60fps movie webm thread?
looks terrible
>>63636412
you first
>>63636412
>>63636422
Were these made 60fps artificially somehow?
>>63636422
checked, very nice friend
>>63636422
.....How the fuck does this exist? Is stuff that's shot on film done at 60fps and sampled to 30fps or something? Or is this just done through some kind of interpolation?
>>63636586
>>63636605
It's obvious interpolation
Anyone can do that with some programs
>>63636422
>>63636422
kek
>24fps footage interpolated to 60fps with software
>>63636688
Noice
>>63636422
Nice.
how can grown men watch this shit
>>63636586
>>63636630
Whether it's real or fake, 60fps looks like fucking shit all the time. I hate people's obsession with it. Nothing looks natural.
>>63636860
Agreed. Unless it's for jiggling tits.
>>63636630
Honestly i see no difference with this shitty hobbit who was shot in 48fps raw.
>>63636860
My dick's been hard for like 1.5 years since I saw my first KPop 60fps clip like >>63636466, it's good for those.
>>63636860
Yes. 24fps feels natural because that's the frame rate that human eyes record video at.
>>63636412
>not black widow getting her pussy buttfucked in 60fps
Fucking dropped faggot OP
>>63636412
>I have a little gun
kekes everytime, fucking slut
>>63636412
Looks like a video game desu
Movies shouldn't be in 60fps
>>63637020
I think the 3D has something to do with that.
>>63636860
>stuttery and blurry motion looks natural
>>63637046
I never heard this and it seems false
These childish video games are better at 60 or even 144fps but movies are horrible. Is it a old man thing ? How kids these days like 60fps movies ? I'm curious.
>>63637136
Real life is pretty blurry
>>63636860
Go die in a fire you're the reason every action move looks like blurry shit still years to come
>>63637136
You know what motion blur is right?
It's what happens when we move our eyes really fast?
>>63637158
It is. But with vidya it looks better because of player agency. There is less lag time between you moving and the character on the screen moving.
24fps is the standard because any lower than that and the gestalt illusion doesnt work.
>>63637158
24fps video looks fucking afwul after watching high frame rate videos. 24fps is not suited for fast moving camera. I hate it when action movies look like a blurry mess because the camera is all over the place.
>>63637278
That's modern camerawork fault. We have tons of martial arts movie where it all looks great. It doesn't have to be 48/60fps, and it wouldn't be any better if it was.
>>63637191
If your eyes already blur fast motion then what's the point of having an extra layer of motion blur on top of that?
>>63637329
Not when staring at a still screen. The camera acts as an eye and 60fps looks unnatural because it's an eye behaving unnaturally.
>>63637278
I guess we're fucked.
>>63637328
Having a higher frame rate would allow you to use faster camera motion instead of limiting things you can do.
>It doesn't have to be 48/60fps, and it wouldn't be any better if it was.
Yes it would. If movies would always been 60fps, no one would say that 24fps video looks better.
>>63637041
eww, fag.
>>63637374
>The camera acts as an eye
No it fucking doesn't. The eye doesn't capture individual frames. It detects photons entering trough your iris and lets your brain to give it meaning. 24fps is used because it's the bare minimum framerate you need to have a believable illusion of motion. It was picked to save money on film, not a problem that exists today.
35 replies, still same 3 webms OP attached.
>>63637390
>If movies would always been 60fps, no one would say that 24fps video looks better
This.
The only reason fags complain about 60fps is because they're not used to it.
Because film has always used 24fps, not because it's better, because it is the cheapest option. It's the lowest fps you can shoot at without it looking like a fucking slideshow.
But now that we have the technology and money to back HFR films, we should be moving forward. More is always better.
>>63637497
My problem with 60fps is that it reminds me of really really bad green screen. Looking at the humans in the shot looks like real life but everything in the background looks fake and it just creates such a strange fucking feeling when I'm looking at it. The constant soap opera feel drives me crazy. Hated Witcher 3 because of it too. Never feels natural.
>>63637536
It's not about money or technology. A fucking red cost less than a proper Panavision's 70mm camera. It disturbs too many people, even in their twenty.
But again i must ask what's the young kids think ? That's the true answer. I want to know of this 60fps shit is gonna be a standard in the future
>>63637536
>More is always better.
