Fatalfury

On 12/22/2023 at 5:39 PM, Jedi Master said:

Innovation comes from trying new things, not from being stuck in the past century. Sure, not all new things will be better than the old, but how will people ever know if they don’t try?

Traditional cinema may be on its way out. Four big theaters in my area closed in the last two years, leaving just one. It’s moot for me anyway as I rarely go see movies at a theater. Why put up with inconsiderate people texting during the movie, sticky floors, and $8 popcorn when I can watch movies at home? And theaters will never have something I have at home—a pause button. Most of my viewing is via streaming services like Netflix and Amazon Prime, which use 1080 60p. Shoehorning 24fps theatrical movies into this format causes motion artifacts that wouldn’t be there if the movies were shot at the native rate used by the streaming services.

As the old guard ages and dies off, the younger generation, who grew up playing video games and who are used to higher frames rates, will determine the future of cinema.

60p isn't innovation in 2023, been around decades.

How much of Netflix content is 60p really? Been using Netflix for years, can't remember seeing any 60p there at all, apart from stumbling upon some Asian TV series.So I believe Netflix being 60p is bullcrap, not that frame rate conversion in digital age should be a problem at all, like PAL/NTSC is no longer an issue.

Netflix in 2023 is unable to stream proper 4k, much less 4K 60p.

If you want everything to look like 60p, turn on motion smoothing, looks like horse manure either way.

1 hour ago, PPNS said:

goddamn it looks bad in 24fps, but it looks truly dogshit in 60

Yeah, it doesn't look right at 24fps, probably converted from 120p to 24p has something to do with as the shutter speed isn't 180 degrees.

58 minutes ago, zlfan said:

it is interesting to see that one of my recent episodes on youtube got a vote. guess which one? oooooyeh, gp 12 5k 60p, not r1mx 24p, not f5 60p and 24p, not c300 24p, not af100 60p. 

almost forgot the eol "lol". 

?

Your 60p video got a like on youtube and that's why hfr is better than 24p?

1 hour ago, Jedi Master said:

Yes. To me it does.

To each their own. But better how, smoother? Wouldn't 120p+ be even better then? 60p is still quite limited (as evidenced by pc gaming).

I for one think it looks like ass but not as horrid as Hobbit, CGI looks especially dogshit in hfr.

Luckily the industry, most users here and I seem to agree.

And luckily for you, modern tv's allow turn on motion smoothing for every content, think it looks no better or worse than natively shot 60p. Both can't escape that weightless jello hope I'm not having a stroke look.

52 minutes ago, Jedi Master said:

Looks fine to me.

But does it look better?

Yada, yada, yada - 24 fps looks great and that's why it's still 99.9999% of filmmakers choice even if they aren't technologically limited to use it. At the same time we are still limited to 50/60p, should higher frame rate is needed, but...

....look at this (the effect is especially noticeable when viewed full screen):

For comparison, same director.

Isn't it obvious? 

Here is Gemini Man in 24p if anyone would like to compare:

_

Yet interestingly, Gemini Man was shot in 120p. Would really love to see for curiosity sake but it's not available anywhere in 120fps. Is there even a video player that can play 120fps in real time, available at all in 2023?

22 hours ago, kye said:

No, it's not an echo chamber, and people are free to have whatever perspectives they want.

But take this thread as an example.  It started off by saying that 24p was only chosen as a technical compromise, and that more is better.  

Here we are, 9 pages later, and what have we learned?

• The OP has argued that 60p is better because it's better.  What does better even mean?  What goal are they trying to achieve?  They haven't specified.  They've shown no signs of knowing what the purpose of cinema really is.
• You prefer 60p.  But you also think that cinema should be as realistic as possible, which doesn't make any sense whatsoever.  You are also not interested in making things intentionally un-realistic.
• Everyone else understands that 24p is better because they understand the goal is for creative expression, not realism.

If we talk about literally any other aspect of film-making, are we going to get the same argument again, where you think something is crap because you have a completely different set of goals to the rest of us?

Also, the entire tone from the OP was one of confrontation and arguing for its own sake.  Do you think there was any learning here?

I am under no illusions.  I didn't post because I thought you or the OP had an information deficit, but were keen to learn and evolve your opinion.  I posted because the internet is full of people who think technical specifications are the only things that matter and don't think about cameras in the context of the end result, they think of them as some sort of theoretical engineering challenge with no practical purpose.

A frequently quoted parallel is that no-one cared about what paint brushes Michelangelo used to paint the Sistine Chapel except 1) painters at a similar level who are trying to take every advantage to achieve perfection, and 2) people that don't know anything about painting and think the tools make the artist.

