Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk 4K UHD 60p/3D (2016)

[Laserdisk]

Originally Posted by legends of beyond

I feel like I'm the only one here not named RockyIII that likes HFR.



Screw this movie though.

As a tech it's fine, let's see someone do something worthwhile with it

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

If Avatar has HFR then people will change their minds. Don't doubt the power of The Cameron.

People tried watching 3d HDR with hobbit and it didn't take?
That was when 3D was still clinging on

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Laserdisk

People tried watching 3d HDR with hobbit and it didn't take?
That was when 3D was still clinging on

I honestly don't think people gave it a fair shot with The Hobbit. The tech was in good shape by the time #3 came out.

But Cameron's big thing is glasses-free 3D. Whether or not that can be done with HFR, I dunno.

[Laserdisk]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

I honestly don't think people gave it a fair shot with The Hobbit. The tech was in good shape by the time #3 came out.

But Cameron's big thing is glasses-free 3D. Whether or not that can be done with HFR, I dunno.

It can be in theory, but I don't see cinemas worldwide paying out for that upgrade

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

I honestly don't think people gave it a fair shot with The Hobbit. The tech was in good shape by the time #3 came out.

But Cameron's big thing is glasses-free 3D. Whether or not that can be done with HFR, I dunno.

The big stumbling block to glasses-free 3D is getting the actual autostereoscopic tech out there in large-screen commercial & consumer environments, the frame rate will be a secondary issue. As Lasermike said, it's more about getting cinemas to install this theoretical tech at x price which just isn't gonna happen on a wide scale IMO. This is why Cameron himself said that autostereo was primarily going to be a home thing, not a cinema thing.

[irascian]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

I honestly don't think people gave it a fair shot with The Hobbit. The tech was in good shape by the time #3 came out.

I saw the second one in high frame rate 3D at my local IMAX, convinced that at 48fps it was going to look amazing, and that critics who’d dismissed it as looking like bad daytime soap must be clueless idiots who just had it in for Peter Jackson.

Alas, they were right on the button. It was just awful and a horrible distraction throughout the whole movie. I would never want to see a movie that way again. ‘Filmic’ it wasn’t, although why doubling the frame rate should make it look so awful instead of much better is something that still baffles me.

[imsounoriginal]

It's not just about shooting/presenting more frames, you have to design the whole production/costumes/makeup/etc. differently so that they're not super obvious under the increased clarity of HFR. Once filmmakers figure that out, I do honestly believe there'll be more of a market for HFR. In my own experience it took about 5-10 minutes for my eyes to adjust. (And this comes from someone who despises SOE.)

But I know I'm in a minority lol, and even within that minority I'm not exactly leading the parade.

[Brahmzy]

It will happen. We may see 8K and other tech before it happens, but it will. I’m all for it.
I’m about realism and so is the industry And reality is anywhere from 90-160FPS. 60 would be plenty sufficient. Shoot, 30FPS would be a massive jump.
I hate SOE because it is not real. It’s algorithms and best guesses.
Resistance is futile.
I cannot imagine the physical media for 4320p@60. Or the HDMI bandwidth..

[LordoftheRings]

High frame rate is what kills motion blur. I hate motion blur, with a deep passion. I can't stand it, it makes me vomit, just like shaky camera technique used by the low blow filmmakers.

[Brahmzy]

^^ That too. It ain’t natural. There is nothing natural or realistic about a 24FPS slideshow.
As another has alluded to, the industry just doesn’t know how to prep or shoot HFR effectively yet. There will be much dreamy nostalgia about the good old days of 24FPS, but I think the future is bright in this regard and I’m looking forward to the change.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Brahmzy

It will happen. We may see 8K and other tech before it happens, but it will. I’m all for it.
I’m about realism and so is the industry And reality is anywhere from 90-160FPS. 60 would be plenty sufficient. Shoot, 30FPS would be a massive jump.
I hate SOE because it is not real. It’s algorithms and best guesses.
Resistance is futile.
I cannot imagine the physical media for 4320p@60. Or the HDMI bandwidth..

