Thoughts?
looks pretty good on sports
>>70395288
Absolutely fucking disgusting
Sorry, not a retarded vidyagamer.
I was watching 10 Cloverfield Lane last week and there's a scene when the main girl gets out of her bunker room and looks at the living area on the bunker and the camera pans across the room to show it. It looks choppy as shit and gave me a headache. I don't know if it was because of the copy I had or the fps but I feel like a higher fps (not necessarily 60) would fix it.
>>70395288
It's great for video games. Film, however? Nope and if you agree that 60fps IS better, you should probably disembowel yourself before you kick the chair out from under you.
It makes motion smoother and more crisp. That's it.
There are some people who claim it will instantly boost image quality, while others say that makes it look "cheap" or "tv-like". I think both are wrong desu.
Maybe it will catch on in movies, maybe not. I think the differences are overexaggerated
its James Cuck Camerons next gimmick for Avatar 2.
>the movie is shit so distract the audience with gaymer visuals.
>>70395288
24fps will always be the best
Great for vidya
Shit for movies
>>70395633
naw
james cameron will introduce vr cinema
it will makes billions
I watched the Hobbit in 48FPS and it made it look like a cheap stage play. so 60FPS will just show up the flaws even more.
>>70395403
My guess is they had some fucked up settings on the camera they recorded it with.
>>70395696
Avatar 2 filming has begun and he's not filming it in 360 degree VR. its in 8k resolution and 60 fps.
it's awful and makes me feel ill and i'm not shitposting, i got very queasy watching the hobbit
>>70395288
Me likey.
It's objectively better, people who say it isn't just aren't used to it.
That is all.
>>70395737
It did look like a stage play, but in a good way, i liked it.
I don't care for 3D, but HFR is something i'm looking forward to.
I can't wait for James Cameron to release the 3 Avatar sequels shot in 60 fps.
>>70395696
Who the fuck would want vr movies? Just shit on the director of photography on your way out.
>>70395905
Technically, yes. If you want to capture real life as accurately as possible, like for documentaries.
But for other genres it can highlight flaws that you wouldn't see at 24 fps.
Look at the cutscenes in Metal Gear Solid V. They look fucking amazing as they're rendered in real time at whatever framerrate you're able to run it (it's 60 on consoles though)
It's a meme technology for tech geeks like Jackson and Cameron, but it has promise for action flicks and bug budget CGI stuff. I don't expect any serious cinematographers to use the technology unless they are going for a very particular look (like truly capturing the essence of a stage play). Make film too real and it becomes uncomfortable for the viewer.
Cgi animation and effects are a different story. Once sci-fi becomes almost all CGI it will probably make the fights and effects more interesting (and much more expensive).
>>70395288
>Thoughts?
Our generation plays games on 60fps. In a decade movies will increase frame rate, because gamer's eye can see fucking FPS drop on big scree.
>>70395483
FFSF
>>70397164
Vidya isn't cinema. Plus gamers are generally manchildren with no appreciation of art and have little bearing on Hollywood
>>70397184
What did you mean by this?
>>70396101
What are VR movies? I would love to slap a VR thing on and have a movie play completely filling my FOV. Does that exist?
>>70397336
As an aside to the lack of appreciation for art. A lot of those spergs refuse to play great games if it doesn't meet their performance standards. Imagine not seeing a movie that's only in 24fps, simply because it's in 24fps.
>>70397379
for fuck sake fred
>>70395288
I would have to compare them side by side. In all honesty I'm sure it's much better than the TVs that add frames and create the soap opera effect. It really kills the vibe of a lot of films watching them like that, the result might be the same at 60fps or possibly a better version without that 'soap feel'.
>>70395288
I liked it, it's a shame it won't become a standard.
I wish I knew why it looked so fucking bad for TV and film. Logically, it should be better.
>>70395513
>I think the differences are overexaggerated
for action movies especially the ones that abuse shaky cam, it's a world of difference. It's literally being able to make out what's happening and seeing nothing but blurs.
>boo hoo i don't like the way 60 fps makes me feel
it's objectively better, sorry if that hurts your feelings.
good for porn, not much else though.
>>70395288
Love it, but the movie had better be made in a way that is complements the fps. Otherwise, it'll look like crap.
