Give me good reasons why tv and film shouldn't be shot in 60fps.
because it looks wrong, it's too realistic
because it makes it look like a videogame. you have to go way higher than that to make it look "realer" than 24fps.
just look at it
>>64879544
>>64879483
>>64879463
Jerky shitty frame rates with no motion lit during action scenes is the way to go!
gives me a headache fuck you
Looks like a soap aorta
because the human eye can only perceive up to 320 kbps
>>64879394
Because the human eye cant see more than 10 fps anyway tard
I'll tell you why after The Neon Demon releases
>>64879944
Actually that's the ear.
kbps is for auditory perception. FPS is for visual perception. So your statement makes no sense, because the eye cannot hear 320 kbps, anymore than the human ear can see 60 fps.
then it would take twice as long to film the movie
>>64879394
Because the human eye cant see more than 2 fps anyway tard
>>64879394
Because it uses more storage space, so movies would be even more expensive to make, and studios would take even less chances.
Do you actually WANT movies to get crappier than they already are?
>>64880107
A film's budget has little impact on its quality.
Most expensive "AAA" flicks are actually complete garbage.
>not wanting movies and tv to be this smooth
60 fps isn't more realistic. Film is a visual trick. The human eye doesn't perceive life in frames. 24 fps creates a motion blur that is more consistent with our eyesight.
60 fps will never, ever be a thing, unless they manage to sucker people into it like they did with 3D.
>>64880147
>Most expensive "AAA" flicks are actually complete garbage.
Exactly. They pour so much money into them, that they have to be completely formulaic, lest they become too risky.
What do you thing would sell better to the common audience: Space Pocahontas, or something like 2001:ASO?
>>64880034
Is this what autism looks like?
What a stupid fucking retarded post
Youre delightful
I prefer 60 FPS, especially in documentaries.
Few people seem to know that decades of TV documentaries were filmed in 60 FPS, albeit interlaced. But you can use high quality motion compensating deinterlacers to yield true progressive 60 FPS.
Unfortunately most DVD rips on the net do not do this. So I get untouched DVDs and rip them myself.
>>64880185
THIS SUMMER
AVATAR 2 IN 60FPS IN SELECTED CINEMAS
>>64880243
Have sex with me, slut.
Because nobody has made one that is any good yet.
>>64880034
>>64879944
Because movies will look even faker than they already do.
For nature documentaries and sports though it's great.
Does anyone have any native high fps movie footage? I've never seen any. I don't mean live footage like
>>64880152
or video game shit. Has anything besides The Hobbit been released at a high frame rate?
once you get used to seeing 60fps film it looks just as "natural" as 24fps
i mean who the fuck wants shit like this anymore in a visual medium
I hate this meme.
>>64880542
MY EYES!
>>64880527
Just watch a Brazilian soap opera.
>>64880314
Ew. Get away from me with your dishwashing hands, is that a boner i see?
>>64880527
https://vimeo.com/20096360
From what I hear, it makes practical FX much more difficult and promotes SFX over it (Hobbit), but that's about it.
>>64880542
Are you implying that webm is 60fps?
60fps for gaming, 24fps for film. Stop trying to innovate when we've already found the golden medium.
>>64880542
That actually hurt my eyes
>>64880679
I have planet of apes in 60fps
its OK, I guess
>>64880542
kek I had forgotten there were rock transformers in this movie. Man what the fuck happened to Aronofsky
>60 frames of shit are better than 24 frames of masterpiece
dat consumer mindset.
What about that 48FPS fad, I thought everyone hated it?
>>64880651
>https://vimeo.com/20096360
Cheers but I was more looking for something with professional production values
>>64880799
Didn't know about that, thanks
I'd take 720p60 over 2060p24 any day
>>64879940
this
>>64879394
Because people are idiots with no suspension of disbelief, so they can't watch movies that look "too real".
>>64881081
Wouldn't having a lack of suspensions of disbelief mean you want your movies to look more real?
>>64880088
I know you're being funny but It actually would.
>>64880840
cinematography was on point tho
it's also somewhat accurate to descriptions of the nephilim in the bible
i thought it was a pretty good movie just for the visuals. it's high time someone made a movie based on christian mythology and give the proper visual treatment like other religions/cultures movies.
imagine a LOTR style movie of the War in Heaven, shit would be nuts visually.
Because then 2 hour long movies would be only 48 minutes long i.e. shorter than an episode of a HBO show
>>64880629
That is 30fps.
>>64879849
He wants everything to look like the hobbit
>nobody goes to the theater ever because it looks too real
>>64880542
why does it seem jittery
>>64881315
I got a tard in our hands, guys.
You're still one of us, and we will accept.
>>64880152
>smooth
You talking about the girl or the webm?
>>64879394
60 fps on film isn't the same as 60 fps in a video game.
