>Alternate /tv/ universe >Film reels are incredibly cheap

File: just so you know.gif (3MB, 270x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 270x360px

>>79743933

>>79743933

But the magic of movies literally cannot exist unless they are in 24 fps. It's not because I'm used to it so something different looks strange. There is magic and it only exists when movies are shot in 24 fps. Even 25 fps is enough to destroy the magic. 26? Forget about it

>>79743933
Peter, pls go

>>79743933
It will get there eventually. Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk is 120fps. Retards can't hold back progress forever.

>>79743933
Our eyes see the world in 24 fps so higher than that looks weird and unreal to our brains.

>>79745262
Is this true?

File: 1487526229706.gif (594KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

594KB, 200x200px

>>79745262
>>79745262

>>79745284
no it's bait

>another thread where dumbasses try to apply what works for video games into what works for movies

>>79745284
No.

Our eyes don't see in "frames", they see by receiving light reflected from things that can be seen. We define movie speed by "frames" because it's literally a series of moving pictures that you're seeing, whereas in real life, you see things that are happening as they are happening, and the limit AFAIK is your eyes, not any number of "frames", since there are no "frames" because you're not looking at a series of pictures, you're looking at things that are happening.

>>79745220
No one liked that movie

>>79745932
Yeah but your brain can only comprehend about 24 frames per second.

>>79743933
sooner or later movies will be at least 60fps and one day even higher than that. Maybe not in our lifetime but still.

24fps is too damn low. try watching 24 fps movie without motion blur. It's unwatchable.

File: cat disgusted.jpg (22KB, 351x351px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 351x351px

>mfw a videogame has deliberately inserted technical errors like lens flare and chromatic aberration because people it's more "cinematic"

>>79747553
shut the fuck up faggot

>>79747553
>>>/v/

>>79743933
soap opera effect. 60fps on a movie would look fucking awful.

6/10 troll thread though, guaranteed replies and probably some retards will buy your bullshit but it lacks the creativity to be convincing to anyone but the most ignorant.

Modern films often severely limit the color palette of films and introduce blurring for aesthetic appeal, so why bother increasing the temporal resolution when the spectral and spatial resolutions are fucked?

File: Reverse-water.gif (2MB, 615x349px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 615x349px

>>79745932
Our eyes DO see frames. It's exactly how it works. The brain gets sent ~60 images per second and stitches them together best it can for us.

Some optical illusions even take advantage of this. For example a water fountain dripping water at exact calculated intervals with a strobe light flickering at an exact frequency will make each "frame" sent to your brain have the water droplet just a tiny bit above where it was the "frame" before and your brain will stitch it up best it can.. the water will appear to be moving upwards.

24 fps started for cost reasons

those reasons faded with time, but not before a huge number of techniques were developed around 24fps. Making 15 mph car chases look like 100mph, making slow fight choreography look quick and brutal, making fake punches look as if they connected because the frame in which they would've connected are missing, etc, etc.

There's also the fact actors move differently for the camera than they will in other contexts. For if they move too fast or don't hold an expression long enough, the camera won't catch it.

Shifting to higher framerates requires relearning just about every aspect of filmmaking, without any real benefit.