So, 4k movies are pretty common now but are stuck at 24fps
Why aren't 60FPS movies a thing yet?
It can't be done?
I really don't know the ammount of FPS movies are filmed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBptHFg3u_k
>>64154904
WHAT THE FUCK DUDE. THAT SCARED ME
>>64154904
>Why aren't 60FPS movies a thing yet?
Because it would be very costly while changing nothing.
The human eye sees a fluent move at 23 images per second. the only reason while 60fps is seen as important is because in video games, the reaction time is faster whant the image is more fluent than it should.
It has no reason to be included in movies since there is no direct interaction between the medium and the watcher.
>4k movies are common
Where?
>>64155092
I won't call it common but most Criterion are 4k now, or at least 2k
>>64154904
That YT video was not filmed at 60fps.
>>64155282
>most Criterion are 4k now, or at least 2k
CITATION NEEDED
>>64154904
Because it's unnecessary.
You could argue that higher resolutions matter since screens are getting wider and wider, but even with better screens, having more pictures per second will change nothing, except making cameras (and film if used) more expensive.
>>64154904
Man, Mirror's Edge 2 is looking good.
>>64155282
The only "4k" movies currently available to purchase are upscaled 2k. Most "2k" are upscaled 1080p.
There are no native 4k movies available for purchase.
24fps will never die because of how reliant upon 24fps all current directors/editors are. As every fight scene relies upon that motion blur, strategically dropped frame, and quick-cuts to imitate violence. These techniques are only obvious (and laughable) if you know what to look for, but in 60fps would stick out completely.
>>64155085
thank you for reminding me that only people who watch movies are retards
>>64155085
>>64154904
24fps is better for telling a long story. In 60fps the rythym of frames is faster. There are far more noticeable details on the screen making it rather difficult to frame a scene. There's a shit ton of work to be done both for preparation and post-production. In sum, a well-made 60fps movie would be expensive, and hollywood is not gonna make a project that is sure to not return the money back.
Movies with 60fps and over, on paper will work similarly to music in terms of fluidity and immersion but you can't make it go on for too long. people of this generation are not used to it.
>>64155548
I thought the Hobbit was shot in 4k though.still looks like shit, for other reasons
60FPS movies look weird
>>64154904
why? so every movie looks like a shitty home video or soap opera?
also
>4k movies are pretty common now
what world you living in senpai?
do you just mean that they are shot in a high resolution?
cus there's still 0 4k content for consumers.
>>64154904
>It can't be done?
Now it can be done, it just looks like absolute shit.
Video games aren't like movies, you're not trying to make imputs, reacting to things or controlling the camera, you're just watching it and watching things in 60fps just doesn't look natural, It gets rid of the motion blur but real life has motion blur.
The Hobbit movies were filmed in 48fps and people hated it.
the human eye can not see past 40fps so 60fps films are useless
>>64155586
It being shot in 4k does not mean any retail disc will be in 4k. or even 48fps.
>>64155586
>I thought the Hobbit was shot in 4k though.
is this b8 or do you think regular movies are "shot in 1080p"?
>>64155282
Stop misleading people, asshole.
Most Criterion are 1900x1080p in 24fps.
Movies =/= Video Games
>>64155636
dear retard, human eyes can see past 120fps easily
60 FPS is not comfy
>>64155683
People can tell the difference between 120fps and 240fps. Diminishing returns only set in past 240fps.
Though I want to strangle everyone who turns on interpolation.
>>64155683
he was memeing
silky smooth
>>64155641
I just remember some behind the scene comments mentionning 4k, that's all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ab3kFaWmeo
skip to 4 minutes
>>64155749
Every time someone says something stupid, at least two people take it seriously, and one of those people thinks hes right.
>>64155562
This board wasn't evidence enough of that?
60fps is useful in vidya because of the speed of eye-movement reaction.
It's pointless in films.
60fps looks like shit.
It should only be common for sports and video games.
Movies and television it looks like absolute shit.
