Gemini Man 4K UHD 60fps (2019)

[Tenny80]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Nah dog, he's specifically saying it's not semantics...



He thinks it's objectively not more "fake." He also implies it's all about what you're "used to." These are silly arguments. I literally just upgraded my PC and monitor for high framerate gaming and LOVE IT. It's totally transformational, and I dig every aspect of it. I went into Gemini Man hoping for a similar experience, and instead it was a completely different thing... much worse looking, much more fake.

You guys can disagree with that all day long, and I respect it, but don't trying telling me I'm objectively wrong for using the term fake, and don't tell me it's because I'm scared of change. Don't be the guys who think disagreement is solely about ignorance.

I think some people view it as being less fake, because well it is less fake. It's allowing you to pickup on things that are real. I believe you mentioned as a fight scene and a motorcycle chase as you found you could pickup on the bikes going at slow speeds, the choreographed moves, etc. This means that the picture you are seeing is actually more realistic, it is less fake.

You are viewing it as the movie itself seems fake because you can now see the choreographed moves, the bikes moving, slower, etc.

I think from a technical aspect, it is less fake. From a movie aspect it is more fake. I get what you are saying, to you the 60fps makes this movie look fake. It's just two different ways of looking at, but at the end movies are such a personal thing. This debate reminds me a bit of the audio world. I absolutely love the sound of Klipsch speakers, the Reference premier line in particular. A buddy of mine hates the sound of Klipsch speakers, he does not like the sound the horns produce. He prefers more of the classic sounding speakers like Totem. We each like what we like, nobody is right or wrong.

This will very much be a love it or hate it for most people. Myself I loved it, it looked amazing on my setup and I did not have the same experience you had with things appearing to be fake.

One positive is with the division of love it or hate it, it's very likely we may start seeing releases that come in 4k HFR discs and 4k 24fps discs, best of both worlds

[erixon20]

Originally Posted by Richard Graham

State of the art high tech involved, and the filmmakers still used the ol

[Show spoiler]you might be wearing a wire

to get

[Show spoiler]MEW in her underwear.

You make that sound like a bad thing...lol.

[Nothing371]

Originally Posted by pbz06

It's mind blowing that people like high frame rate in movies. That looks so cheesy and fake...

Is your mind blown that they are coming out with 360hz gaming monitors from three of the major brands this year? Yeah, that's right. Gamers are graduating from 144hz and 240hz refresh rates (that's 144+ frames) and going even faster. Because they like it.

Lots of us have been playing games (and watching movie sequences in them) at 60fps for quite some time.

[Nothing371]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

This is B.S., no offense. It definitely was more fake for me, and I'll tell ya why: movies are fake. They are people moving in choreographed ways, fight scenes acted out by people who can't fight, car chases done at 20mph, CGI tweaks and stunt replacements, etc. 60fps, for me, made this all much more obvious. 24fps is part of the magic of movie-making like editing is, it creates a disconnect that makes the very fake things happening feel more real and believable.

Two best examples in the first half are: 1) Mary Elizabeth Winstead fighting a big burly dude in a small space. In 60fps it looks much more like the heavily choreographed dance routine it is, the added motion clarity doing the deception no favors. And 2) the bike chase/fight scene. In 60fps it is much more obvious the bikes are moving slower, the man driving the bike is usually not Will Smith, and CGI has been used to connect different cuts and stunts together.

Even if you disagree with that though, it IS opinion. No more of this "herp derp it's objectively more real" nonsense please.

Counterpoint: I can't stand the all-too-common standard of making action movies these days which is just shake the camera a bunch and make everything look all blurry so that the viewer can't discern what is happening on-screen.

[bytor]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

He thinks it's objectively not more "fake." He also implies it's all about what you're "used to." These are silly arguments. I literally just upgraded my PC and monitor for high framerate gaming and LOVE IT. It's totally transformational, and I dig every aspect of it. I went into Gemini Man hoping for a similar experience, and instead it was a completely different thing... much worse looking, much more fake.

I do think us being used to movies at 24fps is a part of it. I'm not saying that's the only aspect, but it is part of it. And comparing it to video games isn't the same thing as your expectations of frame rates are different when playing a game.

I remember reading when The Hobbit movies were released in 48fps that the people watching the DCP dozens of times to make sure everything was in order were at first put off by the high frame rate. But after watching it dozens of times they eventually got used to it and preferred it. I'm not necessarily for or against HFR in movies I just think there's a conditioned psychological aspect.

[levcore]

If you don't like HFR don't watch this movie in 4K, easy. Just watch the Blu, or even better the 3D Blu.

[kannibaliztik]

Originally Posted by levcore

If you don't like HFR don't watch this movie in 4K, easy. Just watch the Blu, or even better the 3D Blu.

or just watch the streaming version at 24fps

[levcore]

Originally Posted by kannibaliztik

or just watch the streaming version at 24fps

Wash your mouth out!!

