Thread: Another do we really need 8K discussion

Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28
  1. #21  
    Senior Member Karim D. Ghantous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Melbourne AU
    Posts
    2,083
    Can the soft shutter on the Motion Mount fix the stuttering at 24fps? If so, then we don't need 30fps. And, BTW, I have an idea of how to introduce soft shutter to film cameras that doesn't involve a Motion Mount.
    Good production values may not be noticed. Bad production values will be.
    Unsplash | Pinterest | Flickr | Instagram | 1961 (blog)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Senior Member Christoffer Glans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    4,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Karim D. Ghantous View Post
    Can the soft shutter on the Motion Mount fix the stuttering at 24fps? If so, then we don't need 30fps. And, BTW, I have an idea of how to introduce soft shutter to film cameras that doesn't involve a Motion Mount.
    Yes, but motion mount also eats light. But it's more than that, it's not just stutters but getting more information to the eye of the viewer. Think about a fast-paced handheld action scene, like something out of Bourne Ultimatum. Much of it is just a total incomprehensible mess when played in 24fps because there are so many frames missing every second compared to 30fps. This is the argument for 48-60fps cinema, but the problem that supporters of that framerate don't seem to understand is that there's also an aesthetic to 24fps that you totally lose at 48-60fps. The best way to experience this is to play cinematic games that support both 30 and 60fps. At 60fps you get more smooth action and motion but the cut scenes feels like a game as well. At 30fps they feel more cinematic because they flow more like regular movies.

    So what could be a striking balance between giving more temporal visual information like 48-60fps but still retain the cinematic aesthetic of traditional cinema? That's where I think 30fps fits. So it's more than just smoothing out motion, it's about temporal information. If you just shoot static shots or slow camera movements, 24fps is no problem, but since we lose resolution through motion blur, as soon as you move the camera more you will lose resolution and temporal information.

    A series like Falcon and the Winter Soldier is a good example since they use a lot of handheld stuff. As a streaming series, they could have gone with 30fps no problem. I would have loved to see how 30fps would play out in a real-world scenario where people aren't aware of it being 30fps.
    "Using any digital cinema camera today is like sending your 35mm rolls to a standard lab. -Using a Red is like owning a dark room."
    Red Weapon 6K #00600 Red Komodo #002397
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Senior Member Karim D. Ghantous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Melbourne AU
    Posts
    2,083
    Quote Originally Posted by Christoffer Glans View Post
    So what could be a striking balance between giving more temporal visual information like 48-60fps but still retain the cinematic aesthetic of traditional cinema? That's where I think 30fps fits.
    That's a 25% increase in frame rate, which is more than what you'd think at first glance. That's good for temporal information, but maybe not so good for the aesthetic. I don't think I've yet seen a true 30fps show. I'm more than happy to be convinced.
    Good production values may not be noticed. Bad production values will be.
    Unsplash | Pinterest | Flickr | Instagram | 1961 (blog)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Senior Member Christoffer Glans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    4,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Karim D. Ghantous View Post
    That's a 25% increase in frame rate, which is more than what you'd think at first glance. That's good for temporal information, but maybe not so good for the aesthetic. I don't think I've yet seen a true 30fps show. I'm more than happy to be convinced.
    I'm calculating based on how the gaming industry struck the minimum fps needed for a fluid experience. 24/25fps does not work and 30fps is the very minimum when games can be played without a sense that everything is lagging behind. And yes, there's a significant change with 25% more, but I did a fast test and put a cinematographer on a blind test with two identical shots asking which felt and looked best. The choice was 30fps with the belief it was in some way stabilized, or maybe it was smoothed out to get rid of some digital problems in motion (which feels a bit ironic).
    "Using any digital cinema camera today is like sending your 35mm rolls to a standard lab. -Using a Red is like owning a dark room."
    Red Weapon 6K #00600 Red Komodo #002397
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25 Compared to what? 
    Senior Member Blair S. Paulsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    5,370
    There are so many aspects to the impact of frame rate on how we perceive motion content. Some are primarily technical; motion blur, judder, cadence, etc. Others are more about how the wetware processes what they see, including the sense of entering an altered reality and potentially giving the mind more time to attach meaning to imagery. It gets deep quickly.

    I believe it's important to consider the built response engendered by years of watching content at 24/25/30 fps. I like to joke that we need a control group that has only been exposed to 48/60/120 fps content since birth to actually parse out why various frame rates evoke particular reactions. The eye/brain combination does an incredible amount of attention management and schema referencing upstream from conscious perception. This also gets deep quickly and the age of the viewer - especially younger folks who game a lot vs older folks who have spent thousands of hours watching 24 fps material (some of it presented at 60i).

    To me, there are a lot of parallels to the nature/nurture issues researchers struggle with in identifying specific cause and effect relationships when studying behaviors. There are a lot of deeply held opinions out there about frame rates and the influence they have. I would suggest that there is far more that we don't understand, than any universal truths.

    Cheers - #19
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Senior Member rand thompson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    9,933
    4K VS 8K - TESTED is an 8K TV better than 4K? | The Gadget Show

    Not really sure of these guys qualifications but...

    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Moderator Phil Holland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    12,077
    Had a watch on that last one there Rand. They started at 3 meters, which they refer to as a typical viewing distance of a TV of that size. 9.84 feet for us imperial folks.

    While certainly people have televisions that far away at that size, that distance exceeds anybody's recommended viewing distance for a television such as that.

    Somewhere between 3.46 feet and 5.45 feet (1 meter to 1.66 meters) would be more "ideal".

    http://phfx.com/tools/optimalViewing...Y=&diagonal=55

    One thing I liked about the Warner Brothers double blind test was having viewers layered in rows within the general acceptable viewing distances. That test yielded a slightly positive result, but given the distances and the side by side nature of the comparison above pretty much anybody would spot that difference within a more ideal range.

    Tests of this sort have been done now for years in a far more controlled situations and larger sampling groups. I imagine it will always be a talking point until the other end of the hill is reached.

    4K or 8K is a personal choice really and I know people still on 1080p still, but this decade in particular "if all goes well" you'll be seeing lots of 4K and eventually more 8K content. The question then will be do you want a television in home that supports that. And more critically will you choose a suitable screen to fit the room and viewing situation.

    Essentially if you want to enjoy your content use those ideal distances found in my optimalViewing tool. If you want the content on while you do 5 other things like build a LEGO Millennium Falcon, perhaps the long range or farther is a bit more your style.

    Written from a notebook computer with a 17.3" UHD 4K screen in a hotel room at about 21 inches.
    Phil Holland - Cinematographer - Los Angeles
    ________________________________
    phfx.com IMDB
    PHFX | tools

    2X RED Monstro 8K VV Bodies, 1X RED Komodo, and a lot of things to use with them.

    Data Sheets and Notes:
    Red Weapon/DSMC2
    Red Dragon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Senior Member rand thompson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    9,933
    Thanks Phil!


    I should have remembered you had a tool specifically that detailed this. I think the big thing is what content will you be viewing on either of theses screens. If you will only be watching 1080P content, I would image the 1080P content would look better upscaled on a 4K TV than a 8K TV would barring better upscaling hardware on the 8K TV.

    I think the first 8K film offered by one of the Streaming services, will go a long way toward advancing the need for 8K TVs. No Netflix, Hulu..etc viewer who likes to experience the absolute highest quality image that they can view will want to be left behind with the 4K or 1080P people.
    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