Why are movies not being filmed and presented in a higher framerate?

It will probably improve action films, but it might detract from dramas.

It might make life harder on the actors who will now need to better control their micromovements.

Well sorry but it does feel very cheap and unnatural. Like a "making of" doc or a soap opera

hobbit looked disgusting at 48 fps why would anyone want 60 fps. its not a videogame.

I bet you're enjoying watching cheap soap operas

>>79876554
>but it might detract from dramas
How so? How will smoother movement on-screen somehow make the emotions portrayed in a drame lessen?

>It might make life harder on the actors who will now need to better control their micromovements.
You think those micromovements are being "hidden" by a low framecount? And even if that's somehow true, isn't this what we pay those people millions upon millions of dollars to do anyway?

>>79876559
>feel
Again, I argue that it's an adjustment thing. Of course it will look unnatural, you've never seen it before.

>>79876589
The hobbit was an experiment, and I argue that the reason people didn't like it was because they weren't used to it.

None of you are able to explain to me why seeing more of the movie somehow makes the movie worse.

>>79876478
Because 60fps video looks like trash to untrained eye and brings no real benefit over current framerates. Movies are not video games.

>>79876612

I'm sorry, are soap operas filmed in 60 fps? Didn't think so.

>>79876619
But why? People just aren't used to it. That doesn't mean that the industry should just trying to make them used to it, when all it adds is clarity to the on-screen movement.

Movies have to be a little fake to be good. If you had 100% natural dialogue with all the interruptions and ummms and aahhs and people sneezing and coughing mid sentence it will become really annoying and the same is true for overly smooth video

>>79876478
Your eyes can't even see 20 frames per second. The 24 per second that an older theater projectors showing film had is already more image than your eyes can even make sense of. 60 fps, or anything like that is just a meme, like audiophiles who think they can hear the difference that their 800 dollar cabals make, when they literally, scientifically, just can't.

The big argument used to be "because it takes quite a lot more film". But most movies these days are shot digitally anyway, and it's not like harddrive space is a problem in this day and age where I can buy a terabyte disk for a hundred bucks.

>>79876478
24 FPS is still cheaper, is a standard, all equipment is pretty much built to shoot, edit and play @24 FPS and, other than CGI movies, it would not benefit anything. Also good luck removing the stigma of higher framerates = TV shows that people have ingrained in their heads.
That said, I saw The Hobbit at 48 FPS and it made me queasy.

What works for videogames doesn't necessarily work for movies. Video games are interactive, so a higher framerate means the game feels more responsive and you're constantly entering inputs, so the returns are evident. Film doesn't have these peculiarities.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (34KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 1280x720px

>>79876478
>>its another genY flunked science 10 episode

File: 1465846999739.gif (119KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1280x720px

>>79876687
I think you're the memer here.

>>79876702
>is the standard

480p was the standard not long ago, but we were pretty quick to ditch that when something better came along.

A lot of people argued that it would be cheaper and more effective to just film in the quality we had, seeing 1080p takes quite a bit of space.

But we overcame that, and we should overcome this.

Just because we aren't used to it doesn't mean we should never TRY to become used to it.

>>79876705

What the fuck are you even talking about? Is it scientifically proven that 24 is the magic holy number and the peak of human capacity or something?

>>79876788
Resolutions and framerates are completely different things. You sound like you have an axe to grind so I'm not enabling you anymore.
>>79876817
No, it's the lowest framerate at which the human brain sees still images as movement. It was picked to make film cheaper to shoot and it stuck. It also provides motion blur naturally.

The amount of FPS is not a problem for our brain, the problem is how it looks for us
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_CbbAbf7gE&t=267s

>>79876859
>Resolutions and framerates are completely different things.
Did I argue that they were the same? No, I argued that they both increase the amount of resources required to capture in said quality. Not that they're the same.

It's not some personal crusade, I'm just unable to find anyone capable of coming up with a sound answer as to why something that's an objective improvement is somehow not worth putting effort in.

>>79876478
The fluid movements just look so alien and ass. It's a bad idea

>>79876478
There's already tools for you to watch them on your PC. No need to change something now, normalfags are not prepared yet.

>Another fake argument repeating things they have said 100 times already.

wew

>>79876952
The content wasn't filmed in a higher framerate though. There's nothing you can do on your computer to magically fix this.

>>79876925
>objective improvement
Its only purpose is to please people by looking good and people don't like how it looks. Hard to call that an improvement.