I like the tech just as much as the next person, but at the end of the day "better" has to be defined against some sort of goal, and your goal is diametrically opposed to the goal of the entire industry that creates cinema and TV.  Further to that, the entire method of thinking is different too - yours is a goal to push to one extreme (the most realistic) and the goal of cinema and TV is to find the optimum point (the right balance between things looking real and un-real).

Agreed. Not to mention OP couldn't probably tell a difference between 24/48 (Titanic being 48p turned out to be factually wrong).

I also find it funny when people think 50/60p is anything close to real life, as 50p is technologically still heavily compromised. For human eye it is certainly much smoother than 24p, but it's also it has this weird motion that sits in somewhere between 100 and 24, where the footage somehow ends up looking actually less real and seems hollow compared to the cinema standard. If you want your production to have videogamey/behind the scenes/soapy/whatever look, then go ahead. But no, it doesn't look real.

When we talk about realism that can fool the eye, it starts from 100 fps minimum. Yet I think none of the cinema projectors currently in use are technically able to show 100 fps material, most TV's in use also don't have the ability. YouTube is capped at 60, not to mention streaming services. There is a long way to go.

But once we are there, even then 24p will have it's place, as it has been said multiple times in this thread, that people experiencing movies crave to escape from the reality and 24p is perfect for that.

But don't tell me 50p = realism.

1 hour ago, kye said:

My wife bought a gaming monitor that can do 240Hz and (after much research) we figured out a solution to actually get 240Hz to it.

I haven't played with it, but in theory I could play back video at 240fps on it, given the right software.

I have no idea what it would look like, and don't in any way think it would be cinematic, but it would be interesting to see.  My phone shoots 240p, so in theory I could record some video.  I hate the look of 60p and also find 30p to have the same slippery look, just less severely than 60p.  You've got me curious now.

Just got a gaming laptop and have tried some games in 120fps fully synced with the monitor and the difference between 60 and 120 is pretty damn huge. 120 - 200 and the difference is getting smaller. But since it's still a game engine, it doesn't look real but the slippery motion is eliminated. But sometimes I like the slippery motion in games a la fighting, arcade games etc.

Haven't tested with any real time high frame rate real life footage yet. My guess the result is the same, slippery look is eliminated. But even then, in the end I guess I will always prefer 24fps as it makes the visuals larger than life. But it will surely gain traction in the future.

On 12/4/2023 at 8:03 PM, zlfan said:

this whole realism vs dreamlike is just a later made up to justify 24p. 

avatar to me is surreal, hobbit is fantasy, titanic is epic, guess what, all were shot on 48p. when i watch titanic, i never think that this is just a real tv show, and the heroes and hero are real life like. to me, they are above life for sure. the cinematography is just stunning. not to say avatar and hobbit, although they are not dramas, the cinematography is definitely not at real tv show level. 

are these box failures? go check yourself. all are 5 times profit ratios. and all are good movies worthy watching even many years later. 

no matter what the critics say about them, these are legendary movies to viewers. there is no point denying this to justify 24p. 

You don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about or are simply trolling to make 24fps look good - if the latter is true, than you've succeeded. Titanic was shot in 24fps and was always 24fps until artificially converted to 48fps in 2023 for extremely limited cinema release - so chances are you have never ever seen Titanic in 48fps.

Hobbit movies looked like absolute dogshit in 48fps - though many theatres screened it only in 24fps and that's the reason why Jedi Master and his mates didn't see any difference. Avatar 2, I was interested to see how the switch between 24/48 panned out, but turned out my cinema showed it only in 24fps.

Outside of 24fps cinema standard:

30 fps - tv soap look, also fine for broadcast etc,

50-60fps - makes everything look like a weightless video game. I thought Hobbit looked quite bad in 24fps also but not head ache inducing like 48. 

100+ fps in real time - now this is where it gets interesting if the goal is ultra realism. I'm open to it.
Anything cgi will of course struggle as the animation needs to be higher quality to be less noticeable as 24fps can mask it a little. I think cgi is nowhere near ready for this so 100fps in the next few years is not worth it. 

33 minutes ago, elgabogomez said:

I feared that looking at the trailer, no “filmic look “ or not looking like the originals… In the end of revolutions, the matrix turns into a highly colored popping world, maybe they are trying to convey that look?

Bringing a different look/colorful isn't a problem as an idea, and in a way this is what they probably were meaning to do.
But did it have to look soapy/cheap and uncinematic, the image h made action feel completely weightless (bad editing didn't help), stupid blur effect also ruined it a bit.  

