Comments on: The 4K Animated Film: Can it Happen?

By: Paquero

Paquero — Mon, 02 Jan 2017 21:29:00 +0000

No one seems to have mentioned the difference between film frame rates (24 fps) and TV (30 fps in USA or multiples thereof). There is a different feel to watching the film in theaters vs. watching at home on the Blu-ray. The transition from the original film framerate to the digital framerate introduces minor change in quality already. Computers do an amazing job of extrapolating an extra 6 frames for every second of film running time, but it’s not perfect.
Combine that with the frame doubling for “truMotion” and similar technologies, and you get “the soap opera effect”
Also keep in mind that the resolution is independent of the framerate. The 48fps is not necessary for a 4K film. With computer animation though, the inbetweening can be mathematical – not necessarily an immense extra workload on the animators. (Of course, for classical hand drawn, that is not the case).
Animation stands to receive the best result from a 4K presentation. The 4K frame picks up more detail than a 2K frame. Things that were not apparent on a 2K frame may be obvious on a 4K frame. Remember back to the transition from standard definition to high definition television? When you saw the local news cast for the first time in HD, you realized that the anchors/newsreaders were ugly – they looked like real people, instead of polished talking heads. A big change in the amount of detail you could see. The same thing is apparent when comparing 2K to 4K. In live action, imperfections in the set, costumes, etc. will be more visible on screen. With CG animation, that is not the case. The computer can generate smooth lines at 4K as well as it can at 2K, as long as you’ve got the compute power to do so, and the textures are detailed enough.

By: Niranjan Kalyanasundaram

Niranjan Kalyanasundaram — Mon, 19 Jan 2015 09:18:00 +0000

In reply to Morgan Stradling. I saw the last one in HFR and had the same reaction! It actually felt like they took 24fps footage and just ran it at 48 fps! But, I live in India, so I don't really know if we went through the same experience.

By: Niranjan Kalyanasundaram

Niranjan Kalyanasundaram — Mon, 19 Jan 2015 09:03:00 +0000

The real question is, would an audience even notice a difference in frame rate? If you take a footage running at 48 fps, remove every other frame and run it at 24 fps, how many people would find the difference? As for 4K, I expected more than 1.7 petabytes. Chris Nolan’s Interstellar required 800TB at Digital Negative, and that’s for live action!

By: Haley Gilbertson

Haley Gilbertson — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 00:41:00 +0000

This article really fascinates me, I mean this could happen, maybe not right now but maybe in the future, I am now curious about animation in the far off future!

By: voicetek20

voicetek20 — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 04:15:00 +0000

In reply to Morgan Stradling. Yes Morgan, I agree. The extra frames the TV tries to add gives the movie that weird soap opera effect and it's the worst thing ever. My wife and I watched Batman Begins with that on when we first got our TV and it was horrible. After that we turned it off. That look is what people were complaining about with the 48fps Hobbit movie. That's why I'm not sold on the higher frame rate just yet.

By: Morgan Stradling

Morgan Stradling — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 02:43:00 +0000

In reply to AnimatedMadness. Oh, no! That's horrible (about the migraine). I was really excited to see The Hobbit in 48 FPS, but...now I'm glad I skipped it.

By: Morgan Stradling

Morgan Stradling — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 02:42:00 +0000

I think 4K would have to take off in mainstream films before animation would join.

Either way, I’m NOT a fan. 24 FPS gives a very cinematic effect that I love. 48 FPS…not so much. Yuck.

By: Morgan Stradling

Morgan Stradling — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 02:40:00 +0000

In reply to voicetek20. The first thing I do on my new TV (or even when I go to my family members' homes) is turn off the HD motion blur. WORST THING EVER!

By: AegysLTS

AegysLTS — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 02:32:00 +0000

In reply to voicetek20. I see your point now! I have always wondered why do TVs in the store keep playing moving trailers with strange 'feel' to it. I really don't see what's the onus of making animators work extra time just to fill in those frames( poor Glen Keane). Anyway, it would be interesting to see how 4K resolution turns out, and I agree with you about 48fps, it will have to prove itself first.

By: voicetek20

voicetek20 — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 21:00:00 +0000

In reply to brandon.

I guess it really depends on how good those “in-betweener” programs are. It would essentially be doing kind of the same thing your HDTV does when you turn on one of those “Tru Motion” or “Smooth Motion” features. It take the movie at 24fps, and add frames to it to try to match the higher frame rate of your TV. The result is an unnatural look some people call the Soap Opera Effect. Now I did mention that Glen Keane’s “Duet” looks great on my phone, but I’d say part of the reason is that he actually animated 60 drawings per second and there is no computer program randomly adding frames. I think this is why the results are better than others because those frames are planned and not just a guess.