>All these low budget channels have switched to 60fps >All

I know slow mo guys gavin said that increasing the framerate to 60fps is a terrible idea for slow motion because it's reducing the slowmo effect that's one high budget channel

news channels and whatever aren't necessary because there isn't a lot of moving

File: very nice.jpg (45KB, 720x717px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 720x717px

>>51519595
>51519595
>noice

>>51519622
>I know slow mo guys gavin said that increasing the framerate to 60fps is a terrible idea for slow motion because it's reducing the slowmo effect that's one high budget channel

Wouldn't they just need to buy a camera that can shoot double the fps to get the same effect? The added fluidity of 60fps would make slow motion effects jaw-droppingly gorgeous.

>news channels and whatever aren't necessary because there isn't a lot of moving

I would still like it. I think news looks better in 60fps, especially if it's a report. It makes the report more immersive and makes me feel more like I'm really there.

The big companies know 30fps is where it should be. 60fps looks like shit when it's footage of people/live action. 60fps is only good for games or CGI.

>>51519645

This is, like, the third time this month I've gotten a double dubs or quads post.

>>51519595
The big names are never the big innovators.

>>51519661
I am pretty sure the slomo guys are on the professional -if not experimentally- available high end with their high framerate camera's.

So getting a camera that doubles their current rate is probably not technically possible yet.

>>51519678
>60fps looks like shit when it's footage of people/live action

It literally looks closer to real life. How is that a bad thing?

I'm awaiting the day we have fps so high, the frames are no longer visible and it looks like I'm watching videos through a window.

>>51519678
I much prefer documentaries and news report in 60 FPS. It's simply more lifelike.

File: GlitchHead04.jpg (37KB, 900x720px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 900x720px

>>51519595
On a related note:

What is the best youtube android app?

How do I get the ytsubs: flag in youtube-dl to work to download my feed?

>>51519719
this to be honest family

>>51519712

What about Google? They're pioneers of self driving technology.

>>51519715

:(

>>51519732

60fps videos in the stock YouTube app stutter all over the place on my S6. I hope they fix it soon.

>>51519661
>Wouldn't they just need to buy a camera that can shoot double the fps to get the same effect? The added fluidity of 60fps would make slow motion effects jaw-droppingly gorgeous.
zzz.

Cool story bro, how about spending 5 minutes and learn why 60fps for slow motion footage is fucking useless.

>>51519722

Agreed!

>>51519794

It doesn't matter how slow the slow motion is, if the video is rendered in 30fps, the motion fluidity will still be only half that of 60fps.

You may find extra motion fluidity useless, but I don't.

>>51519595
They have long established production equipment and procedures. It's not so cheap to upgrade the equipement for an upgrade that doesn't drastically improve the production results.

>>51519719
this but real life gives you motion blur naturally and youtube dont. so its kind of unnatural at high framerates

Most people can't even tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps, your eyes can only perceive so much

The human eye can't really detect more than 24 fps and 1920x1080 anyway It's proven

>>51519760
>What about Google?
I was referring to big name YouTube channels not big name technology companies.

>>51519595
some literally who e-personality would have no problem dumping his shitty 30fps camera for a new 60fps one, but someone with a ton of production equipment will probably need to replace thousands of dollars in gear for about zero net gain other than pleasing a minority of spoiled kiddos who contribute fuck all to the channel anyway

>>51519833
>for an upgrade that doesn't drastically improve the production results

I think it does.

>>51519853

But the monitor you're using to watch youtube exists in real life. Any natural motion blur your eyes experience would also translate to a video you're watching, unless that video is somehow exempt from the laws of physics.

I believe at a certain point in the future, someone will be able to place you in a chair, remove a blindfold you were wearing up until that point, and reveal to you two displays in front of you side by side. One is a window showing the nighttime scenery outside of the building with pedestrians and cars, the other is a video displayed on a glasses-free 3D 16k monitor at 960fps showing the exact same scenery outside the building, and you would not be able to tell which is the window and which is the monitor because the monitor would look so true to life.

>>51519760
Google simply buys out the innovative and slap their name on it.

>>51519884
>your eyes can only perceive so much

It's somewhere around 1000fps.

Everyone I've showed this video to so far has been totally blown away by the motion clarity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiKw3uPGHB4

>>51520060
>showing the exact same scenery outside the building

*had there been a window there

Not the same image as the real life example, as the angle would make it obvious.

>>51519919

Hue hue hue.

>>51519973

I C

>>51520024
>someone with a ton of production equipment will probably need to replace thousands of dollars in gear

What else besides the cameras?

>>51520097
>It's somewhere around 1000fps.
Spot the retard

If it's broadcast television content, it's likely already shot at 60/50fps. Everything that isn't high value drama is typically shot at 50/60i, the problem is that YouTube deinterlaces 1:1 frames rather than 1:1 fields (as is the proper deinterlacing behavior).

It's too much hassle to introduce deinterlacing into the workflow of the uploaders. If YouTube did proper deinterlacing of uploaded video though, the amount of 60/50fps content would skyrocket.

>>51519678
In Europe, almost everything shown on television including sports, news and sitcoms has been 50hz motion for nearly half a century.
In the US, much television is 60hz, and has been since before colour.
People not liking high framerates is only a recent occurance.

>>51520138

Rude.

>>51519678
the ignorance here is absolutely staggering

>>51520060
>Any natural motion blur your eyes experience would also translate to a video you're watching

nope. video does not get any motion blur automatically

>>51519661
>lel just dooble da frame r8 noob, lrn2camera faggot

Do you have any idea how much light high frame rate cameras need to actually record 10,000 fps and be able to see it? Even the highest end phantoms need crazy huge lights to capture that kind of footage, and you want them to just double it, like it's just that simple?

>>51519661
>Wouldn't they just need to buy a camera that can shoot double the fps to get the same effect?
Considering their current camera, the Vision Research V2511 STARTS at $150,000 USD.

I'd say they know what they are doing and probably cant get a faster camera if they wanted to.

>>51523188
>>51523233
heh, yea

>probably the most expensive camera being used for a youtube series
>"they should get a better one"

>>51523678
>>probably the most expensive camera being used for a youtube series
MKBHD probably isn't too far off with his RED Weapon Dragon 6K camera.