When will the 23.976 fps meme die? Why aren't movies/tv

>>57377313
Better yet, why aren't they being shot in 60fps?

>>57377335
Because it looks like ass.

>>57377335
Doesn't matter. Each eye can only see 15 fps anyway, so 30 fps would be fine.

TV shows are already shot at ~30 fps.

>>57377351
This.

The video is interlaced. There are actually two videos playing at the time at 15 fps, one for your right eye and one for your left one and the brain combines it to 30 fps.

>>57377335
They should do 250 fps if they're going to go with bullshit meme fps. Your eyes can only see a combined 30 fps with MAYBE jet fighter pilots seeing up to 30 fps each eye, but not your average citizen

>>57377344
Retard.

>>57377351
>>57377374
>>57377382
>these faggots probably have 144hz monitors

>>57377313

One of the Hobbit movies was filmed in 48 FPS. Didn't look all that impressive except when there was a panoramic sweeping shot.

>>57377335
>why aren't they being shot in 60fps?
Nobody goes to the cinema to watch a soap opera. Or a video game.

>>57377335
60fps is fucking garbage, live video is not a video game

>>57377366
>TV shows are already shot at ~30 fps.
SD television is 60i, not 30.

>>57377401
It looked like shit actually, as if it was the cut scene of a vidya

>>57377313
Because the human eye can't see anything past 5 fps.

>>57377387
Not him, but it does. While 60FPS looks smooth and fluid for everyday cellphone video it makes movies look like live soap operas which many people don't like including me. In fact if for whatever retarded reason 60FPS movies get popular I will transcode them to 24 FPS copies to watch.

>the human eye sees in fps
>>>/v/

I think 30 fps is the sweet point at which video doesn't look jagged nor nauseatingly smooth.

>>57377313
because the human eye can see past 1 fps

>>57377506
>nauseatingly smooth
this, it takes a while to get used to those realsmooth vids

legitly nicer for sports though, much more animated

Why is neo /g/ so fucking retarded?

"The average population would perceive about 45 frames per second (nice going HFR movies). But on the other hand, you have 25% of the population who will percieve more than 60 frames per second, with extremes going to seeing temporal gaps of up to 2 ms. Which is insane. When I wrote my replies and the first post, I did not know about this research. New conclusion: By far most of the human population (test in USA) will see more than 24 fps, only the extremes will see just the 24 fps or less (we're going towards visualle impaired elderly). More than 50% of the population will benefit greatly from FPS of 45+. Trained fighter pilots can see even more, so training of the brain might just be possible in perceiving a lower threshold of temporal gap."

>Hurr durr 30FPS is fine, no its not you mongoloids. The reason it was 30 FPS in the first place is because of BANDWIDTH issues, it's actually fucking 15FPS (interlaced) which is converted to tellie to 60 FPS. It's just that every frame is repeated twice because else it looks like shit. You just got so fucking used to it that you call it "authentic video". Kys nolgastic dinosaurs.

People who say humans can't see the difference between 30fps and 60fps are as retarded as the ones who say they can't hear the difference between MP3 and FLAC. You should get checked for brain damage.

>>57377528
I like 60fps in porn too. Idk yo, it doesn't really make any sense. Do I not want my movies and TV looking realistic? Why? Is this a philosophic question?

>>57377588
more motion sickness for some people, really

it's a comfort thing

hardcore is nice but not all the time. sometimes i want 22 fps above the blouse titty touching

File: 1466980174073.jpg (100KB, 864x778px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 864x778px

>>57377579
>People who say humans can't see the difference between 30fps and 60fps are as retarded as the ones who say they can't hear the difference between MP3 and FLAC.
Please post an ABX test where someone was able to tell the difference between 320k MP3 and FLAC. Go ahead I'll be waiting right here.

>>57377626
depends on the source material, if a section has a wide dynamic range and is busy a lot of the time more transient sounds can be absent or fade too rapidly

it would really need a/b listening of small small sections to tell. unless there's some dusting of spectrum in the listener's cranium... in which case great for them

>>57377667
so basically there's no useful difference. got it! ty anon

>>57377667
Still waiting for that ABX test family member.

