Gemini Man 4K UHD 60fps (2019)

[kannibaliztik]

Originally Posted by BrownianMotion

I'm not watching 20 minutes of some obese neckbeard, but skipping to the end to see his conclusion, and unsurprisingly, his argument is that "almost every movie ever is 24fps" - which is entirely equivalent to, "that is what I am used to."

There is still not a single other argument put forth by the anti-HFR crowd other than, "I'm not used to it."

The frame rate is something that should be at the discretion of the director. I'm fine with whatever he chooses. But the anti-HFR crowd hates creative intent, evidently.

Lol ok. Once again, nothing to 'get used to' it isnt going to be the norm.

[Resettito]

Originally Posted by MountainMan23

[/SPOILER]

Some people could very well have different perspectives on how slow and how fast things move. I wonder if there's a study on this.

It's a reality for sure. Ie "I thought this was a week ago, oh no, only happened two days ago", that sort of thing.

[Resettito]

I'm having an issue with the way some folks here are shrugging off the concerns and criticisms of HFR in general and on this film. I'm one of the few HFR defenders in that I dig the experience as a side thing on The Hobbit trilogy, Billy Lynn, Gemini Man (less so) but I would never, ever choose HFR over 24, not to mention I'm a celluloid nut (not digital, celluloid). It is interesting, startling on action scenes, but doesn't work well elsewhere.

There is a huge part of folks being used to 24, the look of "film" and associating that with what they love, that separation, that barrier "this is a film, not real life" but at the end of the day, HFR is so strange and alien that it will never be a case of folks getting used to it or "getting over their bias" or whatever. I did get used to it personally but it's a format that invokes such a "violent" reaction in a way in the viewer that you're usually not getting them back once they've experienced it.

I admire Ang, he's a master filmmaker (surprised that folks aren't even mentioning The Ice Storm here which is a masterpiece, Lust Caution, his very early work is also excellent: The Wedding Banquet, Pushing Hands, Eat Drink Man Woman), I can see what he sees in the format, its merits but cannot understand his fascination with the beauty he says he sees in the image itself, the clarity, the faces.

I just hope he comes back to film at some point and loses the digital bug but he wants to see this through and keep experimenting, getting better at it but no one else will follow I feel. Cameron might be mixing framerates within the Avatar sequels but they're not shot in HFR and won't be presented this way. It'll remain a niche thing.

[LoSouL]

Originally Posted by kannibaliztik

Here, this says it better than I can.

[Show spoiler]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM16...ature=youtu.be

I've watched this before. It's an informative video but all he does is explain why 24 fps is minimum viability for the illusion of motion and the most cost effective choice.

He doesn't actually make a case for it being a creative or aesthetic ideal, aside from familiarity and nebulous qualities like dreaminess and magic.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

What about incorporating both 60fps and 24fps within the same movie depending on the type of scene and atmosphere of each individual sequence? ��

That’s what Jimbo was thinking for Avatar sequels. But ultimately, I think it’s a bad idea. Movies and music are art and there are certain thresholds one shouldn’t cross. Too much resolution is bad, to high a frame rate is bad, etc. That’s why vinyl made such a huge comeback. That’s why people put VHS tape filters on YouTube videos and TV shows. Let’s not forget all of these LUTS which make digital look more like film. And filters to make pictures look black and white or like a Polaroid. It’s all about the aesthetic and modern aesthetic is hideous.

[BrownianMotion]

Originally Posted by Resettito

I would never, ever choose HFR over 24

It's not up to you or anyone other than the filmmaker to decide.

It's very interesting to see how many "film enthusiasts" on this forum hate creative intent.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by BrownianMotion

It's not up to you or anyone other than the filmmaker to decide.

It's very interesting to see how many "film enthusiasts" on this forum hate creative intent.

There’s nothing creative. The movie bombed. People have spoken and chosen.

[BrownianMotion]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

There’s nothing creative. The movie bombed. People have spoken and chosen.

Yes, the movie itself was terrible. Thanks for the entirely unrelated post.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Resettito

I'm having an issue with the way some folks here are shrugging off the concerns and criticisms of HFR in general and on this film. I'm one of the few HFR defenders in that I dig the experience as a side thing on The Hobbit trilogy, Billy Lynn, Gemini Man (less so) but I would never, ever choose HFR over 24, not to mention I'm a celluloid nut (not digital, celluloid). It is interesting, startling on action scenes, but doesn't work well elsewhere.

There is a huge part of folks being used to 24, the look of "film" and associating that with what they love, that separation, that barrier "this is a film, not real life" but at the end of the day, HFR is so strange and alien that it will never be a case of folks getting used to it or "getting over their bias" or whatever. I did get used to it personally but it's a format that invokes such a "violent" reaction in a way in the viewer that you're usually not getting them back once they've experienced it.