It looks like shit in film.
>>64881459
>It looks like shit in film.
[citation needed]
>>64881490
Watch a fucking film, little monkey.
>60fps looks like shit in film
This meme needs to die
>>64880679
I'm all for it, once you go 60 fps you can't go back, open your eyes plebs
>>64881523
Why do you people want to shit on art? Fucking gaymers.
>>64881349
because a wide pan like at 24fps induces a shitload of motion blur
cameras work by opening and closing a shutter at a certain speed, in this case 24fps or 1/48th of a second. when the camera is moving like that shit is still happening in the short time the shutter is closed. the end result is the entire movement being blended together which resolves as motion blur.
so if you have more fps (and a correspondingly higher shutter speed) you have more stuff being captured and thus less motion blur i.e. a smoother image.
>>64881459
If that's the case, then why are studios doing all their trailers in 60fps?
There's even an entire youtube channel dedicated to it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mei97j8h9g
Checkmate, atheists.
>>64881584
They don't. These trailers are interpolated by users
>>64881282
Thanks Dan
>Real life looks fake because it has unlimited FPS
everyone knows the human eye can only see three frames per second.
Sport, Documentaries, Dance etc should all be shot in 60fps, basically anything that's "real"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc5mD97UX28
Check out this guys videos in 60fps, its like looking through a window.
>>64881631
You'd think Bruce Wayne could afford a gym membership instead of using a fucking tractor tire and a ripe.
>>64880542
This is just bad filmmaking there's a formula about the distance of the subject, shutter speed and the speed of the pan in the American Cinematographer's manual that if the director doesn't know about at least he should be able to work with a DP that knows what the fuck they're doing.
I'm yet to see a good film at 60fps, while there's plenty of good films shot at 24.
>>64879394
Because 60FPS is no benefit for movie, 24 is enough and once we get better at effects along with the technology becoming cheaper maybe 48 will be a standard.
>>64881177
>cinematography was on point tho
>>64882680
>>64881581
No that webm is actually juddering. Most likely 24fps exported at 30, causing some stuck frames.
>>64881490
You want citation? Here is your citation >>64880542
>>64879394
because it should be shot in 120fps or even 200fps
>>64882753
r u dumb
>>64883101
Elaborate, what did you think was dumb about that?
>>64883101
No, you don't know how appreciate film. I saw it in a huge screen and the most disappointing thing about Noah, even more than the shit story was the shit visuals. The only redeemable parts were the abstract quasi psychedelic moments of nightmares and hallucinations.
>>64883141
>>64883225
Sorry, quote was meant for >>64882833
>>64879394
it should be 1000
>>64883332
What about over 9000
>>64883332
YFW 1000FPS PORN AT 8X SPEED
>>64883225
what was shit about the visuals exactly
i thought the visuals were the best part
>>64883421
I found that the perfect speed to watch JAV's is 1.4x speed muted.
>>64883447
Frames looked empty and two dimensional, no sense of depth in the mise en scene combined with very flat lightning and all over the place no direction acting. It was for the most part like watching a play with shitty scenery. Aronofsky's experiment looked not so thought of and lazy, except in the trippy parts. Rock monsters out of nowhere betray the already stablished naturalism of the landscapes that until that was the constant, albeit really fucking plain and boring, of the film.
>>64880542
that's just badly filmed
Because our current tech isn't up to scratch.
Look at the hobbit (which isn't even at 60, but 48), it doesn't feel like you are watching scenes from middle earth, it feels like you are on the set. You can see that the costumes are costumes and not real clothes, you can see the weapons are props, the CGI (which is like 90% of the movie anyway) stands out as vidya footage. It simply doesn't work.
We currently still need 24fps to "fuzz" the picture.
Compare it to puppeteering, stand at a distance and you have a "shitty picture", put it looks like the puppet is moving on its own, despite a not crystal clear image, the show as a whole is immersive.
Now move up closer, you can now see every detail of the puppet- But you also see the strings, the illusion disintegrates and no matter how good the puppet looks, the show as a whole looks like shit.
60FPS makes all the "strings" and trickery far too obvious, it ruins the immersion, and rather than looking more real it backfires and the entire thing looks more fake.
>>64880542
vs silky smooth 50fps
if 60 fps was good then films would be made in 60 fps
Because it should be shot in 120fps.
>>64883581
>JAV
>All that squealing
They have some of the best looking girls, but it feels like I am watching a horny pig, which just ruins everything, and muted porn doesn't do it for me either.
