Gemini Man 4K UHD 60fps (2019)

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by DJR662

Those in the "pro camp" do their utter best trying to convince the other side that they're wrong

I’m not trying to convince anyone they’re wrong for not liking it; only for calling it “more fake”.

[kannibaliztik]

Originally Posted by levcore

Wash your mouth out!!

lol sorry, I prefer the 24fps on streaming, looks way better than the discs HFR


* insert comment about how disc is always better, streaming is compressed.. etc *

[levcore]

Originally Posted by kannibaliztik

lol sorry, I prefer the 24fps on streaming, looks way better than the discs HFR


* insert comment about how disc is always better, streaming is compressed.. etc *

But disc is always better, streaming is compressed etc.

[kannibaliztik]

Originally Posted by levcore

But disc is always better, streaming is compressed etc.

in this instance, I disagree.

[levcore]

3D AND 4K for me, both formats are a must

[singhcr]

This is like the film vs digital debate.

There are some objective statements to be made like the ideal resolving power of 4-perf 35mm and why 15/70 is such a high fidelity format, but at the end of the day your preference is just that, a preference. I love the way film renders color and doesn't blow out highlights like digital often does. I love grain, especially in animation. But some people prefer the cleaner look of digital. Simple as that.

Same with HFR. It may be more detailed as it has less motion blur and in that sense is closer to reality, but I don't care because I don't like the look of it compared to 24fps. It is a preference, and a valid one because like movies in general our tastes are subjective.

[Tenny80]

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.

when you watch it, it looks more fake... but it IS fake. So technically speaking 60fps looks more realistic and LESS fake. 60fps looks more realistic/less fake because it is. 24fps looks less realistic/more fake because it is. Think of it this way, if you have a fake $5 bill and you look at it with the naked eye, maybe everything looks legit. But if you look at it under a different light it might become obvious. You wouldn't say the light makes the $5 bill fake, it's already fake.

those are facts, your opinion is not based on any sort of fact.

60fps as a technology makes things look more realistic is a true statement. 60fps is a technology. If you take something that's fake and then you remove information from it, insert blank frames, etc to give the illusion that it is realistic then you are making the image look less realistic thus more fake.

60fps removes the illusion of something being fake and provides a more realistic image. If what is filmed is fake it may very well make that more obvious. If what is filmed is authentic then it will not make it look fake. 60 fps or HFR does not make things look fake, your source is just already fake.

Film makers, actors, etc cannot hide behind 24 fps, skill and talent will become more evident.

[bradnoyes]

Originally Posted by Tenny80

when you watch it, it looks more fake... but it IS fake. So technically speaking 60fps looks more realistic and LESS fake. 60fps looks more realistic/less fake because it is. 24fps looks less realistic/more fake because it is.

those are facts, opinions are opinions and not based on any sort of fact.

60fps as a technology makes things look more realistic is a true statement. 60fps is a technology. If you take something that's fake and then you remove information from it, insert blank frames, etc to give the illusion that it is realistic then you are making the image look less realistic thus more fake.

60fps removes the illusion of something being fake and provides a more realistic image. If what is filmed is fake it may very well make that more obvious. If what is filmed is authentic then it will not make it look fake. 60 fps or HFR does not make things look fake, your source is just already fake.

Film makers, actors, etc cannot hide behind 24 fps, skill and talent will become more evident.

*enter Billy Madison meme here*

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

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

The issue is I reject your entire premise that "normal eyesight" is a thing you can compare with movie presentations to deem something more/less anything. Which would be fine, disagreement is a fact of life and I respect other opinions. The problem comes in when you try and present your stance as some kind of scientifically proven objective fact, when it's not. But you're obviously never changing your mind so...

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

The issue is I reject your entire premise that "normal eyesight" is a thing you can compare with movie presentations to deem something more/less anything.

You're free to reject it, but it's just numbers- they're pretty concrete.

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

The problem comes in when you try and present your stance as some kind of scientifically proven objective fact, when it's not.

I guess you might feel that way if your premise is established upon the rejection of basic science and math. I don't really have anywhere else to go from here, as I feel like you're telling me that 'up' is 'down'.

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

But you're obviously never changing your mind so...

I would love to be proven wrong and will happily change my mind the moment I see some compelling evidence.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I don't really have anywhere else to go from here, as I feel like you're telling me that 'up' is 'down'.

This is because you're focused on "60 is higher than 24, and we see in 'high framerate,' so therefore it is objectively more real." I'm not telling you 60 isn't higher than 24, I'm telling you it doesn't correlate at all to real vision. I am going to try one more time:

The human eye is not a camera capturing 24 or 60 frames a second. If you google around and read some brief summaries of eyeballs, you'll see this is true. Here is a quick one I found to get you started. Here is a relevant quote:

First of all, our eyes and brains process images differently than lenses and cameras. In this first video from Vsauce, which explains the nature of "video", Stevens talks about the difference in how our eyes receive information and then communicate that information to our brain versus how lenses and cameras do it. A motion picture camera captures single still images that are later played back sequentially at a high enough frame rate that they appear to be moving, an effect called "beta movement". But, the way our eyes work is very different. Stevens says:

"Our eyes are not cameras. Instead, they track onto objects and receive a continuous flow of photons onto the retina, sending information via a chemical reaction to the brain."

