[Giklab]

I was wondering about this for a while now, and as luck would have it, the very first post when I checked DPR's Video forum was a week old post on this.

Don't look for that thread, it has turned into a giant clusterf**k about interlaced and progressive video. The OP did find the way though! Here are the instructions: Convert videos to 60fps (Updated 21 May 2015) | Spirton

And the samples (which are also on that page):
http://www.spirton.com/uploads/InterFrame/20110618-Sample-Original.mkv

http://www.spirton.com/uploads/InterFrame/20110618-Sample-InterFrame.mkv (I suggest waiting for it to load to avoid stuttering).

I have tried the method and it does seem to work, but I only used it on a low-light video so far and would like to try out different cameras, lighting conditions and subjects to see how well it performs.

[LensBeginner]

...holy... :-O
I thought that was going to be a simple interpolated junk of a clip, it actually works, and it works well!
Nice find!

[PiDicus Rex]

Intriguing, sure, but essentially useless, and has the potential to introduce motion blur in to high shutter speed footage.
The script basically performs a similar function to the time/speed tools in most NLE's.

The question is, why should you change it - the Director and Cinematographer made a choice as to what frame rate to shoot in for the esthetic they wanted, so the program shown at a different frame rate will have different qualities, and may generate different mood reactions, to that which they desire for their storytelling.
That may lead to a substantially different understanding of the story.

[richandfleur]

Definitely smoother on the pans. 24fps is too slow for smooth whole screen pan type motion, especially if your codec bitrate is too low.
Bluray's all suffer from this and as you mention, that's one reason why we've seen the increase in TV post processing to 'speed this up' on playback.


The solution is a higher frame rate, but as PiDicus mentions above, the trade off is that your footage does not have that handicam feel about it, clearly video in nature.
This fits some subject matter, but isn't suited for others.


Each to their own on this, and it's a great result from this process. Thanks for sharing.
I personally though hated the high frame rate Hobbit version, but I also saw it in 3D and I really don't like that either, so all in all it was a total flop for me.
That coupled with the fact that they've stretched that movie out way too far also didn't help.

[LensBeginner]

Well, the fact that we can do something like this doesn't mean we're going to interpolate every movie we have in order to watch them at 48 or 60fps.
Maybe the next time we are making a video with our K-01 or somesuch we could keep it in mind as a possibility, if it fits the style of our video.

[Giklab]

@LensBeginner I know right? It's brilliant.

I think I'l use this to try and fake some slow motion video and see how it goes. My phone can record 60p at 1080, but for unknown reasons there's no slow-motion 120fps mode. I'll try different cameras, framerates and resolutions.

I disagree that it's useless. Like mentioned above, having the tool doesn't mean we suddenly need to use it on everything. Did you check the samples though? They are pretty damn good IMHO. And the increased framerates help a lot with pans and fast-paced scenes in films.

[kadajawi]

There is a filter for Windows that lets you increase the frame rate in real time, and it sort of works. Some TVs also have that function. IIRC I've seen a Philips TV that was rather impressive. The problem is of course that things look like video then, like soap operas or home videos.

IMHO the whole way of making a movie needs to change if you increase the frame rate. The editing. The camera movements (to me The Hobbit seemed to move faster in 48 fps...). The make up and set design (you can see more details). It's a shift like from black and white to color. That changed a lot too. Or from silent films to talkies. Which is a problem, because not all cinemas, and certainly not all playback options at home can play the 48 fps (until now there is no way to watch The Hobbit in 48 fps, outside of a cinema!). Back in the day that was great (people had to go to the cinema), but these days, when rentals, DVD/BR sales and TV rights are important, and people like to watch at home... For an optimal experience with 24 AND 48 fps, you need to essentially shoot and edit 2 movies. I have no idea how they are going to deal with that. I could however imagine that they will use 48 fps occasionally in a movie, like they nowadays use IMAX for some shots, and 35mm for others. Depending on what is needed, the AR changes, the frame rate changes, ... i.e. most of the movie is 24 fps, and then in action scenes (especially if in 3D) it switches up to 48 fps.