You are right, its terrible the moment there is horizontal panning (instant stutter fest), fast paced action scenes are necessarily blury too. Credits can look pretty bad if they scroll too fast. I have to say on still scenes it doesn't look that bad, it's only really when fast paced motion or camera movements happend that it becomes an issue and then it is terrible...
It is a shame when the new 4k standards came in that they industry didn't push a higher frame rate along with color accuracy (I think the color accuracy standard is now really good, went way further than I think anyone would have expected), from a marketing perspective there is a lot of value to be added from requiring producers to procure new equipment, even a small bump to 30FPS or to some other slightly higher number that makes sense from a tecnical perspective (i.e. better for frame interpolation or easier for producers to migrate). Would have made a big difference.
I think some of the pushback stems from CGI and editing, if we have to double the FPS we are going to increase the cost plus we have to replace expensive kit.. But currently 24FPS look terrible...
Ultimately I think something like a 30FPS with a variable frame rate, i.e. a higher rate of frame in action or panning scenes might also be a good way to resolve the issue. Sort of like variable bit rate in audio (they should definitely do variable bit rate compression in video), actually more like variable resouloution on consoles, how in demanding scenes they dynamically scale the resolution down to give a smooth experience.
I think we can cheat a bit here ^.- with some smart rendering processes, some of the work we have done doesn't need to be redone each scene, and we can probably do some approximation tricks similar to frame interpolation to sort of guesstimate the frames and the renders and through averaging them out and then partially re-render them or something.
So we could try and improve efficiency through eliminating redundant work, and reduce the amount of work by cheating on some of the frames, and still probably get a good result. Perhaps someone here with more experience in this field could contribute about how much extra work there would be?
1) Man hours in frame-by-frame work such as rotoscoping and motion tracking 2) Hardware render time... (twice the number of frames) 3) Film + digital storage doubled during production 4) Distribution cost doubled from .. you guessed it, twice the film or twice the digital storage. 5) Theaters owned by big studios must now pay for upgraded hardware to display the movie.
What I know we can do in terms of storage/bandwidth required for 48fps+ films - and I've no doubt this will be used in the future - is move to adaptive frame rates. That way, when not much happens on the screen, we can reduce the frame rate, while in high-action/panning situations a higher frame rate can be used. This can be done post-filming too so that it's easy to get right. It'll reduce final file sizes/streaming bandwidth and still provide increased frame rates where it matters.
variable frame-rates is a terrible idea. Not only is it very noticeable and nauseating but you would need to re-engineer all of our current AV infrastructure to pull of such a scheme.
Its honestly easier on my eyes. Whenever I watch an action movie or a seen with a fast moving camera that's playing at 24fps it hurts my eyes. I've always had this problem because 24fps is literally just too hard to watch sometimes. Watching a 60fps movie made me realize what I was missing out on. People are just so used to a peasant framerate from old film players that they think 60fps looks weird. I bet if we grew up watching 60fps films it would look normal to us, not like a 'soap-opra'
I don't think so at all. It would just be a different file format, in the same way you don't encode every frame, just transitions, you don't need to have solid 60fps for stationary or slow-movement shots.
There is already VFR video files and they are not popular for a couple of reasons, first off computational power of your graphics engine is higher, secondly Captioning for those formats is harder to near impossible to keep them accurate.
WMV's are about the only format that has ever played around with VFR and it is not popular even to do when making WMV's
this is already the industry standard its how H.264 works along with MP4 and Professional capture formats like XDCAM, DVCPro, and DVCam along with Digibeta and HDCAM.
All the man wanted was some movie titles...srry i can't do that either, but if you google 60 fps porn...i have no ideea what comes up.
Now on a more serious note, i get that higher framerate does not equate to better quality (clarity) in movies as oposed to in videogames, and that they add bluryness to mimic the way our eyes perceve the world, but then i forword this question: Why the hell would we want to mimic the imperfection of the human eye? If movies can capture it picture perfect why not do it? I would love to see a car chase or a car crash in a movie with the clarity of a PC Game running at 60fps! I would love to see the scars on a bad guys cheek as he runs in the background in the begining of the movie and then remember him mid movie as that one guy that almost got run ovver... The devil is in the details nad beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and on that note, i would love to see less blurr in movies. That's mostly why i prefer anime these days... :)
