little experiment (for example, I have my cooling rig with 12 fans outside in the sun.., arrr shadow...hehe)

kladner · 2014-09-07, 05:47

Fans are still chopping light into pulses, via obstruction and, in many cases, reflection. Both of these can get the eye to do funny things.

I already said that I acknowledge that article. However, it was equivocal as to the cause(s) of the effect under non-stroboscopic conditions.

2014-09-07, 04:57	#8
kladner "Kieren" Jul 2011 In My Own Galaxy! 2·3·1,693 Posts	I have to disagree. It is a stroboscopic effect which would not occur in sunlight or incandescent lighting, which do not pulse/flicker like fluorescent lamps, strobe lights, or the frames of a movie. EDIT: I see from Mike's post that a related effect can be seen under constant lighting. But that is a different effect from what is seen in a movie or on TV. Last fiddled with by kladner on 2014-09-07 at 05:04

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
ecm thing	3.14159	Miscellaneous Math	3	2016-12-16 23:58
A next big thing	jasonp	Operation Kibibit	23	2012-08-28 12:46
my thing	firejuggler	Aliquot Sequences	1	2010-05-31 06:57
Hm... strange thing...	Yxine	Factoring	1	2006-08-10 13:48
A new interesting thing about 15k	robert44444uk	15k Search	0	2005-04-06 23:00

2014-09-06, 16:31	#2
TheMawn May 2013 East. Always East. 11×157 Posts	I've seen a couple of movies in theaters displayed at the doubled 48 FPS instead of the usual 24 FPS. Even though stuff was happening at the correct speed, it "felt" twice as fast. It didn't take long to get used to, though, and I couldn't really tell you if 48 was better than 24 after an hour or two. I never saw the first Hobbit movie in theaters and that I think was the first really big release filmed at 48, and it gave a lot of people headaches. My friends and I couldn't understand this because we game at 60 FPS, so it doesn't seem right that 48 would be so difficult to digest. A lot of people think the human eye sees ~30 FPS but this is bogus. Gaming at 30 is awful for me, and in the same way, the pros who invest in 120hz monitors can't stand 60. The eye can distinguish frames more or less as fast as it can be trained to see, and it's just a matter of becoming accustomed to the faster rates. I do believe that 48 FPS was "too much" for the average person in that they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 48 or 64 or 32 or whatever you want. Pick two objects nearby with a fair distance between them, and quickly glance from one to the other, and try to notice the quality of the image of whatever is in between your two targets. Notice that it is "blurred". In real life, any action happening too fast is blurry (think of the wheels on a car spinning so fast that they appear to spin backward). In the movie, though, each frame is crystal clear and that blurring is gone. This is what was troubling people, I think.

2014-09-06, 17:02	#3
Mark Rose "/X\(‘-‘)/X\" Jan 2013 2²×3×7×37 Posts	I, for one, won't miss the strobing effect of 24 fps movies. Though it's a lot better now that everything is using digital projectors and there's no longer the black flash between frames.

2014-09-07, 05:47	#11
kladner "Kieren" Jul 2011 In My Own Galaxy! 2·3·1,693 Posts	Fans are still chopping light into pulses, via obstruction and, in many cases, reflection. Both of these can get the eye to do funny things. I already said that I acknowledge that article. However, it was equivocal as to the cause(s) of the effect under non-stroboscopic conditions.

2014-09-07, 04:44	#5
Xyzzy Aug 2002 8,563 Posts