Why does 60 fps video ./ video games look so unreal? Like 30fps looks more life like to me for some reason and i can never watch 60fps without noticing this for the whole time. Does is only get more unrealistic with 144hz?
This bait is getting old
Because you're retarded.
>>51486813
That's quite the opposite for me =/
30 fps feels laggy / slow
>>51486828
not bait at all, now that youtubr is pushing 60fps videos i cant help but notice it even more.
The human eye can't see more than 3.5 GB, anyway.
>>51486813
Because you are used to years of watching videos and movies with 30 FPS and less. It's just that you are used to the laggy shit like most of us are (myself included.
for movies i agree, 60fps looks weird. but in video games 30 fps just looks laggy.
My friend has an LG smart TV with something called TruMotion, which is just frame interpolation to make 30fps 60fps
Weird for the first 30 seconds.
Fine after that.
>>51486930
this desu
>>51487004
>frame interpolation
>Fine
even worse bait than OP
>>51486813
it's because you've been accustomed to watching shitty low frame rates and interlacing, and now that something better is commonplace, it looks weird and uncomfortable because of how much more real it is.
>>51486849
that's because you're used to seeing 30fps video.
the fact you even perceive a difference is proof enough the human eye can distinguish between the 2.
>>51486930
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
>>51487290
oh im not saying you cant see a difference. I think people mis interpereted this thread as being "the human eye cant see past x fps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79ImZE0K7xc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGP6Y0Pnhe4
>>51486813
games were always 60fps in vsync dymbfag
>>51486813
Here is an explanation from an actual expert:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjYjFEp9Yx0
>>51486961
/thread
>>51486930
This reference makes man children cry
>>51487362
Thank you. I've wanted to know that for a long time, but could never find any good source.
First of all the human brain cant even comprehend anything greater than 30fps and that is for truly exceptional individuals. iirc .0000001 % of the population are actually capable of comprehending 30 fps. the average for most people is 24 fps that is the one that is truly comfortable. it reduces eye strain and your brain does not get overloaded. Some research has actually been done that states that 24 fps might actually be harmful to us.
>>51486987
what the fuck are you talking about, 60 fps in movies looks fantastic
>>51490494
how many 60fps movies have you seen? last i checked none existed
Well its cuz The eye cant see more than 30 fps. Some videos with higher fps can have strange effects to The eye.
Since we're on the topic why is nobody even talking about making 120/144 fps videos?
It's the first thing I googled after getting my 120hz monitor a year or so ago but no results.
I'm not saying it should become a thing but just as an experiment to see how much the difference is with a live action video.
>>51490506
whens the last time you checked, 1940? i watched only 1, they aren't common but they are out there. The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, it was only okay but it looked fantastic
>>51490565
Niche market. It would need a high end PC to render it.
>>51490506
The Hobbit came out in theaters at 60fps if I recall correctly, I remember people saying it made some of them feel nauseous.
I have a Smart TV that takes live footage and smooths it into 60fps, it was weird at first but now I can't look back desu senpai
muh gaming
>>51490575
there's a couple 48fps films, like the hobbit ones, but not 60fps
>>51490581
It was 48fps
>>51490579
Yeah but I'm not saying some huge company should start making 120 fps movies, what I mean is some dude just putting together the equipment and doing some experiments.
I mean I'm sure somebody could take a "slow motion" camera and simply render the video at 1x speed right? That would make a 120fps video.
>>51486930
>>51490608
Well The equipment would be expensive and if there needs to be any editing done it would take a long time to edit all those frames. Aside that I'm not sure I guess they could just make a plain 120 fps video, but it will require some serious computing power.
>>51490660
I might be just really dumb but can't you just take a 120fps camera intended to be used for slow motion and simply rendeder the video at regular speed?
>>51490700
yea, a "slow motion" camera is really just a high speed camera
it doesn't make sense for a camera to record "slow motion", the camera exists in the real world, and can only function in real time, so the only way to derive "slow motion" from real time is to take more samples than you need (higher frame rate) and play them back at a slower rate
>>51490700
Yup like
>>51490741
Said, it should be possible. Can't seem to find any 120hz videos though, only some game recordings of 120hz like this one http://120hz.net/showthread.php?3115-SUCCESS-Web-based-120fps-video-in-REAL-TIME!&p=26064&viewfull=1
(Did not try the video as I am posting from phone)
>>51486813
yes. it's why real life is extremely unrealistic.