Why can't they just cry out in pleasure, instead of literally crying "eeeeeee,eeeee,ee,e,e,e,ee,eeee,eee,eee,e"
>>64879394
https://youtu.be/kFh6c_CwdBg?t=19m56s
>>64883869
How would you go and make costumes look realer? They're already made of cloth? Make up? They've been perfecting the craft for over a century, and use top technology to make it seamless with the performers. CGI can be improved, but everytime no matter how good you think it is, you look back and now it looks like shit. There are exceptions, but it's because the filmmakers are good and know for how long the illusion can be maintained, they just don't use it as a solution for every problem. Look at starship troopers or jurassic park for example.
>>64879394
Cause /v/ likes 60FPS so it's bad.
>>64879394
>not watching cinéma in 0.1 fps
You have 10 seconds to convince me you're not a pleb.
It gives everything an incredibly eerie hollow feel. It's kinda like being in a big empty arena. shit is just unnatural.
>>64884215
Jesus, just imagine Ex Machina in 60fps
>>64880152
THis. Doesn't look real. Looks like shit you filmed on your family camera.
>>64884215
>>64884353
60fps is just another tool that hasn't been used correctly. If you study the story of film you'll see that every time a new technology appears a lot of filmmakers jump on it without know what to do with it, but eventually some of them start to use it correctly. Same thing happened with the zoom lens, with color, digital cinema, cgi, etc. Some tools don't have a place in cinema or are just gimmicks and are quickly forgotten or come in waves like 3D, that has already appeared and disappeared three times.
>>64884111
No, the costumes aren't real, that is why it is a costume. Obviously they are real in the sense that they exist, but that wasn't my point.
Costumes are often designed to look a certain way on 24fps post edit film. They use certain materials that are practical rather than autentic for instance, especially when it is some fantasy outfit (marvel capeshit costumes for instance) or some massive set (The wall in Troy for instance)
Now if you were to use only authentic materials and techniques then sure, you can film it in 60FPS and it would look so real people will ask themselves if what they just saw was real or "just a movie".
>Actually chop a mans arm of and film it at 60fps and people are going to freak the fuck out in the cinema.
>Use practical effects and film it at 60fps an people are going to see through it, they'll be able to say "just a movie".
It is just that in making a film, there are a plethora of "oddities" that aren't there in real life, and these oddities become painfully obvious when you film in 60fps.
Now I reckon you could film a period piece in 60fps and get away with it. The costumes are (or should be) the real deal, there are no practical effects that are going to ruin the illusion. Of course the counter to that would be, "why would you need 60fps in a slow paced period piece?"
>>64884579
>colour was used wrong at the start
No, it may have been unrefined when they first started using it, but at no point did anyone say "fuck this shit, back to black and white exclusively".
>>64879995
If you shoot at 60fps and play back at 24 you get half the speed. It's more likely that Refn is doing that than shooting the entire movie at 60.
>>64884579
3D looks awful. only plebs tolerate that shit when they run out of 2D tickets. that's literally the only reason 3D tickets sell at all.
https://youtu.be/kFh6c_CwdBg?t=22m6s
but frame rates above 24fps look bad too.
>>64884626
It's just a question of bad filmmaking then.
A filmmaker should take into account how the thing used to capture the images is going to render the world he's capturing. We've all seen bad costumes in 35mm 24fps films.
The question is then what kind of film will look better at 60fps? A film of robots living in space? A documentary about the uncanny valley? Certainly it's not fantasy films of period pieces.
Did you see The Witch? They made all the props and costumes using only materials and techniques that were available at the time. Kind of what john ford used to do or kubrick.
>>64879394
Autists can't handle HFR.
Reminder that if you say "Film" is only film because of its limited bandwidth delivery system you might as well go back and listen to all your music on cassette tapes.
>/v/ tries to watch a movie
>starts to think about frame rates instead of just watching and experiencing the film
now this is autism.
>>64884709
>instance
No but you had many serious filmmakers using black and white until very late. And you had shit like two strip technicolor that look weird and didn't become a thing like when the three strip was invented.
>>64879394
Storage space.
Updating industry standards across equipment.
No one really cares about image judder and smearing outside of 3D, and no one really cares about 3D.
Ang Lee has a 120FPS 3D movie coming out this year.
>>64880034
Oh boy oh boy oh boy >>64879944
10/10
>>64880679
>i mean who the fuck wants shit like this anymore in a visual medium
I don't think film makers want to increase the fps because then they have to put twice the effort into sets and costumes to have them not look like trash
>>64880257
> albeit interlaced
Which makes them 30fps.
What fps was the Revenant shot at?
Because I want it to look like that. Don't be a retard.
>>64884863
it's mostly just /r/pcmasterrace shitposters from /v/ and not all of /v/.
Film doesn't work like videogames.
thread is over.
go back to /v/
>>64884770
I liked the used of 3D in Hugo, Avatar, Goodbye Language. It doesn't always look bad, but is tiresome and you can't watch every film in 3D, that's why it comes and goes. People get tired of it.
>>64882812
Exactly
>>64884998
I really hate that it dims the image so much. otherwise I wouldn't be as annoyed by it as I am.
