JA
I was quite pleasantly suprised to see genuine location work in both though! When I've seen US soaps in the past, the "outside" scenes have always been very obviously shot on a studio set- which must be decades since has ever happened on a UK soap (Maybe not since Corrie moved to an outdoor set in 1968?). Maybe they're trying to up their game?
DA
If you count Casualty as a soap, there was some rather unconvincing indoor-for-outdoor stuff when someone got stuck on a Ferris wheel a few months back. Elf-n-safety, of course...
which must be decades since has ever happened on a UK soap
If you count Casualty as a soap, there was some rather unconvincing indoor-for-outdoor stuff when someone got stuck on a Ferris wheel a few months back. Elf-n-safety, of course...
CI
A difference of around 40 milliseconds, cannot be percieved by the human eye, so it appears to be identical, happening at the same time. Hence why 24 frames a second (the standard movie frame rate) looks fairly smooth. Even as low as 15 frames a second doesn't look jerky. But with higher frame rates, such as 60 fps and 120 fps, the smoothness looks better.
I'd suggest that once you're above about 120 fps, the extra frames add little to actual speed footage, but for slow motion footage, recorded at say 480 fps and slowed down to 30 fps, you'd see things that you would never see full speed.
Hell, the Mythbusters used high speed cameras to great effect in their whole series, using frame rates from 500 fps to 50,000 fps, though mostly around the 1,000 to 10,000 fps range.
I'd suggest that once you're above about 120 fps, the extra frames add little to actual speed footage, but for slow motion footage, recorded at say 480 fps and slowed down to 30 fps, you'd see things that you would never see full speed.
Hell, the Mythbusters used high speed cameras to great effect in their whole series, using frame rates from 500 fps to 50,000 fps, though mostly around the 1,000 to 10,000 fps range.
JA
Try shooting something at 24p with a fast shutter and very little motion blur and see how smooth it looks!
DA
That's demonstrably untrue, since 50fps looks quite different to - far smoother than - 24fps. Anecdotally, I find I can tell the difference between 60fps and 50fps. I've never seen 120fps.
Not true either - even higher frame rates would allow you to track (with your eyes) moving objects on a screen without motion blur.
The above is an approximation, of course, and assumes that the eye has an intrinsic 120fps shutter, and that the football takes one second to cross the screen (it's cropped horizontally, of course, but the vertical size represents the full height of a screen).
Quote:
A difference of around 40 milliseconds, cannot be percieved by the human eye, so it appears to be identical, happening at the same time. Hence why 24 frames a second (the standard movie frame rate) looks fairly smooth.
That's demonstrably untrue, since 50fps looks quite different to - far smoother than - 24fps. Anecdotally, I find I can tell the difference between 60fps and 50fps. I've never seen 120fps.
Quote:
I'd suggest that once you're above about 120 fps, the extra frames add little to actual speed footage
Not true either - even higher frame rates would allow you to track (with your eyes) moving objects on a screen without motion blur.
The above is an approximation, of course, and assumes that the eye has an intrinsic 120fps shutter, and that the football takes one second to cross the screen (it's cropped horizontally, of course, but the vertical size represents the full height of a screen).
NG
Eh? Where did you get that figure from? Research suggests that >240fps is required to create seamless motion for some individuals (fighter pilots have incredibly well tuned eye/brain combos)
Hence why 24 frames a second (the standard movie frame rate) looks fairly smooth.
Nope - 24 fps only looks fairly smooth (actually I don't believe it ever looks 'fairly smooth'), in most cases, because people shoot content that keeps it looking smooth. 24fps was chosen as the lowest frame rate (as film stock and processing was/is expensive - and the higher the fps the more you need per second...) required to work when sound was introduced. It's about as low as you can go. They had to get round the inherent flicker issues by showing every frame twice or three times during projection (double or triple shuttering)
Even as low as 15 frames a second doesn't look jerky.
It can look horribly jerky... You rely on motion blur and slowing down camera moves, tracks etc. to stop the image breaking up into a sequence of stills.
But with higher frame rates, such as 60 fps and 120 fps, the smoothness looks better.