[jFug]

Originally Posted by kannibaliztik

or just watch the streaming version at 24fps

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Nah dog, he's specifically saying it's not semantics...

He thinks it's objectively not more "fake." He also implies it's all about what you're "used to." These are silly arguments. I literally just upgraded my PC and monitor for high framerate gaming and LOVE IT. It's totally transformational, and I dig every aspect of it. I went into Gemini Man hoping for a similar experience, and instead it was a completely different thing... much worse looking, much more fake.

You guys can disagree with that all day long, and I respect it, but don't trying telling me I'm objectively wrong for using the term fake, and don't tell me it's because I'm scared of change. Don't be the guys who think disagreement is solely about ignorance.

I too love high frame rate video games, but they are a totally different experience than live action movies are. There's something about 24 fps that makes the movie feel more real to me, even though HFR would be more "real" in the sense that it is closer to reality.

For me, "real" means buying into the illusion that what I am seeing on screen is really happening. I am invested in the story and characters. I haven't seen Gemini Man yet (I would like to) but what I have seen with HFR to date just takes me out of the story. Even my own home video recordings that I typically do at 4K/24fps are much preferred to the few test videos I have done at 60fps. There is less blur, but to me it just looks strange.

Christopher Nolan did some tests on HFR with film and didn't like it. He said it felt more like video and didn't have the same feeling of immersion that 24fps did. I haven't been able to find the link yet, but when I do I'll add it here.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Tenny80

I think some people view it as being less fake, because well it is less fake. It's allowing you to pickup on things that are real. I believe you mentioned as a fight scene and a motorcycle chase as you found you could pickup on the bikes going at slow speeds, the choreographed moves, etc. This means that the picture you are seeing is actually more realistic, it is less fake.

It looks more fake when you watch it, in my opinion, and opinion is the whole point. It's a retort to someone trying to say it's objectively less fake and insisting it's not subjective or semantics. That's silly.

Originally Posted by bytor

I do think us being used to movies at 24fps is a part of it. I'm not saying that's the only aspect, but it is part of it. And comparing it to video games isn't the same thing as your expectations of frame rates are different when playing a game.

Dude, it being "different from video games" is the entire point of that paragraph. The fact it is different shows there is something about movies that makes a difference in execution, and thus it's not all about "what we're used to." If what we were used to is the issue, then 144fps games would "feel weird" after literally decades of 60fps.

Originally Posted by singhcr

I too love high frame rate video games, but they are a totally different experience than live action movies are. There's something about 24 fps that makes the movie feel more real to me, even though HFR would be more "real" in the sense that it is closer to reality.

Maybe I'm not explaining myself well because this is another post presented as a counterpoint that actually is exactly the same thing I'm saying. You can't say "60fps is objectively less fake whether you like it or not" when 60fps in fact looks more fake to a lot of people.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

It looks more fake when you watch it, in my opinion, and opinion is the whole point. It's a retort to someone trying to say it's objectively less fake and insisting it's not subjective or semantics. That's silly.

That aspect is not subjective; it's a literal matter of fact. The reason it looks more "fake" to you is your familiarity with the visual vocabulary of 24fps. Obviously, in your opinion, something can feel more "fake"; that doesn't mean that it actually is.

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

You can't say "60fps is objectively less fake whether you like it or not" when 60fps in fact looks more fake to a lot of people.

Looking "more fake" =/= being "more fake".

I'm sorry that you get scared when you fly, but airplane travel is still objectively safer than automobile travel.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

That aspect is not subjective; it's a literal matter of fact. The reason it looks more "fake" to you is your familiarity with the visual vocabulary of 24fps.

Nope, it's because the added information makes how fake the movie actually is more obvious. It can't be "a matter of fact" that the added information is inherently more real, if in fact it looks more fake to many people.

You can disagree with that statement as much as you want of course, just like I can disagree with yours about my "familiarity" being the issue (massive eye-roll). The end point I'm actually insisting on here: it's not objective. You are not a factual authority correcting the ignorant. Stooooop.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Maybe I'm not explaining myself well because this is another post presented as a counterpoint that actually is exactly the same thing I'm saying. You can't say "60fps is objectively less fake whether you like it or not" when 60fps in fact looks more fake to a lot of people.

You were explaining yourself well, I wasn't trying to counter your point at all. I was agreeing with you.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Nope, it's because the added information makes how fake the movie actually is more obvious. It can't be "a matter of fact" that the added information is inherently more real, if in fact it looks more fake to many people.

We're talking about two different things here:

1. 60fps (or 120fps) is objectively closer to the way the eye sees (infinite fps / synaptic perception) than 24fps is.

2. This enhanced realism reminds you that you are watching the unreal. It's like the "uncanny valley" effect- an image is closer enough to reality to be more disconcerting than a more abstract "cartoon" image would be.

In both cases (HFR and uncanny valley), you are coming from a perspective of being used to seeing two different things:

real reality (when you're not watching a movie)

and

media that's removed from reality (when you are watching a movie)

and, in both cases, this new experience is falling somewhere in between the two.