>>64884965
Wrong. They have 60 distinct fields per second.
Telecine =/= true interlacing
>>64879944
nice one heheh
i got it because i listen in flac
>>64884969
24fps. It was shot in 3.5K and 6.5K and mastered in 4K. Which is basically the new standard going forward.
>>64884804
Well that was my point from the start, not that 60fps is bad, but that the current techniques (majority of them anyway) are bad for 60fps.
>>64880542
so this is the power... of 60 fps... woaah
>>64883581
absolute good taste
>>64884709
Read up Tarkovsky's thoughts on color film
>>64885092
Field is not a frame. Interlaced video is two "fields" made from one frame.
60i is 30 fps.
This is basic video/tv.
I don't know of any documentaries from decades ago that were shot played at 60fps. Unless you mean one of those Douglas Trumbull demonstrations.
>>64879483
Imagine a world where video games (or soap operas) don't exist. What's your criticism then?
>>64882002
>movies = real life
>>64883869
THIS
/thread
>>64885203
It's 24 fps, retard.
>>64885342
Not that other anon, but you're not quite right. With true interlaced video, the half frames are different from each other, they offer different information albeit each half-frame with only half the resolution. To go from 60i to 30p you'd need to deinterlace as well, otherwise you get combing precisely because the half frames are different. It's neither 30 frames nor 60, it's 60 half frames.
>>64885188
It's not a matter of techniques but of filmmaker's ability to use a tool correctly.
>>64886276
Hes talking about stuff like jump cuts and frame drops to imply quick action. They don't stand out too much in 24fps, but look laughable when attempted in 60fps
>>64885737
Thank you for explaining it more accurately.
>>64886642
They do stand out at 24FPS, which is why they are effective.
A guy like Michael Bay relies on audiences losing visual information. An extreme close up on very long lens combined with a whip pan of two fast moving objects passing each other with someone shaking the camera like it's a red headed step child is going to be a lot less effective at 60fps, no matter how fast you cut.
>>64883869
I will wait and see until pic related is out.
Ang Lee is shooting at 120fps (and Sony is apparently promoting new projectors for it) for maximum realism in the battle scenes.
Which is almost the polar opposite of Spielberg in Private Ryan, so this should be interesting for comparison. Although I guess the narrow shutter angle in Private Ryan makes each individual frame look more realistic (less motion blur/smear, clearer image) but people don't view the world like it's a series of strobe illuminated photographs.
>>64879394
>>64879463
>>64879483
>>64879940
Most new TVs already have frames interpolation so many people watch tv and movies at 60+ fps already without knowing it....
>>64879957
Actually, it's 13 fps
>>64886962
They know it and it looks terrible.
>>64887083
Nigga plz, average normie will not find this menu option to turn it off even if his life would depend on it.
Anyone who says 60 isn't better is trolling. Just look at the evidence. 24 fps is total shit and outdated.
>>64887301
wow, when you're used to 60fps, 24fps really starts looking bad in comparison. it's like when color film was introduced.
>>64886905
>handegg
>action
>120fps
>sony
>ang lee
It will score high since only people already interested in the film will go watch it, after which it will fade into obscurity since only people interested in watched it.
Also
>sportsfilm
Come on, we left the 80's stop going back in time.
>>64886962
Except that's not 60fps.
That's 24fps repeated a bunch of times.
>>64887462
Well, it's a sports AND war film.
If anything could make legitimate use of high frame rates it's those two subjects.
Still sucks that to check it out I'll have to see it in 3D, which simply doesn't work in an impressive manner (at it's best it's a Pop Up Book with fuzzy edges or occasionally a really good giant diorama).
>>64887478
Interpolated not repeated.
>>64887301
Top is clearly fake, you can see it is a set, the plants aren't real, the outcrop she is sitting on isn't real, the background is CGI, the clouds as well, the lighting/shading is all wrong. Couldn't look more like studio, even if I were there and saw it with my own two eyes. My mind doesn't accept this as anything but a set, it doesn't accept the illusion and I can not immerse myself into the story.
Bottom one however is so blurry I can't really tell, there is enough information present to tell there is a figure sitting on a high outcrop with a forest in the background and some sort of fog in the bottom, maybe they are above the clouds, it however doesn't give me enough information to "confirm" it is fake, my mind is more read to accept the illusion and I can immerse myself into the story.
I am a high functioning autist.
>>64879394
I want /v/eddit to leave.
Faggot /v/ crossposters amongst other shitters killed this board.
>>64887638
Which is (pretty much, let's be honest) the same thing.
Trumbull has the right idea, film in high frame rates and choose the best frames to create better movement in 24fps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkWLZy7gbLg
>>64887829
IS NOT, REEEEEE
>>64879394
because it looks terrible and you're a fag for asking
>>64884520
It DOES look real, that's exactly the problem. It doesn't look "like a movie" and that gives your brain a weird sense of cognitive dissonance so you perceive it as being bad.
