| Page 1 of 1 |
| Do you like 3D in games and/or movies? |
| 1. Yes, I'm a wet diaper. |
|
14% |
[ 3 ] |
| 2. Yes, I'm cross-eyed and I can finally see what all the other kids are seeing. |
|
9% |
[ 2 ] |
| 3. I don't know, I've never tried. |
|
14% |
[ 3 ] |
| 4. Noooooope. Nop Nop Nop Nop Nop ad infinitum in absurdum. |
|
61% |
[ 13 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 21 |
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24679
Location: Your Mom
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
 Posted: Tue, 11th Jul 2017 20:47 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 21:11; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nui
VIP Member
Posts: 5720
Location: in a place with fluffy towels
|
| Posted: Tue, 11th Jul 2017 20:53 Post subject: Re: 3D is useless |
|
|
So he means stereoscopic 3D. Which might just be 2.5D compared to VR.
| Frant wrote: | | and tend to remove the cinematic feel of 23.976 frame rate (2.35:1 or 16:9) that STILL works better than any other format for movies. |
I disagree with this point. I dont think 24p actually works for movies. It just means stutter and or extremely unsharp motion.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24679
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Tue, 11th Jul 2017 21:04 Post subject: Re: 3D is useless |
|
|
| Nui wrote: | So he means stereoscopic 3D. Which might just be 2.5D compared to VR.
| Frant wrote: | | and tend to remove the cinematic feel of 23.976 frame rate (2.35:1 or 16:9) that STILL works better than any other format for movies. |
I disagree with this point. I dont think 24p actually works for movies. It just means stutter and or extremely unsharp motion. |
Most movies in cinemas are running at ~24fps and they're shot for it. Pause a frame and you see part of the next frame (frame blending or whatever the technical term is). I do have a function on my telly that lets me set the frame rate (via interpolation) to Off (no interpolation at all at which point it DOES get slightly stuttery), Min (which makes it perfect and cinematic), Mid (getting a bit too "live in the studio") and Max (make it look like it's going too fast). I only ever use Mid when I download some South Korean rip where they've done a failed 3:2 pull down or something. That makes the stutter less obscene.
I've never played with an Oculus Rift, Vive or whatever else is out there (and still haven't made it to the shelves after 30+ years of reintroductions).
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nui
VIP Member
Posts: 5720
Location: in a place with fluffy towels
|
| Posted: Tue, 11th Jul 2017 21:41 Post subject: Re: 3D is useless |
|
|
The cool thing about VR goggles is that the 3D actual seems natural, even if you can count the sub-pixels, there is headtracking (which would work on a 2D display as well) and the viewing angles are much greater, too. You get a real sense of depth. When we can render the required resolution for the much larger viewing angles, they'll have monitors beat in visuals. Unless dome shaped IMAX like screens become a thing for home 
| Frant wrote: | | Most movies in cinemas are running at ~24fps and they're shot for it. Pause a frame and you see part of the next frame (frame blending or whatever the technical term is). |
Just because they were shot for it doesnt actually solves the inherent problems of ridiculous frame rates.
I think what you mean is the exposure time, which is AFAIK either the duration of a full frame (massive motionblur) or half of it which results in sharper motion (though still a far cry from sharp) but the judder becomes more noticeable in return.
I understand that TVs and software can insert interpolated frames to smooth motion, but they fail to compare to actually higher frame rate (e.g. suffer from errors). Anything beyond 24p might seem strange to us, but it is a terrible format for motion and I don't accept that its necessary or an art form of sorts. Sure, people nowadays cry for the cinematic look, because they're really used to it, but this look is just a number of errors really. I hope we can adept to something better ...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24679
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Tue, 11th Jul 2017 22:16 Post subject: |
|
|
I hate when a movie looks like it was shot in a live tv-studio with 50/60 fps. The atmosphere is completely ruined.
Let me get this straight; if you could watch The Godfather or 2001 you'd rather watch them in full motion 50/60 fps (if they had been filmed at those frame rates) than the classic format they were filmed in and ultimately shown in? Just so I understand what you mean. I'm a bit lost with the techno-lingo regarding different frame rate- and motion.
Personally I'm not particularly interested in super-crisp 4K resolution (heck, the difference between FullHD and UltraHD is barely noticeable even to trained eyes), I'm very happy with 1920x1080 with a quality IPS-panel (esp. the one my telly use which is the reason I bought it for a pretty sum; it was simply the best picture in a store of 50+ models in 2014... I sacrificed size for picture quality).
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nui
VIP Member
Posts: 5720
Location: in a place with fluffy towels
|
| Posted: Tue, 11th Jul 2017 22:47 Post subject: |
|
|
| Frant wrote: | | I hate when a movie looks like it was shot in a live tv-studio with 50/60 fps. The atmosphere is completely ruined. |
You say that and to a point I get that. But is that not just because we got so used to this format, this film look? This format was never intended as an art form, they first aimed for lowest possible frame rate to still convey motion at all and then upped that a bit for compatibility with audio sample rate or something, I believe. Nothing but a technical limitation from quite a few decades ago now.
And really, the film look is just because our visual system does not cope well with these long frame durations. If you used a CRT at ~24Hz motion would look sharper and smoother! It would also turn your viewing pleasure into a seizure detection test
| Frant wrote: | | Let me get this straight; if you could watch The Godfather or 2001 you'd rather watch them in full motion 50/60 fps (if they had been filmed at those frame rates) than the classic format they were filmed in and ultimately broadcast in? Just so I understand what you mean. I'm a bit lost with the techno-lingo regarding different frame rate- and motion. |
Probably yes. But really only if they were shot in that format.
Maybe studios still need some time to make it work. The more natural and much clearer motion perhaps makes it more difficult to get a movie to look good. But I'd rather have studios work on that, than to continue to feed crap to me. I just see the judder and massive motion blur.
| Frant wrote: | | Personally I'm not particularly interested in super-crisp 4K resolution (heck, the difference between FullHD and UltraHD is barely noticeable even to trained eyes), |
That is mostly a matter of distance and screen size really. Most people I know are seated so far away they can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, let alone 4K. I should be able to tell 1080p and 4k apart, simply because I sit unusually close.
About resolution though: Without additional techniques, of which most come with downsides (interpolation, flicker), 24p quickly reduces usable resolution during motion to below SD resolution (no joke). In TV tests you'll find the standard 300 lines of motion resolution which tells exactly this. Mine manages "over 1080" lines at the expense of visible double images. This behaviour makes the problem only more obvious 
With 4K those ~2000 lines will still be reduced to the same 300, making it even more questionable
Sorry I got the thread off course 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HubU
VIP Member
Posts: 11379
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jul 2017 00:38 Post subject: |
|
|
3D movies are useless.
"Music washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life." ~Berthold Auerbach
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