>>79876925
I don't think the cost of film is an issue anymore, people who shoot digital don't need to worry about it, directors who still hold on to film pay exhorbitant prices for film stock anyway. The problem is, it looks weird and making people adapt to other framerates isn't cost effective. Besides, there's nothing wrong with 24 FPS for film. There are no inherent problems with it that need to be corrected.
Investing billions on that shit for no advantage is an excercise in stupidity, just to see a higher number on the box.

>>79876478
Umm nobody thought it looks strange because when fully mechanical cameras were invented a bunch of experts came to the conclusion that 24fps was the most natural for the human eye to look at. If it's still true now or not I can't say but this was basically a non issue initially.

>>79876478
There are a few being filmed now in 60fps. Not sure on release dates. Right now you can get some porn in 60fps.

>>79876859
>provides motion blur

Eyes do that all on their own.

>>79877169

Exactly. But you don't hear porn consumers complaining about how unnatural it looks.

In porn, as in action films, the movement is very important. Which leads back to the original question: why aren't new action flicks being shot in higher framerate?

>>79877169
>porn is once again pushing the industry

Just like with blu-ray. Trust the perverts to lead the way.

>>79877261
>why aren't new action flicks being shot in higher framerate?
Because it doesn't matter and it looks fine anyway. And porn is just porn, people just need to see people fucking, even if it's pixellated shit or scrambled cinemax.

>>79877285

Most high-paced action movies are a blurry mess.

>>79877261
>Which leads back to the original question
...aaaaand right back to the original answer: People don't like how it looks. You can get some porn in higher framerate, but it's not exactly sweeping the industry. People especially don't care how their porn is shot.

>>79877322
Higher framerates won't fix lazy choreography and cinematography.

>>79877322

as they should be.

>>79877322
I don't recall any action movies having problems with the framerate. You're trying to transfer your video game debate to film, that's the main problem here.

>>79877363

You want porn to feel as real as possible. This is not true of kino.

>>79877285
>>79877368
Plenty of modern action films look like complete trash, largely as a result of 24fps.
Something like Taken 2 will be bad regardless of the frames per second, but at 24 it's simply incomprehensible at times.

If you disagree you're just not watching enough bad action movies.

>>79877368

You just know these autismo fags think that the pinnacle of cinema is some capeshit fist fight in space

>>79877456
>Plenty of modern action films look like complete trash, largely as a result of 24fps.
Yet you can't provide examples.

>>79877411
Don't tell me what the fuck I want. I jerk off to cartoons and heavily shopped images, because reality looks like shit.

>>79877456
>If you disagree you're just not watching enough bad action movies.
Or you're watching too many.

>>79877280
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w9xfOa6gtQ

>>79876478
get the fuck out /v/ you're not welcome here

>>79877456
Taken 2 looks like shit because the cinematography is shit. Making every movie look like a shit video game won't fix that.

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

>>79877473
If you read 3 (three) words into the next sentence I provided an example.
>>79877792
OP didn't say every movie. He said fast paced action movies, and he's correct about that.

>>79877869
Stop ignoring this point:

>>79877792
>Taken 2 looks like shit because the cinematography is shit.
>>79877363
>Higher framerates won't fix lazy choreography and cinematography.

Your one example is garbage for reasons that have nothing to do with framerate. So how is a higher framerate going to fix it?

>>79876554
>it might detract from dramas.
Ang Lee's latest drama was shot in HFR 3D. Plebs completely ignored it.

File: epic.png (130KB, 396x381px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 396x381px

60 fps make movies look like 'behind the scenes' shit.
Only transformers tier movies would benefit from it, because hurr you can watch the robots fight better

>>79877987
When did anybody say a higher frame rate would fix bad cinematography and choreography?
I fucking brought up Taken 2 and I said it would "be bad regardless" in the same post.

It's not going to "fix it", it will only improve it mildly.

>>79878113
>When did anybody say a higher frame rate would fix bad cinematography and choreography?

>>79877869
>If you read 3 (three) words into the next sentence I provided an example.

File: 1435608198215.jpg (16KB, 300x400px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 300x400px

Nobody likes 60 fps in their media other than video game playing manchildren fixated on hardware benchmarking

>>79876646
.......they are?

>>79876478
You will get your 60fps standard when they run out of things to meme. right now its 4k resolution and curved tv's.

because it looks shit and you're a gay prick

File: 399px-Ang_Lee_-_66ème_Festival_de_Venise_(Mostra).jpg (38KB, 399x599px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 399x599px

>completely revolutionary approach to filmmaking
>audiences made it flop
>critics didn't understand it
>academy ignored it
In 50 years, this film will still be talked about. Not Laland or Moonlight.

