>>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?
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.
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?
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
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.
>>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.
>>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?"
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
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.
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.
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).
>>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.
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?"
>>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?
>>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.
>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.
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).
>>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.
>>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.
>>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
>>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.
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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
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 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.
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.
>>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
>>64894264 That has nothing to do with this thread. TV software creating frames in between the original source material is not the same as the original content being at a higher framerate. What kind of retard uses those options on televisions? It wont chance the native response time of the panel that is the real culprit for ghosting.
>>64894968 Watch that in 60Fps and you'll notice how fucking fake and bad it is, this is why jew hollywood doesn't want HFR, because they want every penny they can get instead of making quality content.
>>64895050 >Saving Private Ryan They undercranked it FOR the jitteryness, not for clarity. It was an intentional effect to make the action scenes more intense, and it worked hence every action movie since doing the same thing.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.