>not understanding the gravitas behind the lower fps
>not understanding basic audience expectations
>not understanding art

Stick to installing linux

>>57377672
that's right

but there's also basically no difference between champagne and sparking wine other than getting your dick sucked by high-class trash vs. a trailer whore

let luxury be and stop being a panicking

>>57377697
well I understand that you have no point and are just spouting bullshit.

File: 1453829012371.png (850KB, 1000x967px) Image search: [Google]

850KB, 1000x967px

>>57377626
>non-free vs free
Its not even a contest, propietary software has no place on my computer or in my ears.

>>57377722
RMS pls.

>>57377506
Its only jarring at first because you're used to watching 24fps, which is actually very stuttery. Once you watch 60fps for a while then its jarring to go back to 24fps because it looks like a slideshow. At first it will probably even seem like 60fps is sped up, which is obviously not the case because the audio is running at the same speed. Its just your brain getting confused because it doesn't have to fill in as many details.

>>57377735
Complete falseness. I play games at 60fps and watch plenty of 60fps videos and enjoy it. When watching something serious, it just feels better at 24fps and doesn't look stuttery.

People are just monkeys brainwashed into 24 fps movies since the day they were born. This is why HFR movies look "off" to them, they can't bother to get used to something OBJECTIVELY better.

>b-but 24 fps is art

Fuck off.

>>57377793
If I wanted to watch a live soap opera I'd just go to my local theater.

60fps is shit. Stick to YouTube unloving videos if that's what you prefer

If you retards spent a month watching only 60 fps movies you would not believe we got this far with a 24 fps standard...

>>57377819
>unloving

Unboxing

>>57377810

Nice meme.

I only watch movies in 12 fps for the maximum KINO experience, you would not understand...

>>57377313
Camera quality and cost. Higher FPS causes blur which can make it hard for controlling effects. We need cheaper tech that can capture 60 fps without motion blur so that directors can add their own blur at their discretion.

>>57377421
>SD television
Good thing it isn't 2005

>>57377722
then 192kbps Opus then faggot

>>57377787
Games and movies are different. You really won't adjust unless you watch everything in 60fps for like a month. That's what happened when I began using interpolation, and now 24fps looks like garbage.

File: FraggleRock_50hz.webm (3MB, 544x576px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 544x576px

Is Fraggle Rock no longer cinematic at 50Hz?

>>57377313
Hobbit was 48 fps

No matter what higher framerate is better in every way.

Human eyes can easily see 600+ fps.

>>57377672
Maybe you should not be using a strawman to attack his point. Most MP3's are 128kbps up to 256kpbs. YouTube converters and shit. And you know damn well you can hear the difference between 128kbps and FLAC. and there are plenty of ABX tests online for that if you go to Google

>>57377374
You forget there's 3 colors that make up RGB.
They shoot 5 frames in red, 5 in green, and 5 in blue to make up 15fps. Then they do it again for the next eye.

>>57377567
>Why is neo /g/ so fucking retarded?
gosh the ironing!

Let me tell you a secret: it is not the framerate causing the issue, it's mostly the shutter angle (shutter speed for each frame).

Movies are shot at 180º shutter angle, that means the exposure time is double the frame rate, around 1/48 of a second.

At 60fps, and same shutter angle, you get 1/120s exposure. That looks fundamentally different than 1/48s exposure, it's "jaggier" and crisper because it freezes motion more, while 1/48 is blurrier and smoother.

Of course, unlike you, cinematographers have know this for ages, and even with 24 fps, they used different shutter angles to get crispier/jaggier look to fit the scene, for instance a chase or a war scene or to communicate action and tension.

>experiment_1: shoot a video at 24fps and 1/48s shutter speed, and then 24fps and 1/120s. See the difference?

>experiment_2: now shoot a video at 24fps 1/60s and 60fps 1/60s. See the difference?

>>57377313
because the retarded public has deluded themselves into believing high fps = "cheap"

Because it's fucking expensive. Literally the only reason.

>not recording at 165hz

Looks like laggy shit otherwise m8

>>57379008
I have noticed, even on LOTR, the big sweeping terrain scenes have lag in the cgi, bothers the fuck out of me.