>>51486813
human eye can't see more than
> 24 fps
> 900p
> 18 bit color
> 2000 polygons
> 3.5 GB
> 34" @ 21:9
don't believe all those placebo effect PC spergs, OP.
>>51486813
you'll probably get more (You)s if you post this on /v/ desu
>>51490971
polygon count lol
Looks fine in games but it feels like videos have been artificially smoothed out.
The human eye can't see beyond 12 fps and 240p xvid. This is a proven fact.
>>51486930
>>51486813
The human eye can't see more than 24fps@420i
>>51490971
shit bait is shit
>>51486930
kekel in muh shekels
>>51492677
Impressive metabait. Almost fell for it.
24-30fps is what most humans can naturally "see." that 60fps you are "seeing" is just extra image flickers being processed into your brain which overloads it with extra information that it doesn't really need so most people who aren't used to 60fps get motion sickness upon seeing it.
>>51486813
real camera footage and computer generated video like games are not comparable like that. motion shot in realtime inherenlty produces blur which smoothes things out, computers don't really do that - there is post processing of course, but fuck that.
so games for example need a bit more fps to not appear choppy in direct comparison. also they are more responsive the higher the refresh rate. which is ofc not a factor when strictly viewing video, but mouse aim does not feel good at 30 fps.
>>51486930
nice desu ne
>>51486813
humans can't process more than 30fps with one eye
if you watch a 60fps video it's fine for the most part because it's 30fps for each eye
BUT
if you blink asynchronously one of your eyes will overload for a split second
>>51486813
Bait: The Thread.
rule of thumb: higher=better
>>51491276
I laughed at that too.
>>51487362
uck, all that and dude still shills for 24fps at the end.
>>51490579
No its because of the file sizes.
>>51486813
Because you've been raised and conditioned to do so.
>>51490494
No it fucking doesn't
It looks like a damn soap opera
>>51490506
Literally a million YouTube videos by now, homemade movies, uploaded by jillions of 60fps camera owners
>>51496373
There's also some good 60fps porn out there. It looks so smooth and natural.
>>51492539
Yeah real videos at High Framerates just look fake
In video games it's awesome though because it's not real
>>51496384
>Yeah real videos at High Framerates just look fake
This is only because you're conditioned to see 24-30fps as "real" in movies and TV. That or you saw some shitty stuff where they generated artificial tween frames using some algorithm to up the framerate, like high fps TVs do.
60 fps in videogames is good, but 60 fps in movies makes them feel weird. Like they're not movies.
Which fcking fs to choose for a flash storage? f2fs? isnt that for ssds?
>>51496433
>60 fps in videogames is good, but 60 fps in movies makes them feel weird. Like they're not movies.
Exactly. They look more fluid and real than you're used to movies looking.
>>51496447
Wrong thread, maybe you meant to post in the /sqt/? Anyway SSDs have wear leveling built in, so they don't benefit from (and actually might do worse with) a filesystem like f2fs that does its own wear leveling. Just use ext4, NTFS, whatever. If it doesn't automatically send TRIM commands to the SSD to tell it what sectors aren't in use by files, run a utility like fstrim periodically -- it lets the SSD's wear leveling work better.
I have a theory that 60fps looks weird because it falls into an uncanny valley of sorts for framerates.
We either need to aim for higher than 60 or stick with 30.
This thread is so retarded that I just had to reply to it. Nice b8
why is 24 fps the standard in movies anyway? watching 24 fps stuff at the theater is actually kinda painful
>>51496800
Agreed. Movies look quite shitty when you're used to 60fps games. In the 1930s, 24 fps was determined to be the minimum that people will see as smooth motion. Any less and it looks like a fast slideshow. Any more and you need more reels of expensive 1930s film. Apart from that, just resistance to change in the industry.