Billy Lynn used an unprecedented shooting and projection frame rate of 120 frames per second in 3D at 4K HD resolution. It is the first feature film ever to be shot in such a high frame rate, over twice the previous record (Hobbit: 48 fps) and 5 times the standard speed of 24 fps. Lee undertook such a bold step since he wanted the film to be an "immersive" and "realistic" experience of the reality and emotional journey of soldiers.

Lee wanted to up his use of technology in filmmaking, especially in terms of frame rate, since he thought pursuing a higher frame would help him find answers. Lee wanted to try and shoot the film with at least 60 fps at 2K resolution in 3D as he had experimented with 60 fps before. He undertook research and found what Jackson was doing with 48 fps, but did not wish to use such a frame rate after Jackson's The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was poorly received. He visited filmmaker Douglas Trumbull who was doing his own 60 fps tests, and so was James Cameron.

Shooting close-up shots in 3D with such high resolution meant the cast could not wear make-up and could not deliver less-than-authentic performances. Since no make-up was allowed, make-up artist Luisa Abel spent months of preparation on their skin tones. "[Abel] found this silicone-based makeup because we found that it can see through skin." The production team had to rethink everything, including different approaches to lighting as the camera needed extra lights due to the higher frame rates. To film the war sequences, Lee strayed from the usual practice of moving cameras to create confusion. Instead he did the opposite by shooting mostly from the protagonist's POV to capture the realism and to look more authentic.

File: 1459579581135.png (94KB, 396x385px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 396x385px

All technophobes should be lined up and shot.

>>79878463
Seconded. We as a species should always try to move forward, even if it's just small steps and even if it's uncomfortable at first.

>>79876478
It's because consumers are retards who were dumb enough to believe the industry's cost cutting was a deliberate artistic choice. 24fps is fucking garbage, 60fps is tolerable, 120fps should be standard.

>>79877368
Hardcore Henry is practically unwatchable. The Raid is blurry shit too. Fury Road has even more fucked up framerate problems where they actually tried to change the speed of scenes in post production.

All three cases are disgusting wastes of great stunts and practical effects.

>>79878518
>bigger number equals progress!
Technology requires some thought, you know.

>>79878408
>>79878539
I really wanted to see Billy Lynn in 3D 120FPS, but in my country it was only released in 2D 24FPS. Why? Because theaters would need to equip themselves with new, pricy technology. It's only about the money. I've read people who saw both formats say it's a completely different movie, where scenes look off in 24FPS, with nuances missing. It's no different than having your movie being recut and butchered in the editing room, like Welles' Magnificent Ambersons. It completely changes the production process, the creative choices you make, etc. Something as overlooked as having to do completely different make-up from usual cinema conventions, it's interesting as fuck, it changes everything even stuff you wouldn't think about. The fact that it was a character study drama and not a big action blockbuster made critics terrified! It's revolutionary and experimental. Why did literally no one talk about this movie? They just swept it under the rug.

>>79876478
>>79878690
it makes things look fake guys..it should be just another tool for a filmmakers toolbox, not the standard...if a film may be enhaced by 60 fps use it, otherwise it should be just be an option

>>79878735
Same reason Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within killed Square. People hate progress.

>>79878805
>it makes things look fake
Shit makeup, shit props, shit lighting, etc. make things look fake. High frame rate just removes the blur that would otherwise let them get away with it.

Stage plays have effectively infinite frame frame and nobody complains about the motion quality there.

Films are like dreams, not reality. Everything above 30fps is "real".

>>79878894
That's because real life looks more like a 24fps movie than a 60fps one.

>>79878957
You're either trolling or literally retarded. 24fps looks like stuttery blurry shit. There's no way you could ever mistake it for reality.

>>79878977
No it doesn't. You may have brain cancer or something if you're not just lying on the internet to try and impress us with how patrician your eyes are.

>>79878408
>no make-up was allowed
>make-up artist Luisa Abel found this silicone-based makeup

>>79878977
>There's no way you could ever mistake it for reality

Exactly. And that's the whole fucking point.

Cause unlike video games, the film industry is still filled with old people who will never go further with that kind of technology

>>79879043
It's the reason no horror movie is genuinely scary. It's the reason no action movie feels like being in a real fight. Low frame rate is only good for talking based movies, which shouldn't even exist because novels do that type of story better. Cinema can't progress as an art form while it's stuck at low frame rate.

File: imgres.jpg (15KB, 285x177px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 285x177px

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

>little details like seeing the wheels of the overturned truck spinning
>Health ledger's subtle facial movements as the jokerrrr

60fps is BETTER YOU PLEBS

>inb4 not real 60fps only converted

still looks sexy

>>79879115
There's nothing stopping people from making films at high frame rates. People tend to hate them though, which isn't good for making money.

