Gemini Man 4K UHD 60fps (2019)

[Hypnosifl]

Originally Posted by levcore

After we watched the movie, i showed her the youtube clip of the bike chase that is presented in 60fps and she said that looked a lot better than the 24fps 3D disc we had just watched, in terms of movement and motion etc. Funny how we all see things differently as obviously the HFR is not for everybody but when the movie has been shot that way, for some it looks better that way? I'm looking forward to picking up the 4K UHD after a price drop as it's preferable to have both versions IMO.

Maybe it has to do with the lack of motion blur, which would remain even after you delete frames to bring it down to 24fps? For some people 60fps without motion blur might look better than 24fps without motion blur, even if they prefer 24fps with motion blur.

None of these quite capture how we see things in real life. On the one hand, the light from a real world image is changing continously as if it were shown at an infinite frame rate (our brain may in some sense still be taking discrete snapshots and weaving them together as mentioned in this article, but it'd be a lot more than 24 snapshots per second), so in that sense a high frame rate is closer to real life. On the other hand, in real 3-dimensional scenes you can only focus on one depth and things at other depths will be out-of-focus to various degrees, so something moving quickly that you aren't focusing on may seem subjectively like a blur (this issue also why 3D movies don't work quite like real 3D and can give some people headaches, see the discussion of "vergence" vs. "accommodation" in how your eyes deal with real 3D scenes in this article). So that may be more closely approximated by a film that has motion blur and/or background objects visibly out of focus, having everything in crisp perfect focus is kind of unnatural. It's probably pretty subjective which kind of unnaturalness stands out to any given viewer more.

[levcore]

Originally Posted by Hypnosifl

Maybe it has to do with the lack of motion blur, which would remain even after you delete frames to bring it down to 24fps? For some people 60fps without motion blur might look better than 24fps without motion blur, even if they prefer 24fps with motion blur.

None of these quite capture how we see things in real life. On the one hand, the light from a real world image is changing continously as if it were shown at an infinite frame rate (our brain may in some sense still be taking discrete snapshots and weaving them together as mentioned in this article, but it'd be a lot more than 24 snapshots per second), so in that sense a high frame rate is closer to real life. On the other hand, in real 3-dimensional scenes you can only focus on one depth and things at other depths will be out-of-focus to various degrees, so something moving quickly that you aren't focusing on may seem subjectively like a blur (this issue also why 3D movies don't work quite like real 3D and can give some people headaches, see the discussion of "vergence" vs. "accommodation" in how your eyes deal with real 3D scenes in this article). So that may be more closely approximated by a film that has motion blur and/or background objects visibly out of focus, having everything in crisp perfect focus is kind of unnatural. It's probably pretty subjective which kind of unnaturalness stands out to any given viewer more.

Yes great points, thanks for sharing your thoughts. The lack of motion blur must be a big factor yes.

In watching the extra features, Ang Lee says that he thinks 3D should ONLY be watched in 120fps. He says any frame rate less than that and he finds there is too much strobing.

[imsounoriginal]

Dunno if it needs to be 120fps, but I agree that all 3D should be HFR.

[levcore]

I would love to have the option at least, but if we're talking pipe dreams then i would love all 3D to be available at home in 4K too.

[cheez avenger]

I redboxed the 4K version and it was a mediocre film. It did have a couple of cool HFR shots, but I still can't shake off that soap opera feeling. Glad I only spent $2, with a coupon, for the rental.

[levcore]

I don't think the trailers really sold what a stunning movie this is in terms of locations. Some really beautiful settings with gorgeous, colourful cinematography.

That balcony they're having lunch on is stunning, where it overlooks the city. Can't remember if it was Budapest or not.

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Dunno if it needs to be 120fps, but I agree that all 3D should be HFR.

Unfortunately no bd player can play 3D at higher frane rate

[50strat54]

I enjoyed the movie.

[emailking]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

Unfortunately no bd player can play 3D at higher frane rate

But that's just the spec right? Not a technological limitation.

[paperboy]

Many TVs, including my C9, have this smoothing option you can turn on to add artificial frames. Does the natural 60fps in Gemini Man provide much difference compared to this technology? I like this option and watch all my movies this way, but how much better is the effect (assuming it is better) when the movie is shot with 60fps?

[newtonp01]

With motion interpolation I usually see artifacts, the 60fps basically looks the same just without those.

[bradnoyes]

A friend was over last night and she's thinking about getting an OLED soon so we watched Joker (which she thought looked amazing) and afterwards I put this in just to see what she thought. The picture quality definitely blew her mind but she was a little disturbed by HFR and the young fresh prince. I'm glad I hung onto the disc because as much as I dislike it it is still fun to just see how people react to it. Also, the first time I watched this I was checked out by the end so I did not realize how terrifying the de-aged prince is

[Show spoiler]in the final scene at the college

. I was able to adjust to the weirdness of it all for most of the movie but the way he looks at the end is just .

[SuperErik]

Originally Posted by levcore

I don't think the trailers really sold what a stunning movie this is in terms of locations. Some really beautiful settings with gorgeous, colourful cinematography.

That balcony they're having lunch on is stunning, where it overlooks the city. Can't remember if it was Budapest or not.

That is Budapest yes. I have been at that spot, or at least very close.

I just watched the 4K disc and it's mind blowingly gorgeous from start to finish. The image is super sharp, with bold colors and no distracting grain.

It takes a short while to get used to the HFR. But it makes the action scenes look great, especially the one with the minigun.

The CGI face of Junior is quite bad unfortunately. Especially in the dayligh scenes the eyes look weird and dull.

[levcore]

The CGI Junior is great except for the final scene. I don't see how the below looks "quite bad":



That's exactly how Will looked in Bad Boys. The digital Junior is, i think one of the most astonishing VFX ever created. Far superior to anything we saw in Rogue One or Blade Runner 2049.

[XavierTheaterPotato]

Originally Posted by levcore

The CGI Junior is great except for the final scene. I don't see how the below looks "quite bad":



That's exactly how Will looked in Bad Boys. The digital Junior is, i think one of the most astonishing VFX ever created. Far superior to anything we saw in Rogue One or Blade Runner 2049.

What is kinda off putting that it's Young Will Smith's head and face on an Older Will Smith Body, kinda noticeable there as opposed to other shots. What I'm kinda getting at seeing it; didn't bother me none though.

Just my input on that.

[levcore]

Junior is a fully CG creation, including the body. The body is that of a younger Will Smith. Perhaps the angle is throwing you.

[fatboy1111]

First time watch, pretty good movie!!!!!!

[overmang5]

The CGI unfortunately is pretty inconsistent.

It varies wildly from amazingly good, to "oh crap that's horrible, nightmare fuel". The worst is when they try to make the CGI dummy talk. You hear Will's voice coming out of it, but the lips man, the lips move like he was shot with novocaine. Its just terrible.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by XavierTheaterPotato

What is kinda off putting that it's Young Will Smith's head and face on an Older Will Smith Body, kinda noticeable there as opposed to other shots. What I'm kinda getting at seeing it; didn't bother me none though.

Just my input on that.

I felt the same way at times, like his build was a bit too chunky. Even if his body is indeed all CG it still seems like they've used the build of Old Will to lead off from.

[edit] Which they actually did with his face, they used his current fizzog as the base and worked backwards to tighten it up rather than solely using Young Will as reference (because they didn't actually have a lot of reference grade material of Young Will to start with).

[levcore]

I watched this with my parents last night and didn't say anything about the effect. We got to the scene in the last third of the movie where they're all driving in the van (just before the final action scene) and my mother asked me if Junior was played by Will Smith's son.

The vfx still fool some people.