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

[RockyIII]

Geoff digs HFR? Wow that is a shocker from such a conservative AV enthusiast

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by LoSouL

I'm totally mesmerized by how this film looks. The production value, direction, lighting, performance and look of people is still so high end inside the "too real" framerate shell. Very unique and very cool imo.

Only took so long to buy it because I wasn't sure if I would like the movie itself... verdict's still out on that since I'm still watching it, but really wanted to remark on the look.

I really wish I could have seen Hobbit at 48 fps, just to have had the experience.

Tom Cruise would disagree with you:

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46449906

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

Tom Cruise would disagree with you:

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46449906

Come now, Rocky. You must shirley be aware that they're talking about artificially added motion interpolation, not something being shot HFR at source...

Originally Posted by RockyIII

Geoff digs HFR? Wow that is a shocker from such a conservative AV enthusiast

Come now, Rocky. I've said that I love how this disc looks several times in this thread, and others for that matter. I'm quite sure you've seen those before...

[Brahmzy]

I dig HFR too, real HFR. We need more UHD HFR HDR WTF content!

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Come now, Rocky. You must shirley be aware that they're talking about artificially added motion interpolation, not something being shot HFR at source...

If they don't like the effect of motion interpolation, it is not a stretch to imagine that they would disapprove of HFR based on the fact that they just don't like that look for film-making

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Come now, Rocky. I've said that I love how this disc looks several times in this thread, and others for that matter. I'm quite sure you've seen those before...

To be quite honest, this is the first time I noticed your comments regarding this movie, positive or negative

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Brahmzy

I dig HFR too, real HFR. We need more UHD HFR HDR WTF content!

We're gonna need it when it comes to 8K HDR.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

If they don't like the effect of motion interpolation, it is not a stretch to imagine that they would disapprove of HFR based on the fact that they just don't like that look for film-making

Which is fine but that's a question of aesthetics and is not what's being talked about here. The PSA is about TVs adding in motion interpolation and how it can destroy the filmmaker's intent, and as far as intent is concerned then neither Cruise nor McQ will argue with Ang Lee or Peter Jackson or James Cameron in wanting to present their HFR work in its intended form.

To be quite honest, this is the first time I noticed your comments regarding this movie, positive or negative

Hmmmmm.

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Which is fine but that's a question of aesthetics and is not what's being talked about here. The PSA is about TVs adding in motion interpolation and how it can destroy the filmmaker's intent, and as far as intent is concerned then neither Cruise nor McQ will argue with Ang Lee or Peter Jackson or James Cameron in wanting to present their HFR work in its intended form.

"It takes the cinematic look out of any image and makes it look like soap opera shot on a cheap video camera”

The statement above clearly suggests that it is not just artificial motion interpolation they have issue with, but anything above 24fps applied to film. Basically what they are saying is that HFR cannot be cinematic.

[levcore]

Why are you even arguing this Rocky, they specifically were talking about the feature on TV's.

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by levcore

Why are you even arguing this Rocky, they specifically were talking about the feature on TV's.

Yes they were, but their argument clearly shows a disdain for HFR used in movies. I bet they felt that the Hobbit and Billy Lynn in HFR did not look good at all

[levcore]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

Yes they were, but their argument clearly shows a disdain for HFR used in movies. I bet they felt that the Hobbit and Billy Lynn in HFR did not look good at all

That's quite possible but is entirely guess work and assumption. Their video only addressed TV settings.

[imsounoriginal]

It's not really a stretch to assume that TC and McQ don't care for HFR; they're film enthusiasts and tend to prefer shooting that way (though McQ himself says in the Fallout bonuses that he's not an "absolutist"). But I make that assumption based on both those guys' bodies of work, not on anything in that PSA. They're clearly just talking about filmmaker intent and how these TV manufacturers are screwing consumers out of experiencing it.

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by levcore

That's quite possible but is entirely guess work and assumption. Their video only addressed TV settings.

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

It's not really a stretch to assume that TC and McQ don't care for HFR; they're film enthusiasts and tend to prefer shooting that way (though McQ himself says in the Fallout bonuses that he's not an "absolutist"). But I make that assumption based on both those guys' bodies of work, not on anything in that PSA. They're clearly just talking about filmmaker intent and how these TV manufacturers are screwing consumers out of experiencing it.

I think that 'some' motion interpolation can help with judder/strobing for those of us who are very sensitive to it

[DJR662]

Motion interpolation or HFR, it's both the devil's work.

Be gone!!

[levcore]

I think all of it looks like ass

[DJR662]

Originally Posted by levcore

I think all of it looks like ass

Absolutely! 24p is the only way to go for motion pictures.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

I think that 'some' motion interpolation can help with judder/strobing for those of us who are very sensitive to it

I agree, I keep it at 1 or 2 just to help smooth out pans. But anything more than that and it becomes too obvious, which I can't stand.

Weird, because I really liked HFR, especially when paired with 3D. Feel like I say this all the time, but after seeing Hobbit 3 in HFR 3D, I really think ALL 3D should be HFR. The improvement in clarity and fluidity is that drastic.

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

I agree, I keep it at 1 or 2 just to help smooth out pans. But anything more than that and it becomes too obvious, which I can't stand.

Weird, because I really liked HFR, especially when paired with 3D. Feel like I say this all the time, but after seeing Hobbit 3 in HFR 3D, I really think ALL 3D should be HFR. The improvement in clarity and fluidity is that drastic.

You are in a minority. Most people who despise motion interpolation also did not like The Hobbit in 48fps and Billy Lynn in 120fps.
On my Oled TV, panning shots are particularly dreadful with motion interpolation completely off so I use motion interpolation up to 4 max. It is not ideal and that is why I hope that more directors will embrace HFR

[DJR662]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

I agree, I keep it at 1 or 2 just to help smooth out pans. But anything more than that and it becomes too obvious, which I can't stand.

Weird, because I really liked HFR, especially when paired with 3D. Feel like I say this all the time, but after seeing Hobbit 3 in HFR 3D, I really think ALL 3D should be HFR. The improvement in clarity and fluidity is that drastic.

For the love of God, please no.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by levcore

I think all of it looks like ass

What do you do about the whole "real world" thing?