When DVD came out, people swore it didn't look any better than VHS, and the crazy people said VHS was actually better.
When Blu-ray came out, people didn't think it looked any better than DVD. Some people didn't like how HD video looked compared to the old 480p CRTs.
60fps comes out, and people think it looks fake compared to 24fps.
The thing is that in your brain you don't actually compare movies to reality, it compares movies to other movies. The human brain examines everything in context to decide what "should be." You have a set idea in your head, "A movie looks like THIS" and anything that deviates will be seen as different and bad. Until you get used to it. Then you'll go back to the old stuff and go "Oh, man, how did I ever watch this?"
sports should be shown in 60 fps
it would actually be a helpful improvement for the viewing experience
>>64879394
The real reason is because your eyes are used to 24fps already, if they change it suddenly it will feel wrong to you and you'll leave the theater not quite satisfied with the movie and it will ultimately flop. The best option is to slowly get you used to higher fps, like selling you 120hz tvs and making movies at 45fps like the last Hobbit, but why even bother with more expensive technology when you are already satisfied enough with 24fps?
Again is because it's not profitable.
>>64886962
that's not 60 fps. you need to FILM it at 60 fps
the difference between 24 and 60 fps is huge
>>64887916
>When DVD came out, people swore it didn't look any better than VHS, and the crazy people said VHS was actually better.
No they didn't you underage b& faggot. DVD was an instantaneous huge hit. People were blown away by it. Despite comparable image quality existing for decades in the Laserdisc market.
>When Blu-ray came out, people didn't think it looked any better than DVD.
People said it didn't look better enough to justify the price tag. Not that it didn't look better in general.
>>64887879
>let's film something so it looks as good as possible
>then let's actively make it look shittier for no reason other than tradition
>>64888118
>DVD was an instantaneous huge hit. People were blown away by it.
They weren't and it wasn't. DVD didn't hit its stride until bonus features became prevalent and then people switched for that reason and realized how much better DVD was only after getting used to it.
>People said it didn't look better enough to justify the price tag. Not that it didn't look better in general.
You don't remember all the hubbub about how HD video means more flaws in sets and actors are visible and how it's going to ruin everything because it exposes how fake things are and how ugly some actors are? I remember that shit pretty clearly, and it was literally the same complaints that people had with 48fps. But you know what happened? People got used to it and we made better sets and used better makeup, problem fucking solved.
>>64887204
Mostly because every TV calls it something different, and buries it in a different part of the menu, and often couples it with another feature that doesn't look horrible
>>64888259
So you're under 18.
DVD was a huge and obvious gain in visual fidelity over VHS. You'd know this had you ever so much as been in the same room as a VHS tape or VCR at any point in your life.
>>64888259
>They weren't and it wasn't. DVD didn't hit its stride until bonus features became prevalent and then people switched for that reason and realized how much better DVD was only after getting used to it.
I was there. I was a media purchasing adult at the time. It was massive. The switch was extremely fast, much faster than any other media format switch. And image quality was as huge part of that. Literally nobody said VHS was better quality. Not even mouth breathing plebs.
>You don't remember all the hubbub about how HD video means more flaws in sets and actors are visible and how it's going to ruin everything because it exposes how fake things are and how ugly some actors are?
The only comparable complaint to what you stated was that porn actors would have to wear more make-up. Normal people didn't notice or care and film nerds were excited for it.
The only complaint that was constant was "I don't want to re buy stuff"
The difference between VHS, DVD and Blu-Ray is simply an increase in the quality of existing images for home viewing.
The difference in Frame Rates is a fundamental change in image quality from the source.
It's like the switch from black and white to color in terms of impact.
>>64888259
The HD argument was bullshit because theaters existed, had been showing movies in resolutions that dwarf "HD" for a century, and people actively went out of their way to watch movies in theaters because of how much better it looked.
Other than handegg, most people are simply not exposed to framerates higher than 24, and when they are, they become associated with the lazy low production value bullshit of the shit that uses higher framerates, like soap operas.
>>64888367
I'm 26. I know that it WAS an obvious gain, but you obviously didn't know any of the scores of mainstream viewers (my family included) who thought it looked the same as VHS until they got used to DVDs and realized VHS looked like shit. I remember everyone not listening to me when I gushed over DVD, and the same happened with HD (though not quite as bad and for different reasons).
>>64888545
>my family is all families
nigger you're autistic
>>64888591
My family wasn't the only one. I said as much in my post.
>>64879394
>LE SOAP OPERA MEME
60fps will come soon, Anon.