Like the amount of dicks in your ass
24fps is closer to what real life looks like than 60fps, but you wouldn't know because you haven't been there in a while
>>63636412
Honestly surprised how good this looks. Background looks real.
>>63636422
Wow, man!
>>63637619
That's why I play my games in 800x600 resolution, limit fps to 17, remove all saturation from my display, mute my audio and have a friend playing piano in the background. This way I can have an amazing video gaming experience. Not any of that fake soap opera crap like you were saying.
>>63637730
How are your loli hentai games going?
>>63637536
Nothing stopped people from using higher frame rates, cheapest option would've been 8fps which some early films were shot in. If you don't know, animation is done in 12 frames most of the time.
It's never been a question of technology or money. Things like 70mm film are absolutely outrageous expenses for no reason other than to have a bigger picture which is/was pointless when you have 35mm.
I know that there are some TV's that can convert a lower FPS to 60fps by smoothing.
Is there a software to do it in my pc in realtime?
Like a plugin for mpc or whatever?
My experience with framerate
24fps is always too blurry. Sometimes very annoying during action sequences (especially if they add shaky camera too it)
60fps feels just a tad bit too detailed. Objects seem to pop out, probably because the light boundaries around object/characters become more detailed.
Nevertheless I think I still prefer 60fps to 24fps though.
>>63637656
>It's not about money or technology
24fps was chosen as standard exactly because of those reasons.
But now that they're not problems, we can advance.
>>63637661
You serious think real life runs at 24fps?
People can tell the difference between 60fps monitors and 144hz monitors, so that clearly shows that real life runs at 144hz or higher.
>>63637497
This will forever be the best webm on the internet. It was also the first posted on 4chan.
>>63636412
Too Specific
>>63637661
Actualy the PAL/SECAM standard was the same problem some years ago.
PAL -> 25i.s
SECAM -> 50i.s
These fucking American TV programs looked weird in Europe (SECAM)
>>63637661
>24fps is closer to what real life looks like than 60fps
This is what dumbshits actually believe
>>63637769
>Like a plugin for mpc or whatever?
There is: https://www.svp-team.com/wiki/Main_Page
But I don't know how well it works
>>63637782
Real life "doesn't run at 24fps" or any fps, retard. But for some reason our eyes see motion with blur in real life.
>>63637765
>cheapest option would've been 8fps which some early films were shot in.
That's insane how low that is.
>If you don't know, animation is done in 12 frames most of the time
I don't believe you for a second.
What kind of animation? I'd believe really old, early animation films.
>>63637846
wow. gon check this out.
thanks anon!!
>>63636412
is this supposed to be funny? because it's pretty funny
>>63636412
This shit makes me nauseous.
>buy new TV
>it has interpolation function
>it's on by default every time I turn on the TV
>>63637868
>>63637820
wrong reply.
>>63637846
Just ask the techies : https://youtu.be/5pGAMrTwMSM
>>63637851
I know it doesn't work in fps. Our eyes are a lot more complicated than that.
But they can clearly see in 144hz, which means 60 is a lot closer to real life than 24
>>63637782
>24fps was chosen as standard exactly because of those reasons.
They could've (and did, effects shots were usually done at higher frame rates like 120) shot on higher frame rates
>People can tell the difference between 60fps monitors and 144hz monitors, so that clearly shows that real life runs at 144hz or higher.
Making any argument about perception is dumb as fuck. We can "perceive" a bee's wings when they flap so does that means our eyes can "perceive" how many times they flap? We can tell the difference between a bird's wings and a bee's, surely our eyes work that fast amirite?
>>63637974
Seeing moving images on a screen is different than seeing real motion
Our eyes do see in "higher framerates", but the way light works in real life and how our eyes process that makes motion blurry
>>63637974
>Tests with Air force pilots have shown, that they could identify the plane on a flashed picture that was flashed only for 1/220th of a second. That is identifying. So it's pretty safe to say, that recognizing, that SOME light was there is possible with 1/300th of a second.
Human eyes can AT LEAST see in 220fps.
>>63637465
lol, this is exactly it. People going "muh 24fps magic of film" are literally defending a money-saving exercise that has nothing to do with what looks best.
60 FPS is only good for porn.
>>63637191
Our vision doesn't blur if we track an object. You know, like how fast moving cameras in films track a target like an actor?
>>63637884
It makes everyone nauseous, faggots just try to pretend they're special by watching anyway.
>>63638018
Motion blur can simply added to films though right? Surely it's not that hard, but it may take a while to get it to feel right.
I think the HFR films would agree more with people if a bit of blur was added.
>>63638023
>Human eyes can AT LEAST see in 220fps.
That's cool to know.
>>63637979
>Making any argument about perception is dumb as fuck. We can "perceive" a bee's wings when they flap so does that means our eyes can "perceive" how many times they flap? We can tell the difference between a bird's wings and a bee's, surely our eyes work that fast amirite?
What the fuck are you talking about?
He said 24 was closer to real life than 60.
I said no, because it's proven that we can see above 144.
>>63638154
Or maybe your just projecting.
>>63637178
Are you retarded? Action movies look like blurry indecipherable shit because no one knows how to direct action scenes anymore and actors have no clue how to fight. The only way to disguise this fact is to shake the camera all over the place while constantly cutting.
Real life is 3D, which means you can focus on different layers of image.
If you focus on your hand and move it, the background seems blurry. If you focus on the background and move your hand, your hand seems blurry.
The reason 60fps video doesn't seem natural is that you can't focus on what you want. Both the background and the objects will move similarly, reducing the sense of blur.
24fps is not exactly real life, but it gives a more closer sense of motion blur (for the most part)
>>63636422
>>63638154
Anyone whose played games on PC are already used to it.
It's just that normies fucking aren't.
>>63636422
Congrats man. That's a rare one.
>>63638191
You're talking about motion blur and focus. that's two different things.
Good to see a HFR thread where people actually know what they're talking about. Anyone hyped for 120fps movies? I hear the Avatar sequels are gonna shoot natively in those.
>>63638246
Two different things that happen simultaneously, retard
>>63638160
>Motion blur can simply added to films though right?
Of course. When you add CGI to a film, you need to add artificial motion blur so it blends in better with the rest of the film.
>>63636586
There is a reason why it looks like ass.
It's not real 60 fps
/v/edditors leave
>>63636947
You could not be more correct.
You are a scholar and a gentlemen.
>>63638191
Our eyes have motion blur when they move really fast. In 24fps video you will always have blurry motion. Even if the camera isn't moving. How is that realistic?
>>63638360
Because in real life we move our eyes all the time, focusing on different things. Even if we don't notice, our eyes keep slightly moving even when starring something.
When you're watching a movie, your eyes are more focused on the screen, but the screen is presenting things that in real life would make our eyes move more.
So more blur make it look more like real life.
Again, not exactly like real life, but closer than 60fps where almost nothing has motion blur
>>63638191
Listen here, retard.
The whole debate going on in this thread is about motion blur in films.
That post starts out giving examples and evidence for different layers of focus in movies, and then finishes with an unsupported conclusion on motion blur.
He clearly got confused or got the definitions mixed up.
You're right, they both happen simultaneously, but have nothing to do with each other.
>>63638436
>Even if we don't notice, our eyes keep slightly moving even when starring something.
Our eyes keep moving to reduce motion blur.
From Wikipedia:
"When an animal's eye is in motion, the image will suffer from motion blur, resulting in an inability to resolve details. To cope with this, humans generally alternate between saccades (quick eye movements) and fixation (focusing on a single point). Saccadic masking makes motion blur during a saccade invisible. Similarly, smooth pursuit allows the eye to track a target in rapid motion, eliminating motion blur of that target instead of the scene."
>60fps where almost nothing has motion blur
top lel
>>63638481
The way our eyes sees things in real life give a sense of motion blur, because we're constantly focusing on different things of different layers.
Now go back to your realistic videogames
>>63638513
> Similarly, smooth pursuit allows the eye to track a target in rapid motion, eliminating motion blur of that target instead of the scene."
And the motion blur goes to the background, because you're focusing on the target, just like I said
If you track the target without focusing too much into it, it all becomes blurry
If you just follow the target but focusing on the background, the target becomes blurry
>>63638564
>If you track the target without focusing too much into it, it all becomes blurry
What? Tracking a target without focusing on it?
Also how is this even an argument for 24fps? Sure, our eyes have motion blur but it doesn't work like camera motion blur and it's not nearly as big in real life. 60fps doesn't remove motion blur, it only reduces it to a more reasonable level. Also, our eyes don't see fast motion as stutter like in 24fps. Isn't that very unrealistic looking?
>People say 60 fps looks unnatural
>hfr fags can only respond with "well... 24 fps doesn't look natural either. there's no motion blur in real life."
I'm not going to try to argue which one looks more natural, because there are valid arguments you can make on both sides.
All I know is that I never want to see an entire movie in the same framerate as OP's shot. It just looks terrible. It looks like I'm watching a home movie. It's the complete opposite of a cinematic experience. Natural or not, I don't want that shit in my movies.
>>63638680
>What? Tracking a target without focusing on it?
Yes
>60fps doesn't remove motion blur, it only reduces it to a more reasonable level.
It reduces it too much, making it less realistical than 24 fps, which has too much blur, but closer to realistical
60fps video reduces the motion blur of everything because you can't focus on layers, which is why the background motion seem weird, which also affects the foreground layer
>>63638576
wtf?
>>63638736
When you sit at a diner and focus your vision on your friend, do the people in the background have motion blur? They don't for me. Maybe you see just smudges moving about in the background.
>>63638523
Please, just no.
You're talking about focus again. Things get blurry when they're in the background or foreground.
Motion blur has nothing to do with that. We see motion blue because an object moves fast, whether it's in the background, in focus, or in the foreground.
>>63636860
>>63636412
>>63637884
>>63636586
but this isnt real fps, I'm kinda used to high framerates in games and this looked real odd, not good.
>>63638735
>It looks like I'm watching a home movie
The only reason it looks like a home movie and not a film is because films have always been at 24.
If movies were always in y0fps then this wouldn't be an argument.
What would be perfect is the highest frames possible, with the correct amount of motion blur attached to it. That would look like real life.
>>63638191
Based TV-anon
>>63637178
Go back to /v/, kid. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
>>63637619
This is literally the only point people bring against 60fps.
Not being used to it / it reminding them soap operas.
While probably the few "60fps" videos you've seen were probably some interpolated shit like in OP.
It's objectively better in any way, 24fps became a standard because of money restraints, people are just nostalgic.
I'm sick of having my eyes hurt at every long panning shot being so fucking choppy, same with ANY given action scene.
>>63636412
What are they looking at?
>>63639146
>60fps
>high framerate
>>63639820
for movies, for twitch shooters 60fps is unbearable
>>63636412
>interprashitted fake 60fps
nope try again you stupid tech-illiterate faggot
>>63636860
>>63637661
>24fps is more realistic
kek, how to spot neckbeards that never left their homes
>>63636412
Whedon looked at this scene and seriously tought it looks "cool"
>>63638513
The eyes and the brain are a supercomplex hardware/software interface. There are all kinds of weird fucking things that happen in your eyes and brain that its not a one to one correlation between vision and a picture.
>>63640182
Yeah, shitposts like yours are a dead giveaway
>>63639334
>says something stupid that makes no sense
>based anon because he agrees with me
nice webm thread you fucks
>>63640291
what a cute! :3
>>63637661
>24 fps
>fps
Continous streaming doesnt have frames.
>>63636422
This has the feel of an snl sketch or a soap opera, it stresses me out.
>>63636412
Damn this movie looks bad
>>63640416
>soap opera
that's what I get from it
not stressed though... I cool as a cucumber in a bowl of hot sauce
>>63636412
Native 60fps is awesome, but all these 60fps converted videos are shit, everything becomes blurry as fuck during fast scenes
>>63636422
Very nice.
>>63636422
wew lad
It's weird to think we've already had webms for over a year and a half already
>>63636466
>>63637497
its funny how an industry that is nothing but a series of advertisements for top-shelf prostitutes is pioneering 4k and 60fps.
>>63641819
hey, mob bosses are investing heavily in this kind of tech. so of course they get to marry these girls too.
>>63636466
I think I only find these skinny gooks arousing in 60fps t8h.
>mfw downloading SVP for the first time.
i'm never going to watch another movie in 24 fps.
>>63636412
>mfw I have a shitty monitor now and it only goes up to 75 Hertz and 60fps is vsync unfriendly for it so all 60fps is torn
>>63636422
Beautiful.
