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

[shield80]

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

It's called movie reality baby

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by shield80

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

Why are you even posting here if you are so against HFR in movie making?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

[shield80]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

Why are you even posting here if you are so against HFR in movie making?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

LOL, why are you?so you can post about HFR but I can't post that I'm against it.or is it because it was the best comment you had at the moment?

[shield80]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

Why are you even posting here if you are so against HFR in movie making?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

And go and say that to the rest of them here in billy Lynn why they comment when they don't like HFR.

[shield80]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

Why are you even posting here if you are so against HFR in movie making?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

Why do you post in grain forum when you don't like it, just wow dude.

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by shield80

LOL, why are you?so you can post about HFR but I can't post that I'm against it.or is it because it was the best comment you had at the moment?

Because this thread is about a movie in hfr. We already know you don't like it. Move on and let HFR fans discuss the topic and keep each other up to date

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

[shield80]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

Because this thread is about a movie in hfr. We already know you don't like it. Move on and let HFR fans discuss the topic and keep each other up to date

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

So only fans are allowed, ok all they that are not fans move on, go out of this thread

If you read closely it is for the movie and not HFR fans, but I guess you didn't know do that, yes the movie was shot in HFR but we don't have HFR tv to show it on, so it was shown at 60fps.

[shield80]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

Because this thread is about a movie in hfr. We already know you don't like it. Move on and let HFR fans discuss the topic and keep each other up to date

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

We already know you do move on dude

[Brahmzy]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

HFR will never go mainstream...

LOL! Wow. So short sided with blinders on.
Let me guess, you were one of the ones saying 480 was good enough, then 1080 was good enough and we’d never see/need higher etc. I know your type.

24FPS came about due to a technical limitation compromise.
It wasn’t some magical artistic number that a bunch of filmic geniuses came up with. It was an agreed upon compromise that we’ve been cursed with ever since.

[shield80]

Originally Posted by Brahmzy

LOL! Wow. So short sided with blinders on.
Let me guess, yo7 were one of the ones saying 480 was good enough, then 1080 was good enough etc. I know your type.

24FPS came about due to a technical limitation compromise.
It wasn’t some magical artistic number that a bunch of filmic geniuses came up with. It was an agreed upon compromise that we’ve been cursed with ever since.

It will go that way 48fps did,people just don't like it or Hollywood will either need to invest in better special effects

this will tell you why we hate it.

From Why Frame Rates Matter

At 48 Hz, you're going to pull out more details at 48 Hz from the scene than at 24Hz, both in terms of motion and spatial detail. It's going to be more than 2x the information than you'd expect just from doubling the spatial frequency, because you're also going to get motion-information integrated into the signal alongside the spatial information. This is why for whip-pans and scenes with lots of motion, you're going to get much better results with an audience at faster frame rates.

Unfortunately, you're also going to get the audience extracting much more detail out of that scene than at 24 Hz. Which unfortunately makes it all look fake (because they can see that, well, the set is a set), and it'll look video-y instead of dreamy – because of the extra motion extraction which can be done when your signal changes at 40H z and above

In short, higher frame rates look more real, but it makes things that are not real look less real.

[Brahmzy]

Originally Posted by shield80

It will go that way 48fps did,people just don't like it or Hollywood will either need to invest in better special effects

this will tell you why we hate it.

From Why Frame Rates Matter

At 48 Hz, you're going to pull out more details at 48 Hz from the scene than at 24Hz, both in terms of motion and spatial detail. It's going to be more than 2x the information than you'd expect just from doubling the spatial frequency, because you're also going to get motion-information integrated into the signal alongside the spatial information. This is why for whip-pans and scenes with lots of motion, you're going to get much better results with an audience at faster frame rates.

Unfortunately, you're also going to get the audience extracting much more detail out of that scene than at 24 Hz. Which unfortunately makes it all look fake (because they can see that, well, the set is a set), and it'll look video-y instead of dreamy – because of the extra motion extraction which can be done when your signal changes at 40H z and above

In short, higher frame rates look more real, but it makes things that are not real look less real.

Dude - I've read it all - like 10-15 years ago. I was having this same conversion back in the days of DVD. Again, I've heard it all and I still say HFR will be mainstream in a short time. UHD already has it in it's specs - that should tell you something - that the industry is starting the process and opening up the capability for it. It will require the capacity, bandwidth and compression and economic roadblocks to get figured out first. Once they do, it'll be here in force. By that time, they will also have figured out the other things concerning sets / details etc.

