Thread: For increased realism, what's more important: Higher Resolution or Frame Rate?

Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14
  1. #11  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    131
    Another thing to consider is shutterspeed. We are used to the motion blur at 23.98 @1/48, but I sometimes shoot wildlife and beauty at higher shutterspeed because I like these sharper.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Senior Member Aaron Lochert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    1,089
    If we're talking about realism as in presenting reality to the viewer without artistic interpretation, I would argue that all the answers above are necessary: High framerate, high dynamic range, high resolution. You also need stereoscopic capture and display, AKA VR. You also should provide a single uninterrupted take. The FoV should encompass the entirety of the eye's FoV. The audio should be truly binaural in its mix.

    Without all of that, I think the goal of providing a "real" experience is not worth chasing, because what we do is more like painting than taking a non-artistic photograph. We interpret time with cuts. We interpret viewpoint with focal length and camera position. We tell the viewer where to look when we rack focus. We suggest dramatic tension with camera movement. We mix in music from seemingly nowhere. We design color palettes with our creative departments. Etc., etc., etc. The viewer can still get into this experience but it isn't real -- there's a willing suspension of disbelief.

    Instead, test all the parameters you can and see what tools you want to use to present your story. You might find that resolution makes more sense or you might find that higher framerate is more in your favor for the piece. As far as an actual answer to your question, I think current upscaling algorithms are better than current frame-blending algorithms. In my opinion, interpolating the 4K/30 to 60 frames is going to look worse than shooting 1080/60 and upscaling it to 4K. But again, you should do some testing of your own and decide what you want to show the audience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Adam, well said! To emphasize the same point a different way, consider lighting. We don't light a scene in order to convey the most information; we light so as to convey the most IMPORTANT information. That information may be a detail. It may be a mood. Bit might focus the eye on what cannot be seen.

    If all you care about is maximizing measurable information data rates, then read the scientific literature (much of it developed and/or contextualized by Doug Trumbull). But most of us are here for the art-be it commercial, narrative, documentary, or passion
    Michael Tiemann, Chapel Hill NC

    "Dream so big you can share!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    2
    Appreciate all the feedback, some food for thought! Initially I was curious about the state of upscaling vs frame interpolation (from a technical perspective), but as many mentioned, results will depend on actual shooting, subject. Ultimately some tests are probably required.

    I think I've embraced HFR more than many others. For action, documentary capture, I find it provides a sense of presense.

    Resolution will be easy to test. Since I'll be limited to action type cameras, there's not much choice: Sony or GoPro. I suspect a 1" sensor RX0 @ 1080P would yield a comparable output to whatever GoPros provide at 4K once optics, codecs and bitrates are factored in.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts