>high frame rates sucks
>24 fps just feels natural
If you're watching something with lots of CGI then 60fps makes it look really fucking weird.
>>64427629
The trained human eye can see around 255 f/ps so yeah, film technology is still far away from reaching it's peak.
>>64427629
The optimal fps is that of your age. As you age you are able to see more fps, but at the age of thirty it simply stops.
>>64427629
Those are two absolutely accurate points.
I remember seeing hobbit in this 48fps shitvision and boy was is terrible
>>64428050
SILKY SMOOTH
jesus christ
>>64428050
jesus christ
>>64428050
Jesus Christ
>>64428050
Jesus?
>>64428050
Jesus fuck I got a headache from watching that.
>>64428050
my eyes can't keep up with it
>>64428080
>>64428094
>>64428122
>>64428130
>>64428133
Back to computer games, kiddo.
>>64428050
>It just feels right
>>64427973
Pro gamers can see even better and have faster reaction times too
>>64428523
>Im totally not wasting my time with computergames, r-r-really
>>64428680
The fact that you're saying this on /tv/ is disturbing.
>>64427973
>higher frame rate = automatically better
go away /v/irgin
>>64428050
Christ
>>64428748
that's objectively true for video games so I'm not exactly sure why it shouldn't be true for films..
Anyone care to give actual reasoning?
>>64428731
im not saying >>64428680
>>64428523 is saying it, faggot
>>64428765
It cost more money to shoot with high frame rate
>>64428765
It's entirely subjective. Do you think black and white films are objectively bad too?
>>64428809
Yea not like these Hollywood movie conglomerates have enough cash to pay for double the amount of frames!! that'd like double the cost of the movie or something rite!!!
>>64428835
No it's not subjective at all in video games, a game running at 30 frames is objectively worse then if it was running at 60 frames, or preferably somewhere close to 100.
Same for a black and white movie, it would look much smoother with a higher frame rate, that's an objective truth.
So unless you want to make up some bullshit why having a choppy screen adds to the cinematic effect or some bullshit I ain't responding, but I would urge you to look at this webm.
>>64428050
at 60 fps it would look a hell of a lot smoother, here's a little website demonstrating this effect.
http://testufo.com/#test=framerates
>>64428765
>thats objectetively true...
dont be that guy
>why it shouldn't be true for films
The only movie I ever saw a higher framerate was the hobbit. It was extremely shitty. It didnt look like a big movie anymore and the tempo seemed to be all fucked up.
Why fix something that isnt broken
>>64428944
>it would look much smoother with a higher frame rate, that's an objective truth.
smoother ≠objectively better
hence why the hobbit 48 fps movies were hated
your personal preference is not objective fact
>>64428944
>it would look much smoother with a higher frame rate, that's an objective truth.
holy fuck. You are full of yourself and retarded
>>64429031
>64429031
>>64429054
>>64429114
lol buttmads literally trying to justify having less frames.
Imagine ripping half the frames out of an animation, you objectively would make it worse, much worse in fact. How is it any different for film?
The idea that 24 fps provides some kind of cinematic experience is off to me, motion blur looks like dog shit, lowering the frame rate to have motion blur as an effect and praising it is really strange to me.
>>64429114
anon it is an objective truth have you never animated anything in your life or played a video game?
>>64429240
But we are not exclusivly talking about animation, you faggot. Yóu obviously never seen higher framerate in normal motion picture.
Thing you personally prefer are not objectively better, they are subjectively better (for you)
>>64427629
The human eye works at 24fps.
That's why higher fps feels weird to look at.
>>64429478
The human eye doesnt work at FPS at all, but 24fps is the most confortable and natural looking
>>64429478
I just googled this and realized how wrong I am. sorry.
>>64429478
>he human eye works at 24fps
>>64429549
>I talk about stuff before I know about stuff
Back to reddit
>>64429478
>The human eye works at 24fps.
>go to /gif/
>awww yiss time to busta load
>"60 fps" thread
>hmmmm
>dick instantly goes down
High fps is for video games. Just leave it there.
>24fps is the magic of cinema, I don't want it to look REAL
>Mono audio is the magic of cinema, I don't want it to sound REAL
>>64429478
>>64429549
Try 240.
>>64429754
>high fps is for video games
No. The problem is that nobody has LEARNED how to properly use HFR yet. So far, everyone has filmed it the same way they film in 24fps, which clearly doesn't work. As soon as filmmakers learn how to utilize it well, we won't have shit like this >>64428050 anymore.
HFR has amazing potential. Someone just needs to discover it. Maybe that'll be James Cameron with his Avatar trilogy.
>>64429825
What do you even mean? How do you film in another way?
>>64428050
Why? Why are my eyes watering? fuck the pain! What is this magic?
Stop comparing movies to video games, you stupid fucks.
God I hate you, faggots
Audio ruined movies.
Color ruined movies.
3D ruined movies.
60 FPS ruined movies.
>>64427629
24 fps for movies are fine, they are not video games where you interact with the medium
>>64428944
It really doesn't. while its interesting for purely experimental reasons or for video games its makes regular actions look unnatural and floaty.
>moviefags are still struggling to accept anything higher than 24 FPS while 90 is the absolute minimum for games
>>64428944
Thats a dreadful example btw blood relation.
>>64430489
>3D ruined movies.
this is true though I know no adult who frequenlty goes to the theater and doesnt avoid 3D if possible
>>64429240
This is funny as fuck, your clearly not animator.
Also yeah, removing half of something breaks it, just like adding an extra half would.
>>64430584
3D itself is fine and the inevitable evolution, the technology is still just not there yet since you need to wear glasses that darken the image and stuff.
>>64430644
>the technology is still just not there yet since you need to wear glasses that darken the image and stuff.
This is the main stumbling point for 3D, inconvenient for the viewer and reduces picture quality. Until those are solved, 3D does spoil movies.
>>64429825
>Cameron
This meme is getting old senpai
>>64428944
Nah, this is something that's simply not true made up by the gaming community. 60fps does indeed make many games look better but certainly not all games. Some games look fucking weird at 60fps.
There is such a thing as designing for a lower frame rate and such games do not look very good at higher frame rates. Some of them do and some of them don't. 60fps or higher certainly decreases input response time though.
Reality does not have a frame rate. A framerate is a series of still images that fools your brain into perceiving motion. Reality is not a sequence of still images therefore 240fps or whatever the "max" perceived frame rate of the eye is supposed to be is still not to be confused with reality. Similarly we don't see reality in pixels
>>64430837
>some look fucking weird
which games?
>>64429989
Less light because everything looks more real with higher frame rates and the light can be more distracting.
Different pacing of action scenes, things feel like they're moving much faster on 48 fps and you have to act accordingly.
>>64430638
In animation if you add double the frames it won't ruin it, it would create a far superior product...
>>64430837
If you can find a single legitimate game that runs better at 30 fps then 60 fps i'll suck my own cock and swallow my jizzem, but guess what THERE isn't one because more frames are OBJECTIVELY better.
>>64429989
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcnTf_4AdrI
>>64430837
>Some games look fucking weird at 60fps.
thats retarded. have fun with your dudebro machine.
>>64431042
All subjective.
Frames are not like dewbacks. You can't just put a bunch in the background and make things better. Design has to change.
>>64428050
jesus christmas
>>64431245
>you can't just put a bunch in the background and make things better
you're a mental case...
Do you know how fps works? It's called frames per second, when you add more frames per second motion blur is reduced, you see more so less is left up to the imagination and trickery, it feels sharper and smoother.
It's not your mental comparison of putting stuff in the background, this changes all the footage to look objectively closer to reality.
if you want to argue that's a bad thing go ahead but I certainly am not buying your argument that 24 fps looks better because it has some cinematic amount of motion blur. Motion blur is a shit effect, show us smoothness and nice edges rather then having such a horrible frame rate that literally no one would buy a game if it had that frame rate.
>>64431452
If design doesn't compensate you end up with Jumanji monkeys or Blade II's spotlight fight. 24/30 and 60fps effects sucks, I imagine you feel the same.
However 60fps is questionable value is silkiness of animation is not needed. Running say quake or planetside, 60 frames and great and can be argued for better play, but if you are not used to it, it will fuck you up. Considering a high ratio of games come out at lower FPS caps, it messes with with senses to switch often. 60fps on everything acoss the board need to be accounted for, as well as considering the common types of displays people have.
>>64431722
60fps has been the norm for games in general for more than a decade (and even higher when CRTs were still around). WTF are you on about?
>>64431452
>/v/ still trying to apply video game logic to film
Holy shit. I knew /v/ was just dumb teenagers but this guy is too much.
>>64431722
>Running say quake or planetside, 60 frames and great and can be argued for better play, but if you are not used to it, it will fuck you up.
that is 100% objectively untrue because higher frames means you move your mouse cursor over more pixels, moving over more pixels means you can have a much better aim. That's why when LED monitors and shit came out people still used CRT's because you can get 100hz which means 100 fps.
It's so important, every Counter Strike player plays at 144, and games that run at 30 fps are considered so bad certain game reviewers create a list of games that are 30 fps locked so you know never to buy those games.
If you didn't get my point I'll summaries, if we meet in a game I am getting quadruple the amount of frames on my screen then you running at 144 fps, which gives me much smoother game play, and much more pixels to aim at.
>>64431867
>>64431939
We already know this, nice walls of text.
Fact is though: those frames mean nothing if you don't compensate with it. 60FPS is not standard to this day, dozens of tittles launch FPS locked (or for certain platform) and they are not automatically horrible. I'm not saying lower FPS is better, I'm saying 60FPS is not all it's cracked up to be.
Lower frames can be utilized to an advantage: more frames to hit on sure, but less frames juxtaposes as less misses. Similar server ghosting means the guy with the toaster can develop an advantage versus someone processing people further from their response ghost.
>>64432222
Nice quads, shame it's posted by such a clueless plebeian, 60fps is the standard for video games of today, and if you lock your game at 30 fps for any other reason apart from running it on a console you are literally fucking the consumer out of the standard they should get.
>I love mexican soap operas
>>64428050
this looks so bad
>>64432598
I'll take mexican soap opera with the ability to pan the camera without causing people eye AIDS like above.
>>64432538
Quads are worthless, and spitefulness will get you nowhere.
60fps "more pixels more power" mentality is why we have Battlefront with 7 hours of gameplay; but hey it looks good. I rather a game be good at 30fps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djV11Xbc914
>>64432806
No fps game is good at 30 fps, ifyou capped me at playing at 30 fps I would just quit video games b/c all my opponents have such a massive advantage seeing literally 4x as much shit as me.
>24fps looks like shit, always has looked like shit, and always will look like shit, and no whiny bitchy complainy argument that people don't want to watch things that look like shit will make people want to watch things that look like shit
>>64432864
That's pretty silly. It's not even true.
>>64428944
>"smoothness" is an objective measurement
>>64432864
How can you be correct yet argue so stupidly?
>I can only play games at 90 fps!
wow what an achievement, you can't have fun in normal circumstances, and have to pay a lot of money to be at the same baseline of happiness as everyone else. Congrats emperor, your new clothes look great on you.
By the way, go back to /v/ you autistic faggots.
>>64427643
Thats the cgis fault, not the framerate.
Oh look, it's this thread again!
>>64433113
By that logic, overblown graphics on struggling console hardware is the reason for 30FPS in the first place, meaning it's actually people who need ridiculous graphics that require huge costs (that is after all, the biggest reason devs claim videogames cost so much more to make nowadays) to be at the same baseline happiness.
That argument is equally as stupid as yours of course, because it implies that one can't enjoy a game despite 30FPS while still preferring it be higher. I fucking loved Bloodborne, but at 60FPS it would have been a superior game.
>>64433113
You sound mad thb
>>64428765
I want /v/ to fuck off
>>64429240
>>>r/pcmasterace
You know nothing about film so fuck off
>>64430489
3D is awful. Color and Audio is all we need.
>>64432762
Then you can just fuck right off because you don't understand filmmaking
There isn't anything mysterious about this. 24 FPS is what movies have used as default for decades. People are just used to it.
>>64434341
Frame rate doesn't affect the game as much as you think you faggot. You're just trying to justify your $800 porn machine while all your reasonable friends are playing vidya just fine on PS4.
Putting 60fps in movies would ruin the movie and make it look like a soup opera and nothing you say will change that.
>>64428015
>muh fps
Back to /v/.
FPS isn't a limitation, though. The reason most people don't fuck around with it is because it's an industry standard, and there's a noticeable difference between 24 and 48 or 60. It looks and feels weird if you're so used to looking at 24 FPS
Sound
Colour
Higher resolution
Stereoscopic 3D
Higher framerates
Lower-light sensitivity during capture
Greater dynamic range during capture
Greater dynamic range during projection (within limits. Don't want to go blind.)
We've still a ways to go.
In the end, you want selective framerates, appropriate to the story being told. It's like choosing to have some grain in your image to LITERALLY make the gritty image fit the gritty mood. It's just one more tool added to the arsenal.