>>70397790
It is directly due to how the movies are filmed. As in the scenes and composition. It is a bit like going from black & white to color by just changing the existing film into color. The composition of the film just doesn't fit the color version so it feels off. Later on people directed movies with color in mind and things got better. This is much the same thing. At 24fps you can get away with a surprising amount of stuff, especially in chase scenes and fight scenes as a simple example. The blurriness hides a lot. While in 60fps, all those old tricks directors took advantage of without knowing it are gone completely. They need to relearn how to construct the movie from the ground up around what they can no longer hide.
I bet a director like Jackie Chan could easily use 60fps and make it look good with little change in what he already does. This is because his movies are already focused on clear action and movement so the audience can see it clearly.
This is only 1 reason why so many people find 60FPS so jarring. The other reason is that is looks "too real" to them for some reason. That latter reason is just because they were raised on 24fps.
>>70397164
I can't stand watching some action movies especially if they're blurry as fuck because I can't make out whats going on, if the framerate was higher then it would be easier to make out.
Fuck, all movies look choppy to me.
>>70398279
Agreed, but more like watching paint smears than choppiness. How did you like this scene?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xH7qxBIz-tU
I think it helps the motion of the camera more than the motion of the actors.
>>70398385
Absolutely.
>>70395288
Great for sports and vidya, fucking HORRIBLE for movies/tv
Only plebs think it looks bad because they are dirt poor and can only afford shit TVs and shit computers
>>70398353
The choreography of the fight itself is well done but there are a few parts where I felt lost, mostly when the camera location suddenly changes; 60 fps probably wouldn't help in this scenario. They make good use of angles throughout the fight to keep everything in scene though, which is nice.
>faggots playing 60fps sources on monitors and TVs that can't handle them using re-encoded "rips" that completely fuck over 60fps as well
>then they hop over to youtube to prove you wrong and their internet connection sucks so YT ramps down the quality on their stream
I wish these poorfags would get better gear and start buying movies.
>>70395288
yes it is much better, fuck everyone saying otherwise
>>70398353
>How did you like this scene?
Degenerate.
Works well for sports and some documentaries and comedies. Anything with very "movie-like" production (heavy makeup, fake sets and props, artificial lighting) looks bad--you can see the fakery too clearly.
The only way it will work for drama/action/seriocomedy is to go with something like a Dogme 95 approach with everything extremely true to life. I don't see that happening, much as I would like it.
>>70398523
>mostly when the camera location suddenly changes
Yeah, that's a really bad habit for western directors to do. That and changing views when someone makes contact with a punch that is supposed to hit hard. Very fucking annoying.
Man of Thai Chi was one of the few western movies where you can actually see the fights. Nothing is being hidden in the way most of the other movies do it.
>>70398658
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1PCtIaM_GQ
>>70397583
Because in games its very obvious a lot of the time. It can completely draw you out of a movie. Just like how The Hobbits FPS drew a lot of people out of it as well. If that movie was ONLY in a higher framerate? You'd get the same.
>>70397948
this
Redundant for film, as it doesn't require reaction times.
Might be good for documentaries, though.
>>70395288
only way to do horizontal pannings.
why don't we have variable frame rate, according to the intended use. is like the most basic stuff.
The best overall. It doesn't look like I'm watching a fucking slideshow, but it also doesn't give me a migraine after 45 minutes.
>>70395350
i feel the same
absolute cancer for everything other than video games or something like that
>>70395288
Could work for action films.
I don't like it. It's weird.
>>70395403
I thought exactly the same thing watching that. I think it was something to do with the settings the person used when creating the rip, because similar shots don't look as choppy on blu-rays.
>>70397336
>Movies
>Art
/tv/ is on ground no higher than /v/. Just a heads up in case you actually think about starting to develop an ego.
>>70395288
The human eye can't see past 48 fps
why do you need 60 fps when the human can't even see at all?
Should be mandatory in porn
>>70395288
Great for Porn and Anime (not if it still stutters somewhat though like frame interpolation...)
Terrible for live-action fiction, destroys all immersion.
>>70395350
this
it makes me dizzy, and i want to throw up after a while
I bet the autists were complaining about sound when that first came out too, and then about color
>>70403905
Sound gives me headaches and ruins the immersion I built in the past, imagining their voices and inflections. Fuck you and your bullshit talkie revolution.