>>64880542
That's not remotely the real quality of the shot. Pause it anywhere and you can see horrible compression artifacts (not blurring, artifacts) that obviously weren't in the original print. Your post is worthless.
>>64888645
They are, on the other hand, the basis for your confirmation bias fueled argument that is at odds with the proven and well documented fact that VHS to DVD was the fastest large scale adoption of a new media format in history.
>>64888657
it actually looks worse the higher the bitrate. As the lower bitrate hides a lot of shit.
>>64879394
Because special effects can't really keep up with that kind of frame rate.
CGI effects become more obvious relative to live action shots, because the subtle blur of a lower frame rate isn't there to equalize the shots, and the fake gasoline/propane fireballs of practical effects become more obviously not real explosions.
>>64888522
>The HD argument was bullshit because theaters existed, had been showing movies in resolutions that dwarf "HD" for a century,
They did not.
>>64887478
>>64888107
Kill urself retards, interpolation is creating new frames, not repeating.
>>64888994
Post clips or this is bullshit.
>>64889455
Why haven't you seen noah?
>>64879394
there is no reason, high framerate is glorious
>>64889140
Is this propaganda?
You can measure resolution. Test audiences are irrelevant.
>>64889140
>study confirms that test audiences are fucking blind
>>64879394
the human eye can't even process anything past 10 fps, why overkill it with 60fps?
>>64889176
> creating
Yeah. By duplicating and smearing. Or do you think there are little people in your TV filming all the missing parts of the movie you are watching Cletus?
>>64889140
>we do study
>targets of study (film studios, camera companies, film companies, entire industry basically) say its load of shit
>we still win cuz dey no do study
what a complete load of shit. They have the actual fucking data, they don't need to do a counter-study to disprove your shit.
>>64889176
Do you think an interpreter creates a new language when translating a conversation?
>>64890059
>>64889987
It duplicates frames by blending them, but it uses a calculator that's patented, it degrades picture quality, especially sharp scenes and introduces artifacts, repeating a frame 5 times is anti-motion blur you uneducated retards.
>>64888938
>VHS to DVD was the fastest large scale adoption of a new media format in history.
yeah and not just the in media format. The DVD player over all took the title of fastest adoption rate for any new tech outside the phone and held that title for about a decade. Only being passed by the ipad in the last couple of years.
something I find a little shocking I knew the ipad was popular but I did not think it was that popular.
as for the film frame rate I think the entire issue will chase the money in the home market. TV makers need something to "pimp" to try to get you to replace your TV set. They tried 3d, it flopped. They went with higher and higher refresh rates and that kind of worked, now it's all about pushing 4k.
So I could see some sort of move toward higher FPS just to use as new marketing buzz. "Best TV to show 60FPS!!" etc..
>>64888645
Holy fuck you are so retarded it's not even funny.
Yes, your family, and whatever 5 people you talked to, were all complete morons and not representative of the general public.
I'm 30, I distinctly remember our family getting a VHS player, and again when we got a DVD player in 1999. The quality was not even comparable, everyone in magazines, on the internet, on TV was excited for DVDs. Millions of families went and bought DVD collections because they were convinced there wouldn't ever be anything better.
The hype surrounding 1080p home video was similar. I remember the HD-DVD vs Blu Ray wars on the internet, King-Kong vs. all the Sony shit, and EVERYONE talking about how you had to go to Best Buy and look at an HDTV.
The hype for HD was real, and so was the hype for DVDs
>>64890208
Example of bad interpolation on the first generation Samsung TVs, modern TVs rarely have interpolation artifacts, but they still degrade sharpness
>>64880152
This doesn't even look like real life to me.
If I was watching this show in real life when she turns around and waves her arms it would be slightly blurry. This shit looks weird specifically because it looks like nothing I've ever seen in the real world before.
THIS IS WHY 48FPS WILL NEVER WORK.
>>64890208
> step printing is anti motion blur
Is this b8?
Repeating frames is literally how you create blur. My god you are dense. Just think it through in your head. Have you never noticed the difference between overcranking and step printing in your life? Have you never actually watched a movie?
Interpolation is LESS clear than regular frame rates as it literally (literally) smears the picture.
>>64879394
60 is completely arbitrary. The only reason why your video games are 30/60 fps is because power lines are 60 hz (in America) and old TVs had to match that. 72 would be much better because then you could watch traditional 24 fps content on the same screen without judder.
>>64883885
Im not saying this is bad but the problem is with the camera on the boom moving to fast
>>64890463
Most modern (expensive) TVs can handle 24p and 120fps. It's standard now.
>>64890455
Interpolation smears by calculating which frames to blend, reducing sharpness but also reduces jitter.
TVs have 3 settings you retard, one is for repeating frames reducing motion blur but increasing input lag.
One is for inserting black frames, reducing motion blur but cutting brightness in half.
One is for reducing jitter/making soap opera effect by inserting artificial frames, but reducing picture quality.