Your argument is that 60fps is "objectively less fake" because it has higher frames, but higher frames does not correlate or have anything to do with actual vision. It's a dead-end, a non-starter. It's irrelevant. You can't compare film/digital video to human vision like that. That's before we even get into editing, CGI and other factors which separate movies from how we actually see.

Therefore, it is opinion and subjective over which looks "more real," because neither is some scientifically "more like real vision" standard. My opinion is that it looks more fake because it shows the "movie magic" too much, while your opinion is... well, whatever it is. Opinions are cool, everyone has them. The issue is you're presenting it as "objectively less fake" without anything to back that up other than stubborn insistence.

[bradnoyes]

All I know is that if my eyes saw the world the way it is presented in Gemini Man and Billy Lynn I would have clawed them out of their sockets long, long ago.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Here is a relevant quote:

Now, you’re starting to look at some of the right information, but you’re still not connecting the dots. Yes- that’s exactly right- the eye does not receive or process like a camera. The next step that you’re not connecting to is that this is the very reason that HFR material, as a more accurate simulation of “real world” visuals, allows the eye to perceive a recreation of natural seeing that is higher in fidelity to viewing a subject that isn’t cinematographically captured. More simply, HFR film creates/retains less evidence that it was filmed, thus looking at it is more like looking at moving objects in the natural world to your eye which, as you correctly describe, does not function like a camera.

[Nothing371]

There is no end to this argument guys. I'm more in Doctorossi's camp; that more frames = more realness, more clarity. But it doesn't really matter when not everything we're seeing in HFR is real to being with. There's also a bunch of CGI and added effects that are world-altering. They warp the landscape and heighten your spider senses of fabrication and fakery. Like your eyes are playing tricks on you. So I know what velvet is saying too.

Neither one of you is wrong and neither one of you is going to concede your position. So there's no winning this one.

[Paul Cordingley]

Originally Posted by solarrdadd

I’d like to see more movies done like this. I’m not against the wider aspect ratio with top and bottom bars, it’s just really nice to see such a beautiful picture with so much action and life filling the screen.

I'm really glad they're not.

You wouldn't say that if, like me, your screen were 2.4:1. You'd still want all movies to "fill the entire screen" - but you'd be asking for a completely different thing.

[PenguinInfinity]

The high frame rate better shows reality. The reality is that this is a movie and all the fighting is fake.

Personally I'd like to see high frame rate used more with slice of life movies, it shows more nuance in the actors' faces. But the high frame rate in this movie did a disservice to all the stunts, props, and computer generated imagery.

[solarrdadd]

Originally Posted by Paul Cordingley

I'm really glad they're not.

You wouldn't say that if, like me, your screen were 2.4:1. You'd still want all movies to "fill the entire screen" - but you'd be asking for a completely different thing.

I respect that, but, I was only talking about me, never saying anything about what’s good for anyone else. As for screens, I don’t have what you have, I can only comment about what I have and how I think it looks to me. Having said that, with the aspect ratio of your screen, yes, I can see your point with that, but, I’d still have to see it to make that determination. I mean, the look was still amazing and that wouldn’t have changed for me if it was presented in the “standard movie release aspect ratio” I did say that for me, it was enhanced by filling my screen end to end. I do like that look.

I do wish they had been able to offer it in both aspect ratios. Also, I understand not everyone liked the 60hz, too bad it wasn’t also released in both 60 & 24.

This thread has really gotten out of hand with such absolute positions far left and far right and little or no middle ground.

I can understand people not likening the way it looks as easily as I can understand people who do like the way it looks and that’s ok; the attacking and anger are not ok.

I do hope the battling and anger stop, we’re all different, it’s ok to like it or to not like it for whatever your reasons are too. So many threads are this way and it’s really unfortunate.

Hell, I don’t like rollercoasters, many people do; I’m not mad at them because they like it. I don’t wanna tell them how wrong they are for liking it. I’m happy they enjoy it and I’m happy to watch them doing so, as long as I’m not on the ride!

[DisplayCalNoob]

I don't see 24 fps as preference, but more as a conditioning. I lean towards PQ or IQ and if, HFR means more image detail......then bring it on!

[solarrdadd]

Originally Posted by DisplayCalNoob

I don't see 24 fps as preference, but more as a conditioning. I lean towards PQ or IQ and if, HFR means more image detail......then bring it on!

I’ve been told that the UHD digital copy plays in 24hz

[Geoff D]

I love 24fps. I love HFR. I love film. I love digital. GIMME GIMME GIMME ALL DAT GOODNESS