To bury your head in the sand yet again is silly.

3D has been a fad that's always been tied to poor technologies. That's why it comes and goes - mainly because it sucks. Some day, it won't suck, and will be here to stay, for good.. HFR is the same.

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by shield80

So only fans are allowed, ok all they that are not fans move on, go out of this thread

If you read closely it is for the movie and not HFR fans, but I guess you didn't know do that, yes the movie was shot in HFR but we don't have HFR tv to show it on, so it was shown at 60fps.

And you don't even like the movie, so move on

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by Brahmzy

Dude - I've read it all - like 10-15 years ago. I was having this same conversion back in the days of DVD. Again, I've heard it all and I still say HFR will be mainstream in a short time. UHD already has it in it's specs - that should tell you something - that the industry is starting the process and opening up the capability for it. It will require the capacity, bandwidth and compression and economic roadblocks to get figured out first. Once they do, it'll be here in force. By that time, they will also have figured out the other things concerning sets / details etc.

To bury your head in the sand yet again is silly.

3D has been a fad that's always been tied to poor technologies. That's why it comes and goes - mainly because it sucks. Some day, it won't suck, and will be here to stay, for good.. HFR is the same.

Thanks for chiming in. Great and valid points!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

[OI8T12]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

And you don't even like the movie, so move on

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

Now you know what it's like when you troll numerous other threads. Sound familiar?

[shield80]

Originally Posted by Brahmzy

Dude - I've read it all - like 10-15 years ago. I was having this same conversion back in the days of DVD. Again, I've heard it all and I still say HFR will be mainstream in a short time. UHD already has it in it's specs - that should tell you something - that the industry is starting the process and opening up the capability for it. It will require the capacity, bandwidth and compression and economic roadblocks to get figured out first. Once they do, it'll be here in force. By that time, they will also have figured out the other things concerning sets / details etc.

To bury your head in the sand yet again is silly.

3D has been a fad that's always been tied to poor technologies. That's why it comes and goes - mainly because it sucks. Some day, it won't suck, and will be here to stay, for good.. HFR is the same.

For 2D HFR don't have anything to do with movies, what it has for 3D I don't know and don't care about 3D anyway, so for 3D HFR HFR can stay

Yea that what you guys said about the hobbit in 48fps he he, still nothing is done, HFR as we saw on Billy Lynn and that was only 60fps I just imagine how it will look on real HFR, when you see extras having fake conversation and it looks like it was shoot on live stage,that's not a movie it's a documentary.

Well if HFR is the new standard Hollywood is shooting them selfs in the foot as it now, if people want cheap looks the movies and HFR is the new standard for filming movies, well they gonna lose a lot of movie buyers that's. for sure.

HFR is like SOE some like it and many don't like it all and has nothing to do with movies, it is that simple, what Hollywood is doing with HFR is to make money nothing else and throwing it out to yea I'm gonna said it out loud,idiots who don't know what a movie should look like.

If people like their cheap video look HFR them it should be something that can be enabled in the tv itself or on the disc itself, it should not be a new standard to shot movie on.

A movie should not look like bold and the beautiful where HFR will work.SOE

Idiots were harsh of me, i know we like different things.

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by OI8T12

Now you know what it's like when you troll numerous other threads. Sound familiar?

The difference is that Shield boy only does it to stirr up crap, not to point out serious flaws in a movie

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

[shield80]

Originally Posted by OI8T12

Now you know what it's like when you troll numerous other threads. Sound familiar?

He is slow at taking a hint, maybe now he knows

[NegaScott128]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

The difference is that Shield boy only does it to stirr up crap, not to point out serious flaws in a movie

Yeah, serious flaws like "It has grain."

[shield80]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

The difference is that Shield boy only does it to stirr up crap, not to point out serious flaws in a movie

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

Because you know me better than myself he he.I'm beeing you and you are, but it goes over your head yet again.

Yea you can point out flaws in a movie and grain or whatever, but when you go on and on and on about the same shit, it gets bored deluxe.

[shield80]

Originally Posted by NegaScott128

Yeah, serious flaws like "It has grain."

he he