>>64879394
It looks like shit.
>>64884049
I know that feel bro. The sounds ruin it.
>>64890699
It's only shit if you make the movie shit, it's why interpolation looks like shit.
Jim is smart and will use 60Hz properly without making it look artificial. People need to remember that HFR punishes bad detail, things like bad physics are easy noticeable, the reason the hobbit movies sucked in HFR format was because Peter Jackson made retarded CGI scenes where legolas was bending laws of physics, this is noticeable in HFR by anyone.
there's really no reason high FPS movies look better and more real.
jew studios just say it doesn't look good because their camera tricks and special FX still rely on 24 fps skipped frame garbage and they don't want to invest in new techniques to make it more realistic to catch up with technology.
24 fps is so annoying. Your eyes don't perceive real life that low why should your media.
The human eye can't even see anything beyond 3.5 GB.
>>64890463
>is because power lines are 60 hz (in America)
Yeah that's some made up bullshit if I've ever seen it.
>>64890293
pff, the ipad isn't popular my family still doesn't have one
>>64890831
No, the reason Hobbit sucked was because it immediately became apparent that the sets looked fake and I felt like I was watching a soap opera.
The CGI bullshit felt the most natural in 48fps because it was specifically created with it in mind.
>>64886905
/p/ here
go home, you're drunk
>>64890919
everything looked like shit in 24fps too so I don't know what you're talking about.
>>64890854
Jew studios say this to save money as the lower frames the cheaper.
Also making quality HFR content 48+ fps is much harder than 24 fps, because it's much more realistic and noticeable in HFR, which makes digital or bad effects noticeable, try watching the phantom menace fight scenes in HFR or interpolated, it will look artificial and fake, simply because it's bad in first place, the 24fps saves this by making it harder for your eye, it's really that simple.
>>64890666
And they all degrade the image.
How you want your faces senpai?
Melting, blurring or smearing?
You cannot make an motion picture clearer by repeating frames. Interpolation does not create new frames. It modifies existing frames. It stretches visual information.
That's why it looks like runny shit.
>>64879394
There is literally no reason to make films 60fps. 24fps just looks better. 60fps is in the uncanny valley where it looks kind of realistic but not really, so your brain rejects it and you can't immerse yourself in the film.
You also have to understand that it has never been, and will never be, the goal of films to "look real". Real life does not have cuts, and the way the image from a camera looks is very different to the image we see with our eyes. For this reason, there is no actual benefit to high framerate.
>>64890863
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_frequency
>>64890999
Yes, but you specifically called out the CG. The CG felt the least shit out of everything.
>>64879394
HFR (48fps) is the beginning of a new age in Cinema. You won't like it at first, you will think it looks like a video game or a kids show. But the added information, coupled with the new possible areas of creativity it brings us will usher in a whole new era of film making. Mark my words.
Live action looks more like really good CG and subsequently good CG looks more like live action. Once we adjust to the new format we will no longer be able to tell generated artifacts from the real thing which will add greatly to immersion.
Action scenes are crisp and lively. Color saturation is fantastically present (improving 3D a great deal I might add).
It's a bit off putting at first and in particular scenes involving actors seem almost ugly at times. However, landscapes right from the get go look amazing. The setting of the film comes alive in a way that almost makes it the central character in the film. Again, I think this is a good thing.
I can say a lot and I'm sure others will disagree with me but I believe we are part of a great change in cinema and I for one intend to explore it to it's fullest extent.
>>64891062
Thanks for doing my work for me. Classic bait trap.
>>64890831
What the fuck are you talkimg about?
Hz =/= FPS.
Also, being one of the few people who bothered to watch The Hobbit in 48fps, it didn't look any better or worse in 24fps. It looked equally as shit. Just slightly smoother shit.
>>64891046
Wrong
>>64890863
Forgot second link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC#Lines_and_refresh_rate
It's why TVs in Europe used to be 50 fps, because their power lines are at 50hz
>>64891125
I don't really mind as long as somebody learns something.
>>64891046
> literally no reason
Reduces image judder and motion blur. It is a clearer image, especially when image movement is involved (camera or subject).
This is helpful especially for 3D presentations, as stereoscopic 3D exacerbates these problems.
So there literally are reasons. Whether you think they matter or not is subjective. The industry decided 24 was a good compromise between cost and effectiveness.
>>64891046
>I'm a luddite
you're probably one of those hipsters who like movie grain simply because it feels more like a movie
>>64891030
Only Interpolation degrades picture quality, Cinemas use BFI today to reduce motion blur.
Repeated frames is not damaging either apart from lag.
Interpolation today is better but still shit. Interpolation does modify existing frames, but it kinda splits them up similar to interlacing, but the quality is still progressive, it's the sharp scenes it can't handle well since of collision and artifacts appear.