Hell if anything, we should go back to stills.
>>64154904
Hobbit tried to do 48 FPS
People said it made no difference and those who felt a difference said their eyes hur,but it wasn't really better
>>64155865
How can you say it looks like shit in movies and television if no movies or TV has been shot in 60fps?
>>64155911
Well tv and movies have been shot in 48, and they look like shit, ergo 60fps tv and movies will also look shit.
60fps looks so fake.
>>64155911
I've only seen 60 FPS porn and it's pretty weird
>>64155911
soap operas are shot in 60fps.
you can stick to watching those since you vidya tards think that story isn't important.
>>64155911
the hobbit was 48 so at 60 it would look even worse.
what does it matter if there's no 60 fps movies anyway? we all have seen 60fps video of some sort so we know it will be trash for movies
it would be nice for sports or nature shows but not movies
OP's webm evokes genuine fear and unease in me
I can barely watch it
>>64154904
that K-Pop shit needs to go. Nuke Korea.
>>64154904
60fps film looks weird, dude.
It's not like video games.
>>64155865
I agree, sports broadcasts, video games and porn should be at 60+fps.
>>64156039
Soap operas are 100% story. Also you've got it the wrong way around. Plot movies are the most entry level form of cinema and video game children always gravitate towards "muh plot" over more advanced "post-narrative" cinema because that's all they can handle.
Why do K-pop artists have to hide their shitty voices in huge groups?
Are there even any solo female artists? Every group is like 10 fucking girls
>>64156237
There are solo artists.
They aren't much better.
Not to mention not as marketable, which is why there are big groups in the first place.
it's not a thing because people have already seen how shit it looks in soap operas
>>64155911
The Hobbit was 48fps and it looked like shit. And I'm not just talking about the CGI or shitty bloom effects.
>>64154904
60fps is uncanny valley territory. Films have been at 24 fps for over a century, you will not change what people perceive as normal movement on screen. A few films will probably come out at 60fps and general audiences won't care/complain so it won't be worth the extra time/effort for production companies. It will become a gimmick like 3D, 70mm, etc.
>>64154904
why would someone do that what the fuck
>>64155636
when I'm watching kpop videos, i can tell if it's 30fps or 60fps. I guess I have superhuman eyes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9ESzyXAwfg
>>64154904
60fps looks cheap and nasty
It's unaesthetic.
>>64156418
The hobbit looking like shit had nothing to do with the framerate. It looked like shit period.
>60fps is uncanny valley territory.
What a completely unsubstantiated statement.
>>64155714
This is the right answer.
Why do so many people equate high framerates with film quality when it makes movies look like Mexican soaps? Is it just to be contrarian?
>>64154904
Christ almighty
>>64156547
the lack of a bigger picture on social life
-growing its bad
-making a family its bad
-any kind of physical/moral construction its useless
lets just jump like suicidal idiots
>>64156739
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9ESzyXAwfg
That was the gayest shit i've heard all year
1) the higher the framerate the more light is required for proper exposure
2) it's more data/footage
3) we're used to a century of cinema at 24fps and it's jarring as fuck. for whatever reason higher fps in animation makes things more realistic but in live-action it calls attention to the artificiality and ruins willing suspension of disbelief.
>>64155085
I LIKE JUTTERY SHITTY FRAMERATE ACTION SCENES!!
>>64154904
>common now
Nigga, a 70mm film is equivalent to ~8k in digital.
>>64154904
MADMAN
A
D
M
A
N
>>64160412
also re: "the soap opera effect" that's either shutter angle or a poorly calibrated screen with motion interpolation, not framerate. there would be no reason to shoot soap operas at high framerates. a shutter angle above 180 gives a similar cadence to motion as high framerate does. when people talk about michael mann's movies "looking digital" this is the big thing they're responding to
>>64154904
bruh
>>64154904
Because 60fps (in film, in vydia its excelent) induces a mexican soap opera effect:
http://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-the-soap-opera-effect/
