>When someone complains that 4K is "too sharp"

>anon you always pick weird movies lol

File: 1419421119822.jpg (47KB, 463x494px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 463x494px

>When someone complains that 60 fps don't have "that movie feel"

>>80614037
It doesn't, it should be reserved for documentaries or realist films.

>>80614062
This 100%, a lot of the time it makes the movie look cheaper and shittier

File: 352345239847.jpg (39KB, 300x318px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 300x318px

>>80614037
>seeing someone unironically advocate for 24FPS + shitty motion blur in the digital era

I hear what you are saying but I'm still amazed at how my brain and eyes freak out over higher frame rate or sharper definition.

Hell, the first time I saw HD, high framerate porn I think I grew an erection in fucking 4K.

>4k exposes some A listers as mooncrater leather face plebs, so they campaign for low resolution
>Plan B is to have cgi make them younger, written in the contract

>>80614155
I discovered 60 FPS porn yesterday. I don't understand how I didn't hear about it sooner.

>>80614103

Growing up, I knew a movie was cheap shit if it was 30 fps. 60 fps has double that cheap feel.

>>80614037
>it looks too real
>it looks too fake

MAKE UP YOUR FUCKING MIND NORMIES

>>80614062
>>80614103
Because you can't do the same shit that you do for lower framerate. You have to actually do things to make it not seem odd. It's not inherently worse filmmakers just have to adjust. Just like you can make shitty movies on film and masterpieces on digital, you can make good movies with higher framerates.

>>80614295
Yeah, but it only works for certain styles. Good luck shooting a romantic film at 60fps.

>>80614328
>>80614205

>can see individual pores on actor's faces
>see the caked on makeup and how nasty someone looks upclose

>>80614376
That's a lighting and makeup problem. You can fix it.

>>80614062
>>80614103
>>80614328
You get used to it in a matter of hours and then starts looking really, really good. Then when you go back to 24 / 30FPS it looks like a choppy, blurry mess and you wonder how you ever watched it before. The continued use of 24p when higher framerates are easily accessible is a fucking crime.

If you get a chance, watch the movie Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk in 60FPS. It's one of the only hollywood movies filmed and released on UHD BluRay at that framerate. The movie itself is garbage, but you get used to the silky smooth motion and framerate in the first half of the movie, then when you fully get used to it, it becomes an almost hyper realistic and a fucking amazing experience. You can actually see detail in panning and zoom shots because the entire frame isn't being blurred to simulate motion like with 24FPS. It offers a depth to the movie that directors are seriously missing out on when the stick to archaic ancient framerates like 24FPS. After you get done watching it and immediately watch something else at a low framerate, 24FPS video actually starts to be the one to look fake and artificial due to the choppiness and blurriness, it gives a feeling like you are almost removed from what's happening instead of experiencing it.

tl;dr

60FPS only looks weird because you aren't used to it and it is far superior in every way imaginable to lower framerates.

>>80614492
Damn, maybe I'll try it out then anon. Should I just turn on that motion plus thing on my tv?

>>80614492
>it is far superior in every way imaginable to lower framerates.
Except if your don't want to use the aesthetic produced by 60fps. If something like Zodiac or some other Fincher flick or something like that was done in 60fps it'd be pretty good, if something like Throne Of Blood, or one of Tarkovky's movies were done in 60 fps it'd clash horribly.

Just busting in here with a contrarian views:

Sleeping Beautify was shot at a frame rate of less than 24 frames per second and it was a masterpiece.

Check and mate you 4K fag-lords.

>>80614554
That uses motion interpolation to generate blended frames in between normal frames in order to simulate 60FPS. It gives you kind of a similar effect, but it produces artifacts and doesn't always look amazing. You can give it a try but I definitely recommend finding some native 60FPS stuff to play.

Youtube has some good native 60FPS content if you look around:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEKix8iydfU

>>80614595
I think Stalker would have been cool as fuck in 60FPS.

>>80614694
Maybe it's just that a lot of people can their first opinions on 60fps from that motion plus effect that causes them to hate it right off the bat. I haven't seen too much native 60fps stuff, I just mainly remember the motion plus thing looking unnatural and weird. I'll look up more native 60fps stuff if what you're saying is true.

>>80614492
this guy gets it

>>80614809
native 60FPS definitely looks a little weird when you first see it, especially during motion scenes, but the fake motion interpolated stuff always looks a little off no matter how much you watch it.

Eventually the feeling you have that it looks "too sped up" or whatever starts to dissipate and you start to pick up on just how much detail is lost in motion at 24FPS and how 60FPS makes motion shots as clear as a still frame.

Here's another good native 60FPS demo video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RIDhA9c8qw

Unfortunately there isn't a massive amount of 60FPS content produced on large budgets like TV shows and Movies but there is some out there if you look for it.

>>80614037
>>80614492
>>>/v/

>>80615069
>>>/1927/

>>80614062
These people who want more frames, more pores, and more details no matter what are the gaming crowd (or the graphics crowd), not film buffs.

They're probably also the same people who think the great paintings are those hyper-realistic copies of photographs.

>>80614025
ugh this annoys me so much

>>80615353
>If a movie looks worse, it actually looks better

If this applies to any movie, it isn't actually a good movie.


Also paintings are a completely different type of medium and none of this stuff even remotely applies to them