Desolation of Smaug trailers (SPOILERS)

[Passdagas the Brown]

Yup. Very odd. No matter how long I watch it for, it continues to look fast-forwarded (in case people don't know what we mean by the "Benny Hill" effect!)

[Dave_LF]

As part of my highly unofficial research, do you have any history of playing video games with frame rates above 24 (if you don't know the answer, it's probably no)?

[Passdagas the Brown]

As someone who only games casually, I'm not sure.

I have played Oblivion and Skyrim, and have been playing Lord of the Rings Online, for quite some time. As top of the line games, I would imagine they all feature higher than 24fps.

[Dave_LF]

It mostly depends on your machine and how you've configured your quality settings. Most people advise you to tune for 30fps, but I've always found that inadequate (at least for games where you have to do any aiming). It turns into a chicken and egg thing, though; maybe my preference for higher frame rates in games has trained me to like the same thing in movies, or maybe I just inherently prefer higher frame rates and that explains both things.

If you're curious, there's a little utility called fraps you can download that will display the framerate you're achieving in the corner of the screen.

[Passdagas the Brown]

It mostly depends on your machine and how you've configured your quality settings. Most people advise you to tune for 30fps, but I've always found that inadequate. It turns into a chicken and egg thing, though; maybe my preference for higher frame rates in games has trained me to like the same thing in movies, or maybe I just inherently prefer higher frame rates and that explains both things.

If you're curious, there's a little utility called fraps you can download that will display the framerate you're achieving in the corner of the screen.

Skyrim, on my ASUS laptop, is at 60fps.

[Dave_LF]

Then I have no idea.

I assume you do not perceive a fast forward effect in Skyrim?

[Passdagas the Brown]

I perceive something quite different than watching a film, but it's not a big problem in the context of game-playing. The motion does certainly seem a little faster than what one sees on film, but the most prominent difference is a certain 'jerkiness' about movement in newer games, that is very different than film (and less pleasing to my eye). I imagine that may have to do with HFR showing the "stutter" more clearly.

But games are vastly different things than films in terms of their look, and the psychology of playing vs. watching.

First, games are all virtual. I am watching virtual characters run around at HFR in a virtual environment, rather than actual human beings. Yes, animated films are also virtual, but I don't generally like how they look (particularly the very 3D computer-generated Pixar stuff)!

Second, games are not passive. I control the character and the camera, and I need to see where I am going so that I can kill stuff and pick up loot! My eye is engaged in a way that is very different, and far more neurologically intense, than when I watch a film. So perhaps I might see the benefit of HFR in that context.

Lastly, I don't want to see a game-ish looking picture when I watch a film! Nor do I want to see something like looks like video, or Monday Night Football, or the Ten O'Clock News. I want to see something subtler, less intense, a little more artistic, and easier on the eyes. And that's probably a part of why I prefer film to digital, and 24fps to 48fps. The texture suits my aesthetic sensibilities better.

Will the new generation toss this sensibility into the dustbin of history? Perhaps. But right now, there's little evidence to suggest that 48fps is the wave of the future.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I need to see where I am going so that I can kill stuff

"Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I Wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and Guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill, KILL, KILL."

AHem. Happy Thanksgiving!

[yovargas]

I watched that trailer. I am fascinated by this topic because all logic points to more frames meaning a better picture just like more pixels should mean a better picture. And for the life of me I can't figure out why it's not the case for me. I don't get that "too fast" effect some do. I thought that surely it must just be that it's not what we're used to. But it doesn't seem to matter how much I watch it, my mind keeps rejecting the image as just wrong somehow...everything looks cheaper or faker or something. And it happens no matter what's going on onscreen, even just simple near-motionless close-up shots of people's faces. I can't figure out what it is, really. It makes no sense at all to me. I just know that it's hugely distracting and makes it far, far more difficult to become immersed in the picture.

(And yes, Dave, I can instantly tell the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS in video games and 60 FPS is very clearly preferable there. Yes, that makes this even more baffling.)

[Passdagas the Brown]

The difference between games and movies is apples and oranges, IMO. In a game, you're not dealing with actors and sets shot with cameras. You're dealing with an entirely controlled virtual environment. Plus, you participate and make decisions in a game, and you don't participate and make decisions while watching a movie. This fires off all kinds of different neural processes, I would imagine...

What I still don't understand, however, is why additional frames, seemingly moreso than shooting in high resolution digital, makes a set look more like the fake set that it is (and the actors look like actors in makeup and silly costumes). But that absolutely happens. I feel like I can see behind the curtain, and that's a bad thing.

The on-location landscape shots, on the other hand, look absolutely gorgeous in HFR.

So what's going on? Why for many people does HFR expose movie fakery more than high res?

[axordil]

A recent discussion of British vs American video production on Facebook with some familiar names attached touched on this...and much of the issue seems to be one of visual acculturation.

[yovargas]

So are British viewers not reporting the difficulties us Americans are?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

A recent discussion of British vs American video production on Facebook with some familiar names attached touched on this...and much of the issue seems to be one of visual acculturation.

I wonder if you could elaborate on that, Ax, because I'm not sure I understand what you mean, particularly in light of my own experience. I certainly had no acculturation to high frame rates in any context, and I thought it looked fantastic. But then, my HFR experience was at a superb IMAX theater in New York City, and despite the skepticism that I expressed earlier when Dave raised the issue of different projection standards, I am inclined to believe that is a factor. I am also not someone who is a cinephile, and I don't see a lot of movies in the theaters, and so I am not as acculturated to standard 24 fps as some people are. On the other hand, I saw the film with my mom, and she is a cinephile, and goes to see several films every week, and yet she thought AUJ was the best looking film she had ever seen (again, in the superb IMAX theater).

[axordil]

V-man and yov--

Humans being, you know, human, there's never going to be 100% consistency on something as quirky as visual perception...but there's a clear trend for people brought up on BBC high-motion video drama (that being the classic touchstone) to see nothing wrong with it, and for Americans to think it looks flat and fake.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Ah, okay, that makes sense.

[Passdagas the Brown]

V-man and yov--

Humans being, you know, human, there's never going to be 100% consistency on something as quirky as visual perception...but there's a clear trend for people brought up on BBC high-motion video drama (that being the classic touchstone) to see nothing wrong with it, and for Americans to think it looks flat and fake.

That makes sense. Particularly since at one point, when Bilbo was shuffling about in Bag End in HFR, I had the distinct sense that I was watching a Dr. Who episode.

But in this context, my question is: why is it in the interest of filmmakers to make film look more like British TV?

[yovargas]

A more interesting question: how do British people react to American/24 FPS film? Do they see and care about the difference?

[Passdagas the Brown]

A more interesting question: how do British people react to American/24 FPS film? Do they see and care about the difference?

That is interesting, but I have never heard any complaint from Brits about 24fps, so it seems likely that it's a non-issue for them. Perhaps they are acculturated to seeing a film in a cinema in that format, while also just fine with a film in a cinema screened at 48fps, because it looks like what they see on TV all the time!

What do the Brits on this message board have to say, I wonder?

[axordil]

Let them wake up and we'll find out.

[Alatar]

I'm not a Brit, but we're used to both. I actually find it amusing that the America-centrics think "Oh, it looks fine to them and not to us, so obviously THEY'RE wrong!" Particularly since its quite clear that in every possible way that HFR is a superior format. Nowt queer as folk...