>>57377313
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/movies/2016/10/billy_lynn_s_long_halftime_walk_looks_fantastic_it_s_also_unwatchable.html

Seems the critics and people don't like it. This is the same thing with the people who like motion-blur on their games.

>>57380543
i find it particularly hilarious that the most use arguments against higher framerates are that it looks "unrealistic" or "cheap", when in reality it's both more realistic and more expensive to produce

24 fps is the ideal for film, tv, and 2d hand drawn animation

>>57380849
Except it completely fails for fast motion and panning shots.

>>57380849
24fps is because studios were cheapasses who even wanted to take it below 20 to get the most out of film stock. 24 eventually was picked as the slowest to maintain an acceptable quality, and after decades of it we've conditioned ourselves to expect it as the "correct" rate.

>>57380849
it was literally picked to be as slow as they could without making it completely and utterly unwatchable, so they could fit more minutes onto less film (cheaper)

we have digital cameras and gigantic digital storage devices nowadays, there's no excuse

the only barrier is people who are so conditioned to shit that they refuse to eat anything else

>>57377313
>When will the 23.976 fps meme die?
When America gets woke, nigga.
It the retarded sub standard fps thing is genuinely, actually a result of American laziness to create new and better technology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GJUM6pCpew

>>57381050
oh yea, not to mention, modern motion-compensated video compression makes it so increating the frame rate doesn't linearly increase storage requirements

a 60fps video doesn't take up 2.5 times the space with the same quality

>>57377335
because human eye can't see past 30 FPS

File: left-shark.jpg (18KB, 398x409px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 398x409px

Basically plebs with eyes but no useful sight are so used to watching movies in low fps that when they are presented with a superior alternative, they confuse unfamiliarity with lower quality. It's the same with people who are used to eating trash-tier processed food and you make them a nice burger and they spit it out because it doesn't taste like ketchup.

Plebs are gonna be plebs so let plebs be plebs.

Action movies really should be 60fps and I've seen some east asian movies shot above 24 fps and they looked great.
Its not cheap to do with proper cameras and apparently even editing is tricky dicky with that footage. The space it takes is fucking massive too.
Technology has developed though, everyone just keeps holding onto their shitty old tech instead of trying out new things.

I hate it when in a movie a camera pans over a horizon and it looks choppy as shit. Also 3D movies with that framerate are unwatchable. I once made the mistake of going to see a transformers movie in 3D because my little brother REALLY wanted to see that turd and my god the action scenes were just a big blurry mess and I had no fucking clue what was going on. 3D and low framerates really dont go well together.

>>57377387
it looks unnatural, too fast

60fps footage looks strange to me and always has. I can't put my finger on it either which anoys me even more. Is it some psychological effect,

>>57381263
>>57381263
Ding ding, we've got a winner.

File: image.jpg (300KB, 809x1200px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 809x1200px

How does increasing the frame rate improve the quality of a film?

There little benefit to it, a game the increase framerate allows me to react faster, I don't have to do that for a movie, not to mention increasing the framerate to 60 also effectively doubles the cost of CGI, driving the cost of the movie up. It's a pointless endeavour for no benefits

>>57381062
Films are still shot on film

>>57381263
10/10
well put

People love motion blur?

>>57381575
no
there are exceptions but no
http://filmmakermagazine.com/97320-64-films-released-in-2015-shot-on-35mm/

>>57377366
*29.97 fps

>buy 144fps monitor
>144fps movies will never ever be a thing
have i been memed

>>57381263
then how do you explain 60fps being so popular on youtube

>buy 265hz monitor
>later find out that the human nose can't hear more than 30 frames per eye

>>57377351
>>57377374
>>57377382
>>57377445
>>57377510
>>57378362
>>57381154
>>57382069

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
>So the conclusion is: To make movies/Virtual Reality perfect, you'd have to know what you want. To have a perfect illusion of everything that can flash, blink and move you shouldn't go below 500 fps.

And this: >>57378268

Fuck off brain problems faggots and stick to your dead info

>>57382043

if you code a lot and use a low response time editor the speed up is noticeable and somewhat pleasant.

>>57377793
If you're used to eating shit you won't like a good steak, it's understandable. 24FPS is objectively bad and a motion-blurry mess.

>>57382127
Shut up gamer kiddo, nobody in real life cares about framerates. 29.97 FPS is more than enough.

