What do you think about starting to use 60 frames per second for animations? The new hobbit is about 45 frames per second, and the human eye can handle a maximum of 60 frames per second, will animation change too?
At 12/16/12 05:36 PM, FunkMation wrote: What do you think about starting to use 60 frames per second for animations? The new hobbit is about 45 frames per second, and the human eye can handle a maximum of 60 frames per second, will animation change too?
Maybe 3D animation will because it isn't too much of a change, but frame by frame at 60fps would take more work than it's worth.
If you are talking about frame by frame anything above 30 fps is suicide.
never gonna happen for 2d
no animation studio would pay for some 60fps animation
its retarded and too consuming and waste of money for 2d
as for 3d they'll just use mo-cap and shoot in 60fps
The only problem with 60fps for 3d is rendering times. High-end productions often take somewhere between 5-15 minutes per frame... so for 1 second of animation you're talking about your computer requiring between 5-15 HOURS per SECOND... so if you wanted to do a 3 minute production, that'd be 900-2700 hours. Granted, you could use multiple computers to divide up the work but it is still some massive computational power needed to pull it off.
The eye can take 60 frames per second but the brain records 40 moments per second. So any movie or animation above that would look weird as fuck for us. I watched THE HOBBIT in HFR (48 frames per second) and it was weird as hell, it didnt feel right. Anyway hope they dont do that anymore. As for animations? FUCK DAT!
Washing* yea i can't spell too
its crazy for a frame by frame animator to do 48 FPS which Hobbit was filmed in. In my opinion, 48 frames make action scenes weaker. An example when animating someone getting punched in face at 12-24 fps, the less frames make the action feel faster and more impact. I can imagine at 48 fps the viewer will notice every detail of the punch because there are more frames but it will feel slow thus making it less exciting. Sometimes things are just better not seen.
At 12/18/12 01:42 AM, KhanhCPham wrote: its crazy for a frame by frame animator to do 48 FPS which Hobbit was filmed in. In my opinion, 48 frames make action scenes weaker. An example when animating someone getting punched in face at 12-24 fps, the less frames make the action feel faster and more impact. I can imagine at 48 fps the viewer will notice every detail of the punch because there are more frames but it will feel slow thus making it less exciting. Sometimes things are just better not seen.
I've got no idea what I'm talking about now, but maybe they have less fps during some of the fight scenes? In "normal" movies they usually has 24 fps, but sometimes less during fight scenes. So The Hobbit maybe does the same? I don't know though...
The problem with shooting movies at 48fps is that you have to change the way movies are made. Traditional methods don't work any more, because you can see it for what it really is and not what you're creating the illusion of.
24 fps in movies is slow as hell, thereby you can make shit look good.
Even with shooting in 3D, you have to change the way you shoot. Action senses look very fake in 3D with traditional methods, in 3D the viewer can see that it's fake, so a punch has to make contact or the view can see that.
anyways, it's pointless to produce animations over 30 fps.