HFR will never go mainstream, nor should it. But for certain movies, especially event/spectacle-type stuff, I could see it working (especially since all those movies get 3D releases anyway, and 3D with HFR is glorious). Billy Lynn was always a weird choice for HFR, the UHD looks great but only the combat scenes really benefit from the HFR's in-your-face immediacy.

[Laserdisk]

Originally Posted by Brahmzy

^^ That too. It ain’t natural. There is nothing natural or realistic about a 24FPS slideshow.
As another has alluded to, the industry just doesn’t know how to prep or shoot HFR effectively yet. There will be much dreamy nostalgia about the good old days of 24FPS, but I think the future is bright in this regard and I’m looking forward to the change.

It's not real life it's a movie...

[LordoftheRings]

● https://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

■ https://gizmodo.com/why-frame-rate-matters-1675153198

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by Laserdisk

It's not real life it's a movie...

Then why we brag when CG and special effects look so real in such and such movie? Why do we wow at particular shots because skin tones look so REAL?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

[Lt_Cobretti]

There's 'real' and then there's 'movie real'. It's sort of an unspoken, subconscious thing and it may seem like splitting hairs, but it's a thing.

I wouldn't expect you to understand it, since you seem to interpret the world completely different to most of us here so like, live and let live and all that shit.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

Then why we brag when CG and special effects look so real in such and such movie? Why do we wow at particular shots because skin tones look so REAL?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

Because it doesn't have to be a binary answer, one that's simply right or wrong with no grey area whatsoever. People can admire the "realism" of one aspect of a film's look e.g. lighting whilst simultaneously revelling in the things which make it "unreal" to others e.g. grain, 24fps capture etc.

At the end of the day it's never EVER been lost on me that my favourite art form - the moving image - is basically a bunch of people tarting about playing make-believe on a soundstage, so "realism" is a very subjective term in this instance and I like all of the textures and palettes which are available for artists to tell their stories. But as that veil of perceived "unreality" is whittled down we have to be careful that the artistry of movie-making isn't sacrificed in the process, as even James Cameron said that he didn't like the look of the Hobbitses in HFR because it made everything look too clinical and fake. (His own take on HFR will likely be a variable frame rate approach, deploying it on certain shots and scenes for which 24fps would judder or strobe too much. Look at that...a middle ground. )

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by Lt_Cobretti

There's 'real' and then there's 'movie real'. It's sort of an unspoken, subconscious thing and it may seem like splitting hairs, but it's a thing.

I wouldn't expect you to understand it, since you seem to interpret the world completely different to most of us here so like, live and let live and all that shit.

Unspoken, unconscious thing? Nuff said!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

[shield80]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

Unspoken, unconscious thing? Nuff said!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

Why don't t just set your tru motion on all your movies and be done with.24 will always be here to stat and some films Will be filmed in hfr.mayby when they find out how to use it right, till then Rocky don't watch movies with 24 fps if you do then use tru motion and it Will almost look like HFR and be done with it.

Sent fra min Lenovo TAB 2 A10-70F via Tapatalk

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by shield80

Why don't t just set your tru motion on all your movies and be done with.24 will always be here to stat and some films Will be filmed in hfr.mayby when they find out how to use it right, till then Rocky don't watch movies with 24 fps if you do then use tru motion and it Will almost look like HFR and be done with it.

Sent fra min Lenovo TAB 2 A10-70F via Tapatalk

Trumotion and HFR are not even the same thing

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

[shield80]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

Trumotion and HFR are not even the same thing

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

you take everything so literal when people are saying things

Of course not, doh but I said it will almost look like it, never said it was HFR, but since you don't like 24fps then you need to use tru motion or just watch the 24 fps and just accept it, nothing more to do,tru motion closest thing you will come to HFR in this days

[shield80]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

Trumotion and HFR are not even the same thing

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

But we don't have anything in HFR yet so what do you know it would look like?or maybe you were at selected cinemas that showed Billy Lynn in HFR