I admire Ang, he's a master filmmaker (surprised that folks aren't even mentioning The Ice Storm here which is a masterpiece, Lust Caution, his very early work is also excellent: The Wedding Banquet, Pushing Hands, Eat Drink Man Woman), I can see what he sees in the format, its merits but cannot understand his fascination with the beauty he says he sees in the image itself, the clarity, the faces.

I just hope he comes back to film at some point and loses the digital bug but he wants to see this through and keep experimenting, getting better at it but no one else will follow I feel. Cameron might be mixing framerates within the Avatar sequels but they're not shot in HFR and won't be presented this way. It'll remain a niche thing.

I'm a fan of HFR, not gonna lie. But it's a different kind of visual language vis the sheer amount of temporal information that's on show, and that YT video upthread was - for once - a rather well-reasoned and balanced look at where he feels that HFR works and where it doesn't work. His comments about the HFR making the artifice of filmmaking much less opaque are a familiar refrain but no less relevant. There will always be resistance to HFR but it needs a new approach to the visual lexicon, i.e. they can't just stage everything like they would at 24fps and expect it to have the same impact.

Screw it, I'm gonna watch Billy Lynn's again tonight.

[Noremac Mij]

I don’t think there is a way to stage something properly in order for HFR to look good. Would love to be proven wrong.

[Minimejer05]

Just spun up my disc and my goodness I’m in love with the HFR. Saw this in theaters (2K, 3D, 60fps) and thought it was fine, image felt very washed out and lacked a 3D punch. Movie itself was mid-level Will Smith at best. But man the 60fps is really working with the 4K and Dolby Vision. Colors are popping and everything looks and feels so life-like. Haven’t made it to an extensive action sequence yet, so we’ll see how the 60fps holds up in 20 mins.

[jwk94]

Just got my copy in. Is the digital code on a disc or should there be a slip or paper?

[Kubrick0730]

Originally Posted by jwk94

Just got my copy in. Is the digital code on a disc or should there be a slip or paper?

Slip of paper.

[lgans316]

I don't mind HFR but I do hate forced SOE on regular contents.I did watch few clips and didnt notice anything ugly. Its all about how we perceive telecinic judder and HFR.

[jwk94]

Originally Posted by Kubrick0730

Slip of paper.

Thanks!

[kurtis21]

Like I said a few pages back...watching that YouTube clip...it almost looks "too real" for lack of a better term. But I'm always up for new techniques/ technologies! So I'm looking forward to giving this a spin tomorrow and checking it out!

[iaragorn1]

I have said before that it is going to take time and a lot more movies to see HFR accepted.

I think something like a horror movie or a science fiction film Might be the thing that can break this format to an audience. Imagine the Alien bursting out at you 120 fps. That type of thing. The squeamish will run for the hills, while I wait in line......

[jblank]

Now THIS is what all UHD titles should look like. Pristine image, incredible depth, smooth as silk, never ending detail. I am blown away and this is easily the best looking title I have viewed on the format.

It looks like real life

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by jblank

Now THIS is what all UHD titles should look like. Pristine image, incredible depth, smooth as silk, never ending detail. I am blown away and this is easily the best looking title I have viewed on the format.

It looks like real life

No, they shouldn't. They should look like how the content is supposed to look, so if that means crumby old 35mm running at 24fps with lots of nasty grain stuff and letterbox borders then that's fine by me, just as Gemini Man is supposed to look very 'digital' e.g. clean and sharp with endless depth of field and silky smooth 60fps motion.

[bradnoyes]

Originally Posted by iaragorn1

I have said before that it is going to take time and a lot more movies to see HFR accepted.

I think something like a horror movie or a science fiction film Might be the thing that can break this format to an audience. Imagine the Alien bursting out at you 120 fps. That type of thing. The squeamish will run for the hills, while I wait in line......

You might be right, but I also think something like that might just look silly and utterly unconvincing in HFR. One of the big problems I have with HFR is that it's like I can see the thought process and technique of the actors, set designers, effects people, etc. Everything looks more like footage taken from a behind-the-scenes documentary and not the movie itself. I think a horror movie might be the absolute worst because instead of seeing a scared character I'd just see an actor pretending to be scared. That sense that the actor is someone other than themselves is utterly lost in HFR for me.

That's the thing that people don't seem to get when they say those of us who don't like it just aren't used to it. I can't get just get used to being able to see through the veil once my suspension of disbelief has been thoroughly obliterated. When I'm watching something in HFR I'm no longer seeing a movie; I'm just watching people play make believe and it's not at all difficult to imagine all of the cast and crew busy doing their jobs just off screen.