>>57382051
Because of gaymen faggots like yourself

>>57382324
24p can be just as smooth retard

File: 1458035682517.jpg (105KB, 739x742px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 739x742px

>>57382127

File: 1080interlancebait.png (225KB, 1920x540px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1920x540px

TOASTING IN A BAIT BREAD

>>57380913
no it doesn't retard, at least not when shot natively. stop watching shitty transcodes

>>57382254
What is a "low response time editor" anon?

It's an artistic decision. Plus the human eye/brain is much more complicated than you think. We resolve things differently depending on many many factors, like location in field of vision, eye tracking, brightness/contrast, color, size, even the subject matter and scenario. Watching a screen can't simulate all these. 24fps can be perfectly realistic within it's limitations.

The artistic merits of 24fps aren't just durr it looks old school like what I grew up with. It's comfy not because it's familiar, but because it actually is comfy on the eyes/brain where it doesn't have to process too much unnecessary info. 60fps is unnaturally smooth, because we don't see things not-blurred 100% of the time. Again, it depends on what is being filmed, thus an artistic decision. No matter what, having an entire frame over rendered at a single framerate from scene to scene is always unrealistic.

Why do you think photography is still done one grayscale when it's clearly "inferior"? It's called art. Sometimes what we don't see is better than what we do see.

>>57377506
Oaklahoma was shot at 30 FPS back in the 60's. Go grab the special bluray off a torrent site. It's an interesting watch.

>>57382706
Thanks reddit.

>>57382765
Never been to Reddit. Just a /tv/, /p/, and /sci/ fag.

The problem with HFR The Hobbit was down to the shutter speed being used and the very fact it was 48 instead of 60 FPS. The shutter speed they used was so that they could drop ever second frame to pander to studio execs who wanted a 24 FPS copy for cinemas not capable of displaying HFR. That's why it looks like it's sped up. If they had shot it at 60 FPS with the proper shutter speed we would not be having this discussion.

>>57378187
Interpolation is shit though. So many artifacts around moving objects against backgrounds. Even the better interpolation algorithms can't get rid of it (SVP etc).

>>57382809
"never been to reddit"
I hate neo-/g/

>>57377335
60 (or more) is fine for gayman, but looks like garbage in live action.

>>57382686

>https://pavelfatin.com/typing-with-pleasure/

>>57383081
Can't read the whole thing right now, bookmarked it though. So basically - use vim on a 144hz 1ms monitor?

>>57377401
It looked amazing. So much more pleasant and natural. Really immersive.

Niggers stuck in 1920's jew cheapskate 24fps, having been brainwashed into genuinely thinking this cost cutting measure is "good" need to kill themselves.

>>57383189
t. soap opera viewer

>>57377446
resampling back down to 24 or something won't get rid of the soap opera look completely since it's shot with a shorter shutter than the typical 24fps 180° and therefore a completely different look in terms of motion blur you can't get back

>>57383081
his methodology is flawed, he's measuring the frame buffer delay, not the real world monitor delay, which can be very different, and is a big reason why aero appears to be slower, even though it's just locked to the monitor which would delay a non-vsynced input just the same

>>57381526
>How does increasing the frame rate improve the quality of a film?
It removes stutter when panning. Vertical posts stop going back and forth

No I'm not talking about judder

>>57383244
no, it doesn't

>>57383255
yes it does you idiot, go watch olkahoma at 30fps and compare it to the 24fps version. There's no stutter whatsoever on any of the pans in the 30fps version

File: alchemist-ph-c-hd.png (102KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 480x360px

>>57383270
>what is a shitty transcode

nigger my entire job is to convert broadcast video to cinema specs (advertising). native 59.94/29.97 can look just as good at 23.98/24, you just gotta do it properly.

pic related

>>57381526
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OABsv_EvFNU

https://vimeo.com/82539609

the fight scene comparison has fucking vanished from the internet

File: pulldown[1].gif (9KB, 450x228px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 450x228px

>>57383293
you suck at your job then

it's physically impossible for a 3:2 pulldown to be as smooth as a 1:1 original

>>57383403
>implying that's not exactly what you're seeing on these shitty 24p examples

>>57383383
Shame it's only fucking 30 fps on Vimeo

>>57377313
A lot of CGI and special effects are made frame by frame, so less frames less troubles and expenses

>>57383548
>what is tweening

>>57377626
I hope you weren't waiting 12 hours
ftp://joelixny.ddns.net/Z/

>>57381526
How does color increase the quality of a film?
How does resolution increase the quality of a film?