>>51490971
and the human eye can't see niggers in the dark
it still doesn't mean they don't exist
Because you're genetically inferior. The rest of us have evolved to comprehend the difference. Basically your mongoloid genome is depreciated.
>>51496800
Because that's literally the lowest they could go before it starts to look visibly choppy. Once upon a time frames were expensive.
>>51496800
historic reasons, originally black and white movies were 12 fps so doubling that was logical when film wasn`t as expensive to buy and develop.
These days though directors like Michael Bay completely shat over the limitations of 24 fps and make blurry mess of action movies where the action gets all chopped up and lost in motion blur.
older action movies look totally fine at 24 fps because they actually had pacing in between each cut and sparse camera movement.
/end filmmaker rant
>>51497942
Here's a reasonably well done overview of frame rate history in cinema.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjYjFEp9Yx0
>>51486930
laughing_mexican_man.webm
desu
>>51497942
>These days though directors like Michael Bay completely shat over the limitations of 24 fps and make blurry mess of action movies where the action gets all chopped up and lost in motion blur.
Between the retarded, predictable, algorithmic shaky-cam used when doing CGI-heavy stuff (e.g. Ted 2, I couldn't watch it), and the ridiculous over-reliance on rapid cuts, I hate most modern action and popular comedy movies.
Have you never played a 2D retro game before? Very few of them constantly ran under 60fps.
>>51486813
For gameplay, 60fps is preferred.
For films/machinima, 30fps is preferred.
>>51487004
>trumotion
>interpolating frames
>not originally captured in 60fps
>tru
>>51490575
>>51490593
People don't know that Breaking Bad, particularly the last season, was shot in 48fps.
>>51498476
Who cares? It was shot for TV broadcast (well, cable).
>>51486930
4K: 3840x2160
144hz
24bit = 3 byte.
3840x2160 * 3 bytes * 144s^-1 = 3583180800 bytes/s
>>51486930
The funny thing is that this is actually true. The human eye can't see anywhere near 3.5GB per frame.
>>51486813
do you have an atleast 200hz tv in your living room?
>>51498524
kek
>>51490083
EA pls go.
>>51486930
good one, pham
>>51490565
there is a trick, watch a 60 fps video on youtube and use the option to fastforward x2.. voila
>>51498516
Yeah, for uncompressed. The rest of us use H.264 or other compression schemes.
>>51487355
CRT monitors mostly ran at 75 Hz actually.
>>51499111
Yeah, because 60 Hz flickered like hell. 75 is reduced flicker, and 85 is flicker free to most people.
>>51499111
>>51499291
CRT monitors mostly ran at 60 Hz. Seriously, for a loooong time that was the standard, and even after 75+ Hz monitors existed, virtually all your cheap-ass Packard Bell home systems and college lab systems ran shit, bottom-of the barrel, 0.35 dot pitch 60 Hz monitors.
And even if you got lucky and found one that did 75 Hz, you'd almost always sit down to find it configured to the stock 60 Hz. Honestly, it just didn't bother most people.
>>51486930
Thanks YIFY
>>51496706
I have experimented with different video frame rates in mpv player on various displays with high motion clarity (mostly CRTs and plasmas)
>no-correct-pts
>fps=25
>video-sync=display-resample
>audio-pitch-correction=yes
this gave very good results on my plasma @ 50hz (frame repeated) but it was too flickery on CRT because the hold time is lower than on a plasma
the difference between 23.976 and 25 is huge and I think 24 just misses the mark by a few percent BUT until displays are standardized in the area of motion and persistence there is no point changing the standards
>>51490579
>high-end pc
>120fps
lel, you have no idea what you are talking about kid
video playback /= gayming
>>51490494
each to thier own but id say youre objectively wrong
movies shouldnt look like that
You're looking for r/pcmasterrace. If you're trying to bait on g go for a phone or os flame war.
Using this bait thread i want to ask about the prefix that People use in the url to see YouTube better, something like xx.youtube.com
Does anyone knows?
>>51486930
/g/ isn't so bad after all
>>51500749
60fps.youtube.com makes everything look like 60fps
>>51498501
>who cares?
When those 48fps remasters come out, friend. No need to be a raging autist and/or a cocksucking faggot.