Yep - it does. It also reduces motion blur significantly, meaning moving objects appear sharper. (BBC 25/50/100fps demos are amazingly clear at demonstrating this)
With larger screens you have to cope with eye tracking too.
I'd suggest that once you're above about 120 fps, the extra frames add little to actual speed footage, but for slow motion footage, recorded at say 480 fps and slowed down to 30 fps, you'd see things that you would never see full speed.
That's a different argument - as you are then changing the timebase of the signal. However 300fps is deemed the point at which returns fail to be useful. NHK think that 120fps with a bit of shuttering is pretty good for 8k, though if you went to 16k or higher you may need a higher frame rate (motion blur again)
Hell, the Mythbusters used high speed cameras to great effect in their whole series, using frame rates from 500 fps to 50,000 fps, though mostly around the 1,000 to 10,000 fps range.
Apples and oranges though - as you are then replaying the high frame rate stuff at lower frame rates, and its the lower frame rate the eye is perceiving.
noggin
Founding member
A difference of around 40 milliseconds, cannot be percieved by the human eye, so it appears to be identical, happening at the same time.
Eh? Where did you get that figure from? Research suggests that >240fps is required to create seamless motion for some individuals (fighter pilots have incredibly well tuned eye/brain combos)
Quote:
Hence why 24 frames a second (the standard movie frame rate) looks fairly smooth.
Nope - 24 fps only looks fairly smooth (actually I don't believe it ever looks 'fairly smooth'), in most cases, because people shoot content that keeps it looking smooth. 24fps was chosen as the lowest frame rate (as film stock and processing was/is expensive - and the higher the fps the more you need per second...) required to work when sound was introduced. It's about as low as you can go. They had to get round the inherent flicker issues by showing every frame twice or three times during projection (double or triple shuttering)
Quote:
Even as low as 15 frames a second doesn't look jerky.
It can look horribly jerky... You rely on motion blur and slowing down camera moves, tracks etc. to stop the image breaking up into a sequence of stills.
Quote:
But with higher frame rates, such as 60 fps and 120 fps, the smoothness looks better.
Yep - it does. It also reduces motion blur significantly, meaning moving objects appear sharper. (BBC 25/50/100fps demos are amazingly clear at demonstrating this)
With larger screens you have to cope with eye tracking too.
Quote:
I'd suggest that once you're above about 120 fps, the extra frames add little to actual speed footage, but for slow motion footage, recorded at say 480 fps and slowed down to 30 fps, you'd see things that you would never see full speed.
That's a different argument - as you are then changing the timebase of the signal. However 300fps is deemed the point at which returns fail to be useful. NHK think that 120fps with a bit of shuttering is pretty good for 8k, though if you went to 16k or higher you may need a higher frame rate (motion blur again)
Quote:
Hell, the Mythbusters used high speed cameras to great effect in their whole series, using frame rates from 500 fps to 50,000 fps, though mostly around the 1,000 to 10,000 fps range.
Apples and oranges though - as you are then replaying the high frame rate stuff at lower frame rates, and its the lower frame rate the eye is perceiving.
JA
If 24fps was enough required to create smooth motion, then you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 24/25/30p and 50/60i. Which you obviously can.
DO
You try playing a FPS game at only 15 FPS.
Even as low as 15 frames a second doesn't look jerky..
You try playing a FPS game at only 15 FPS.
VM
I must admit to not consciously knowing about the difference between 30 and 60, or 25 and 50, until YouTube introduced 60 fps content and when iPlayer introduced 50i. Despite (or perhaps because of) a life of watching UK television at 50, for some reason 60 looks really odd to me.
Similarly when UK shows get a filmic look I never really tend to notice until I read about it (probably on here!) whereas some people get really upset over it. On the flip side, some people can't tell the differences between minor variations of logos but I always can. Funny the things, eh?
Similarly when UK shows get a filmic look I never really tend to notice until I read about it (probably on here!) whereas some people get really upset over it. On the flip side, some people can't tell the differences between minor variations of logos but I always can. Funny the things, eh?