>>57377626
ABX aren't reliable as a quality test, since it tests the respondents attention and memory more than it tests anything else

>>57383723
silent films are much more artful

the gravitas and expression of a silent actor is much more sophisticated compared to those awful childish tone flicks

>>57382706
the brain has to work harder with low fps because information is missing, it's much easier to watch something with a high rate

24fps looks dreamlike because it forces your imagination to work on filling in the blurry inbetweens

with 60fps all the information is just there and you can relax looking at a natural image

File: fps.webm (799KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

799KB, 1280x720px

They should be in 120 fps, really.
>>57377344
Citation needed, retard.

>>57377313
Theyre being filmed in 60fps. Its why sporting events look the better than anything else on tv

>>57382887
Tell that to nfl

>>57383901
>720p

>>57382857
>going to reddit
If I wanted reposted memes I would just use Facebook.

>>57383857
> 50fps webm

>>57377387
have you ever watched a 60fps movie?

Ignore the slowmo parts. But watching this I do not see any speed up effect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ge2gx69ftk

The reason as stated above that The Hobbit looks like it's been sped up in some parts is down to the shutter speed used to accommodate the 24 FPS conversion.

>>57377313
If films being 24fps makes you angry you should genuinely consider suicide

Part of the reason is it literally makes your films look cheaper.

It's a conditioning thing but after years of 23.97fps anything above that starts to remind people of soaps and cheap reality TV

>>57383857
whats that spooky think in the bottom right corner

>>57384915
hurr durr muh soap opera effect durr

The 29.97 fps meme is only for NTSC television. European PALs get the well memed 30fps broadcast.

https://youtu.be/3GJUM6pCpew this guy does a great job telling why NTSC uses meme-y 29.97 fps.

>>57385863
PAL is 25fps innit

>>57386055
LIES

>>57386055
yes

>>57386055
>>57386216
>>57386380
PAL-60 does 60Hz

Only really old TVs from the 80s didn't support this, I think

>>57386870
how much pal 60 content exists though

>>57387097
> pal 60 content
I thought pal 60 was literally NTSC compatibility with better chroma

>>57378362
You're forgetting the eye has receptors for coloured light and receptors that see black and white.

So, they have to record 3 in red, 3 in green and 3 in blue, with 2 white frames in between each colour. Then, for the other eye its the same but with 2 black frames in between so your brain can combine the images into black and white

>>57377313
Do you know how much memory it takes for any person to shoot RAW footage at 30 fps?
It's a budget problem, specially for amateur and independent filmmakers, ofc Tarantino and others don't bother with that but that's the kind of person that can also shoot full lenght in 70mm film if they want.

>>57377618
>more motion sickness for some people, really
This, POV porn can be confusing for the brain

>>57383857
i don't see any difference

>>57387161
>better chroma
You lose half the vertical chroma resolution by going PAL.
NTSC over S-Video gives superior color compared to PAL(composite is shit)

>>57377528
>legitly
...

>>57385863
That was quite informative and a great example of European superiority.

>>57387344
stop using firefox on a toaster

File: 2caf80bf68805d99d2014677571531c7.jpg (22KB, 628x419px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 628x419px

>>57377528
>it takes a while to get used to those realsmooth vids

Is that why millennials prefer to watch a concert through their phone instead of live?
Real world has too much fps for them?

>>57387546
No, they have a limited attention span so they need to record the event to remember it.

>>57387351
Can't find any info about that. All I can find is the frequency

> In the PAL system, the color subcarrier is 4.43 MHz above the video carrier, while in the NTSC system it is 3.58 MHz above the video carrier.

>>57387351
that's just called chroma subsampling, ntsc does that too

>>57387951
Why would an analogue format use chroma sub-sampling?

>>57388066
to reduce the bandwidth requirement, analogue isn't a magical "free bandwidth" technology