When will Hollywood upgrade to 60 FPS?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKSottBl7ow
>>71608829
I don't think they can afford that many glasses
>10 seconds in
>Batman has already murdered several people
What the FUCK?
>>71608829
Billy Lynn is coming out in (novemeber?) and it's in 120fps. Sony already said most cinemas won't be set up for it though. Shame.
real HFR would get rid of the disgusting motion blur action scenes at 24 fps have
how can people stand jittery shit and blurry action?
part of the problem with adopting higher framerates in live-action movies is that the higher the frame rate is, the more light is required to properly expose, since each frame is getting exposed to less and less light. the hobbit's solution to this so that they could shoot at 48fps was to set the shutter angle above 180 degrees and that's one of the reasons the movie looks like shit
>>71608829
It makes special effects look awful, and cost far more.
>>71608897
This. Framerate in vidya is completely different from framerate in movies.
>>71608900
dark knight returns also murdering is different than killing dumb fuck
>film is shot on digital
>>71608829
LOL what the fuck, is that ben affleck's batman voice? I never saw this stupid movie, is it supposed to be satire?
>>71608829
Cool soap opera, bro
that looks like a fucking day time soap opera
>>71609220
what's the shutter angle usually at?
is that why it looks high contrast and blurry as fuck the entire time? I figured that was just because most of the image was shitty CGI kek
>>71609220
the hobbit is like 99% cgi so they do all the lighting in post production anyway. with modern cameras, shutter speeds only really pertain to how things look in motion.
Fury Road and Captain America Civil War both looked like shit because of their respective shutter speeds.
>>71608829
>upgrade
Biggers numbers don't mean better viewing experience. 60 FPS looks like shit and it has nothing to do with being used to it or not.
>>71609251
And still video games are looking for "cinematic" experience with motion blur to add that 24 fps effect.
>>71608829
Shittiest 2 minutes of my life. Thanks for that, OP.
>>71609377
I never turn on motion blur. It's adds so many unnecessary cycles to your gpu and literally saves you crucial fps.
>>71609006
>120 fps
Where the fuck is that supposed to be screened at? Literally all cinemas have either 24 or 48 fps projectors.
>>71608829
Holy shit 60fps looks so bad... it looks like someone is playing the movie at 2x speed.
How can anyone watch this?
>>71609467
Gaming PCs
>>71608829
for some reason it makes it look more fake, you can tell its just a soundstage easier
I think maybe a low frame rate is like color correction and lighting, it's a required filter to make it feel more like a movie so you suspend your disbelief and dont realize you're just seeing actors on a set acting silly
when amateurs think "why would I need color correction or unnatural light? I'll save money by not using them!" it always looks so unprofessional since there's not that "oh its a movie" effect from being used to all those things in every other movie
>>71608829
thanks i'm going to puke now
Is 60 FPS the same as that "motion smoothing" option some new TVs have? I went to a friends house which had the enabled and I got horribly nauseous just seeing it. It was older movie too, Jaws I think, and god it was just terrible looking. It made everything look cheap and terrible, and every time someone moves I get motion sickness. It's just bizarre
It's like watching a DVD on windows media player with the hardware acceleration off
>>71609533
motion smoothing I think is like pseudo-60FPS where they try to create twice the frames by melding the existing ones together to make new ones or something lame like that
>>71609533
>Is 60 FPS the same as that "motion smoothing" option some new TVs have?
Yes, but faux 60 FPS, like the video in the OP
True 60 FPS will feel like that, but won't have any stuttering or traces that you can see in the faux 60 FPS
>>71608829
It's so fucking embarrassing that they're using this frame rate on hundred million dollar budget movies and it's turning out looking like amature footage. What the fuck are they fucking thinking?
It looks like shit because it's fake 60 fps, plebs. They just duplicate frames to fill the 60 fps. If it were filmed in 60 fps natively, it'd look better.
>>71609611
Prove it
>>71608829
>those two guys who appear out of nowhere at 2:40
>>71608829
>that cut where they show the guy with the flamethrower and you think they're in the same room because it's all close ups
bravo zack you hack
>>71609366
>with modern cameras, shutter speeds only really pertain to how things look in motion.
i have no idea what any of this means. you don't know what you're saying. how the fuck does "modern cameras" qualify what affect different shutter speeds can have? and of course shutter speed affects more than motion cadence.
but all of that is immaterial, since i'm talking about shutter ANGLE.
>>71609533
Yeah my cousin put that on when we were watching Taken.
Made the movie look cheap and the way they move made it so comical and fast.
60fps is a joke for movies. My experience seeing the Hobbit in 3D 60fps was a fucking shocker
>>71609633
Prove what?
>>71609594
I know. When the villain gave a nod for one of the terrorists to go check out whats happening and he just ran across the room i had let a massive KEK with how funny he looked while running.
60fps is so horrible and fake. Only games in 60fps look decent.
>>71609611
False. I saw the Hobbit in 60fps at the cinemas and it looked exactly like this with the 2x speed when anyone moved.
So this is what "realer than real life" feels like
Am I the only person who prefers 30 fps?
>>71609826
You watched a 48 fps movie in 60 fps, retard.
>>71608829
When they get better at practical effects
>>71608829
>When will Hollywood upgrade to 60 FPS?
When they want people to literally not watch their movies because they look like a Mexican soap opera.
>>71608829
There's no reason to. It looks shitty. This isn't an fps where each frame of motion is vitally important u fuk.
>>71609366
>with modern cameras, shutter speeds only really pertain to how things look in motion.
Super NO. Learn something about cameras, fucktard.
![Mad.Max.Fury.Road.2015.1080p.BluRay.x264.TrueHD.7.1-RARBG.mkv_snapshot_00.17.53_[2016.06.29_18.38.59].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/vTVk9hj.jpg "Mad.Max.Fury.Road.2015.1080p.BluRay.x264.TrueHD.7.1-RARBG.mkv_snapshot_00.17.53_[2016.06.29_18.38.59].jpg")
>>71609366
>Fury Road looked like shit
???