When you watch a cartoon character, your brain isn't trying to compare it with reality- it puts it in the "cartoon" category.

When you watch a 24fps movie, your brain isn't trying to compare it with reality- it puts it in the "movie" category.

When your brain encounters an "uncanny valley" character or an HFR movie, it compares them to reality BECAUSE THEY ARE CLOSER TO IT. This means that you are more aware that they are unreal but, by the very same token, it also means that they are more real.

HFR is closer to reality than removed media typically is, so your brain is more conscious of the remove. Your brain is used to 0 (movies) and 2 (reality) and doesn't know what to make of 1 (HFR).

However, 1 is still closer to 2 than 0 is. It is objectively "more real", even if you are more conscious of its artifice while watching it.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

However, 1 is still closer to 2 than 0 is. It is objectively "more real", even if you are more conscious of its artifice while watching it.

No, it's not. I guess you're never giving up this quest so I'll make this my last reply, but seriously dude... it's not.

First off, a movie is not comparable to normal eyesight like you are portraying it as. Neither 24 or 60 still images flashed per second onto a pixel screen is comparable to how your eyes actually see the world. Also editing cuts, CG enhancements, tricks of the camera and people doing things they're not actually doing... none of these are things your actual eyesight has to deal with and adjust to. It's not a good comparison, like you want it to be, at all.

All 60fps is doing is giving you more data, more sensory input, but that's no more "like real eyesight" than a 3 minute long cut is compared to a 1 minute long one. "A 3 minute long cut is inherently more realistic because your eyes never cut, so Terrence Malick movies are inherently more realistic!" Nope, they're both stylized and unrealistic presentations completely devoid from normal eyesight experience, only one is giving you more of its fake input. Having more input of the fake and constructed doesn't magically make it look like real eyesight. There's no scientist saying "it came up with a 7 on the real scale while 24fps is only a 4!" It doesn't exist, it's not a thing.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

First off, a movie is not comparable to normal eyesight like you are portraying it as.

I didn't compare movies to normal eyesight; I compared 24fps movies to HFR movies, relative to normal eyesight.

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Neither 24 or 60 still images flashed per second onto a pixel screen is comparable to how your eyes actually see the world. Also editing cuts, CG enhancements, tricks of the camera and people doing things they're not actually doing... none of these are things your actual eyesight has to deal with and adjust to. It's not a good comparison, like you want it to be, at all.

All of those other things being equal, however, we can look at the difference between 24fps and HFR, again, relative to normal eyesight.

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

All 60fps is doing is giving you more data, more sensory input, but that's no more "like real eyesight" than a 3 minute long cut is compared to a 1 minute long one.

Yes- it literally is. In "normal eyesight", your eye does not perceive distinctions between frames. Thus, the more distinctions between frames are minimized (by increasing the number of frames), the more like "normal eyesight" a movie is.

More data is literally higher fidelity.

[jFug]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

We're talking about two different things here:

1. 60fps (or 120fps) is objectively closer to the way the eye sees (infinite fps / synaptic perception) than 24fps is.

2. This enhanced realism reminds you that you are watching the unreal. It's like the "uncanny valley" effect- an image is closer enough to reality to be more disconcerting than a more abstract "cartoon" image would be.

In both cases (HFR and uncanny valley), you are coming from a perspective of being used to seeing two different things:

real reality (when you're not watching a movie)

and

media that's removed from reality (when you are watching a movie)

and, in both cases, this new experience is falling somewhere in between the two.

When you watch a cartoon character, your brain isn't trying to compare it with reality- it puts it in the "cartoon" category.

When you watch a 24fps movie, your brain isn't trying to compare it with reality- it puts it in the "movie" category.

When your brain encounters an "uncanny valley" character or an HFR movie, it compares them to reality BECAUSE THEY ARE CLOSER TO IT. This means that you are more aware that they are unreal but, by the very same token, it also means that they are more real.

HFR is closer to reality than removed media typically is, so your brain is more conscious of the remove. Your brain is used to 0 (movies) and 2 (reality) and doesn't know what to make of 1 (HFR).

However, 1 is still closer to 2 than 0 is. It is objectively "more real", even if you are more conscious of its artifice while watching it.

You knocked it out of the park with that explanation.

A+

[PrestigeWorldwide]

I watched about the first 45 minutes at 4K60 and really didn't like it. Looks like the motion flow setting was on and I can't stand that. I also felt nauseous and had a headache after a while when it was at 60 fps. When I switched to the blu-ray, it all went away. The nausea and headache is probably the result of mental fatigue. I've been working a lot of hours, and I think the 60 fps just made it worse.

[DJR662]

Somehow this whole HFR thing kind of reminds me of The Last Jedi for two reasons:

1. It's causing quite a division between people
2. Those in the "pro camp" do their utter best trying to convince the other side that they're wrong