>>64891191
TV's in Europe weren't 50fps.
You're confusing Hz and Fps.
60hz is why U.S. home video (NTSC) was converted to 29.whatever FPS.
50Hz is why SUPERIOR PAL only had to convert 24fps to 25fps for home viewing and why it looked much better. Fucking Americans with their lack of aesthetics.
>>64891350
its funny how only europoors will try to claim PAL was better than anything.
>>64891341
It can't handle anything well. It's like watching a movie out of focus. Repeating frames does wreck the image.
Well...not always wreck them, since it can be a desired effect (Wong Kar Wai films, Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas). But it does have a noticeable effect. Interpolation technology mitigates a lot of that, but it doesn't erase it.
>>64891420
It IS better. If you had to grow up on VHS you'd appreciate PAL.
>>64891420
tl;dr HFR is the future and is superior, the only reason HFR looks like shit today is because movies are made today for 24fps, as soon as you watch it in higher frames it looks like total shit.
Directors and visual artists will have to crank up their game to make HFR look amazing, because it punishes bad detail since it looks so real, chereographed fights especially look fake in HFR.
>>64891467
Cinemas don't use interpolation, it's BFI they use black frame insertion which is the best way of reducing motion blur but the big drawback is cutting brightness in half, this is bad when HDR content starts getting out.
Repeated frames is the second best way of reducing blur.
Interpolation doesn't reduce blur, it actually introduces blur, artifacts, and less sharpness, but it increases framerate.
>>64891507
It's not that big of a difference.
Especially when you're cutting at sub-second speeds.
The illusion of speed created by motion blur can just be rectified by burning Michael Bay at the stake and hiring real directors instead of cheap hacks.
Because 60 FPS is a fucking meme. Movies don't have an issue with sup 60 FPS because it's not like video games where the fps drops every few seconds so it looks extremely jarring. There's nothing inherently wrong with a 30 fps video game or movie where there are literally no frame-rate dips.
>>64891600
I never said cinemas used interpolation.
Repeating frames is literally how you create blur. It's a stock standard cinematography component. Undercrank + Step Print was almost stock standard in the 90's for action and horror directors.
>>64891600
Increasing frame rates by duplication and modification degrades the image.
It's like performing a blow up of a low resolution image to a large resolution.
Interpolation is to HFR as projecting 360p at an Imax resolution.
>>64891707
Motion blur.
Judder.
I won't read this stupid bait thread.
I hate HFR apologists.
But I bet there are faggots who compared video games frame rate as an argument.
Stupid assholes
>>64892002
What's wrong with either of those again?
>>64892392
They are blurry and juddery.
>>64892129
Why would you apologize for a superior image? Think about what you are saying dunce
>>64879394
It's a waste of money because your TV can't produce the frames.
>>64879944
Kek'd
>>64892612
> your TV
Fuck off poor fag.
>>64881631
>>64882439
its an ad for crossfit
>>64879463
I would argue that the 'weirdness/realisticness' that people complain about with 60fps is actually interpolation on footage that wasn't shot in 60fps; interpolation makes shit look speedup.
true 60fps just looks magnificent as long as it's a still shot and their aren't sweeping camera movements.
>>64887879
That's a shit load of work while you can simply MAKE IT FULLY 60FPS
>>64892605
>superior image
>frame rate
this is why I never argue with dumb people
>>64892485
And?
>>64881631
That looks like some shitty low budget tv show from lifetime.
>>64880542
Holy shit, this actually hurts my eyes.
>>64893102
Because motion pictures are all composed of perfectly still images of perfectly still subjects.
>>64879394
the human eye can only see 24fps!
>>64879849
>>64879483
>>64879544
>>64879463
Set your screen/monitor refresh rate to at or above 120hertz. Most LCD screens are locked in at 60hertz so don't complain when your hardware is shit.
>>64889455
>go to save a still frame of the scene in question in 1080p png, its too big for 4chan due to blurring
yea...
>>64887829
What do you think the frame between 2 and 3 is? The frame between 6 and 7. It's nearly a combo of the two. The trick is predicting what is going to happening so it works.
>>64879394
>Friend has 120 hz tv
>Decide between us to watch Django
>My autism could not muster to look at the frame rate
>Every shot looked like a Django Soap Opera
And as if Django wasnt shit to being with in the first place
>>64884049
I blame japanese porn for my rape fetish
>>64891231
Wow, I actually feel bad for shitposting like a retard now.
>>64880185
>24 fps creates a motion blur that is more consistent with our eyesight.
No it doesn't, all it does is make it jerky shit for anyone with working eyes in their head and you need to compensate it with slow shutters to blur the image in motion for low fps.
>>64893102
>Doesn't understand how frame rates affect a motion picture
>Calling others dumb
Back 2 Reddit.