Just came back from the cinema. Film itself aside. What the hell, one of the ugliest uncinematic shot with a phone looking film I have seen in the cinema! Reminded me Hobbits (which looked actually good in 24p) 48fps experience, but this was 24frames and still looked like a cheap tv show.
Usually when trailers don't look that great, the films end up looking good in cinemas but this somehow looked worse. Difference was staggering when there were shots from the old trilogy thrown in, why are the filmakers/Wachowski ok with this?

Current times, GH5 Mark II release with little improvement is not at all surprising. As long as GH6 will be released eventually and MFT will not be abandoned, then it's all good in my book. MFT lens collection is incredible and new cameras surely will be made.

Though they should have put GH5S sensor it it, might be that the sensor is too big for stabilization to work in MFT mount, but as the mount can house a super 35mm sensor, it's probably isn't the problem. 

MFT please! So I could use my MFT, PL and EF lenses.

EF is boring and very limiting. 

This makes G9 very appealing but with all these improvements they should also remove recording time limit (30min in 25/30p, 10 min in 50/60p).

And no 10bit in 24p? 

According to Metabones, Speedbooster XL doesn't work with EM1-II, anybody can confirm if E-M10 III is compatible with speedbooster XL? 

Anybody happen to know it the speedbooster XL fits the E-M10 Mark iii? Looking for a cheap m43 body, have to decide between this and Panasonic G80, but kinda want the Olympus more.

Sirui is the best, got a carbon fiber version just recently. Got Manfrotto before, but immediately sent it back, fell over far too easily with those tiny legs. But really liked Manfrottos head, so it's a combination of the two. I'm sure Benro is nice as well.

I'm not worthy, this thing is so amazing.

Holy shit!!! This keeps getting better and better, the audio, the USB C, crazy for the money.

Wow, the specs are huge for the money! I'd rather have 1" sensor, since I have loads of s16 lenses. Maybe there is s16 mode with no loss in iq. Nevertheless this cam will kick ass, if the image will deliver. I even like the looks, like something out of the Alien franchise.

On 1/15/2018 at 9:06 PM, noone said:

What about the Mitakon 85 1.2 in EF mount?

I do love my old 85 1.2 FD but it has the dissolving bearings problem some FD lenses have so focus is very loose.      You could always get a FD to M43 focal reducer to go with the FD 85 1.2.

Hmmn, Mitakon looks interesting. Never realized they made lenses for the EF mount, iq looks decent as well. Altough for that money i'd rather get a Canon FD 85L. Just loaned a Helios 44-2 85mm F1.4, will so how that pans out.

I'm looking for the best 85mm out there to use with speedbooster xl. Anybody has experience or know if the manual focus is usable on the Canon 85mm F1.2 l mark ii? The new Sigma 85mm is great, but the picture quality is a bit too clinical for my taste. Is the manual focus any better than the mark I version. Honestly i would rather get the FD version, but that won't fit on the EF mount without a conversion.

I think it looks eerily similar to the new Ghost in the Shell film, very pretty indeed but too sterile and glossy. Doesn't feature the depth of the original, same thing with Alien: Covenant. The music on the first half is good (because it's a version of the original Vangelis soundtrack, though not as good), the rest of it sounds cheap imo, standard modern action trailer background music that has no place in BR universe. I thought they would go the extra mile with this, currently it does not look very promising.

Anybody know when the camera will be finally available to buy in Europe and UK? 

13 minutes ago, jonpais said:

I will have to do some more tests from f/1.4- f/1.8. Also, a few with LED lights to see how their color compares. It's definitely not a scientific comparison, I was mostly interested in how the lenses performed for the way I normally shoot.

In my experience the Zuiko 25mm F1.2 was a bit soft when the focus was far (in case of full body portraits) but otherwise it was very sharp with pleasing soft micro contrast that is especially useful for portraits. If you have the time, it could be very helpful if you could post two full body or close to full body portait photos with both lenses wide open. 

2 hours ago, jonpais said:

Finally. The Olympus 25mm f/1.2 PRO vs. the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.

 

What about wide open or from F1.2 to F1.8, is the Sigma just as sharp as the Olympus at 1.4 and what about vignetting ? The T-stop is 1.6 for Sigma vs Olympus 1.8 (in contrast the 250 bucks Sony FE 1.8 has the same 1.8 t-stop), but i guess it would be difficult for you to test that since the focal lenght is a bit different. 

I actually like the colours from Olympus more than the Sigma from your video, but i will get the Sigma if it's as sharp as Oly + it's actually a bit better in low light.