>>79879146
Looks so fucking cheap.

>>79879146

Your point is valid. I don't see a reason we should restrain ourselves to 24 fps when 60 fps gives a better performance and better visuals.

>>79879200

Kill yourself with your subjective shit faggot.

>>79879155
They only hate them because of an ongoing propaganda campaign to make people hate them. If high frame rate became popular the industry wouldn't make so much profit.

>>79879200
Of course it does, it's fake interpolated 60fps.

>>79879230
>They only hate them because of an ongoing propaganda campaign to make people hate them
Is Peter Jackson a part of it? Because I don't see how else it could be propaganda for people to see 60fps films and hate it.

>>79877322
that's just american cinematography because they're shit at action and rely on blurry out of focus frenetically nauseating quick cuts to simulate competence

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNJdPyoqt8U
>it looks cheap and unreal guys xD

Fuck right off back to the stone age faggots.

>>79878813
It was also kind of a shitty movie that didn't appeal to final fantasy fans or the general audiences.

>>79879306
>comparing cinema to nature documentaries, sports or porn

Shitty bait.

>>79879306
What game is this???

>>79879344
>literally the exact same technology on display
>"I-it's invalid because it's a documentary!"

>>79879146
Looks cheap and staged

>>79879375
>82 replies
>32 posters
Sure is samefag in here.

>>79879426
It's like.. people are responding to each other and having a discussion woah

>>79878002
The film was bad, that's why people avoided it.

>>79879381
Of course it's invalid? Cinema is fiction, it's a dream, it's not real. Documentaries, sports, porn etc. are real and that's why more resolution, more frames and more sharpness is good for those, but not for cinema.

>>79879381
This is why no one takes you seriously anon.

>>79876788
60fps is not a better thing. You haven't explained why you think its better and it being the industry standard isn't good enough. Watching 60fps isn't an adjustment period, it looks unnatural for everything except sports. I dont even think you know why you want to watch movies in 60fps because it is not an improvement in an sort of technological way like you probably think.

>>79879146
damn that looks awesome. it's a shame that people are trained since childhood to associate a higher frame rate with TV.

>>79879450
Its like one sperg keeps spamming the same /v/tier opinion.

>>79879230
>propaganda campaign
And there goes your credibility and dignity. Who's engineering this propaganda campaign? Is it the jews again?

File: 1468099683325.jpg (25KB, 620x417px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 620x417px

>>79879146
>>79879492
Embarrassing.

>>79879480

Not him but when we watch movies, there is not actual movement on screen. Film makers string together images and play them quickly to simulate motion. Our brain then connects them together to create the illusion of movement. The more images the less the brain needs to work to compensate for what is happening between those images.

It's a matter of saving money first and foremost, movies are already overly expensive and shooting in anything above 24fps woul easily add up to production costs, it's not just the equipment but completely new and super expensive sets and qualified crew are needed to shoot at a higher frame rate

>>79879531
Everybody who gets paid directly or indirectly out of film industry income. The few exceptions are people already successful enough that they don't need to worry about money.

>>79879466
>Documentaries, sports, porn etc. are real
How new are you

>>79879146
This looks like a parody. /v/ has the worst fucking taste

>>79879146
hahaha looks like a stageplay

Here is why since you're too stupid OP

1. They tried that with a film with 120fps. People said it looked disturbing and uncomfortable. Along with too much detail to facial expressions ruining performances

2. No benefits to needing high frame rate

3. Big studios won't fund it cause it's a huge risk and liability to them

4. Stigma to the masses that it looks tv quality. Why do you think TV now is trying to be more like film?

5. Technology for high frame rate film is still relatively new and not as stable as the standard

>>79879639
Most movies do if they aren't hiding behind blurry filters and low frame rates.

File: 1401937215465.jpg (24KB, 189x165px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 189x165px

>60 FPS IS BETTER
>No it's not, it looks unnatural and tacky
>NO, IT IS BETTER LOOK AT THIS ACTION SCENE IT LOOKS MORE DETAILED
>More detail doesn't make a better film, it still looks weird and most people don't like it
>NO NO, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU LIKE, LOOK MY VIDEO GAMES LOOK BETTER THEREFORE FILM SHOULD BE THE SAME

Why are /v/edditors allowed outside their board?

>>79879889
>Why are /v/edditors allowed outside their board?
Because you enable them with (you)s.

24 fps is the standard because that's around the point that film looks bearable. At that point you're able to suspend yourself just enough so that you know you're watching a movie and not real life.

>>79879146
isn't this interpolation and not true 60 fps?