Defend 24 frames per second beyond an 'Im used to it'

Is being "used to it" not a valid argument?

>>81847836
its weak af

That's basically it, people are used to their movies to look certain way and will resist change no matter what.

>>81847889

Sure, I'll grant it's definitely not substantiated by anything other than "feels".


Watching those shitcan Hobbit movies in 48 was just nauseating. Reducing motion blur for a more clear image is nice and all, but when 90% of the frame is CG anyways it just looks and feels incredibly off putting IMO.

>>81847964
>Watching those shitcan Hobbit movies in 48 was just nauseating
they were in 24FPS too, blame the shitty camera work

24 FPS is a thing because a century ago a bunch of jews sat together and said "oy vey, how do we make these newfangled kinoscope pictures at the lowest cost possible?" while rubbing hands.

>>81847836
tradition bias could be considered a fallacy, so yeah.

>>81847794
>>81847889
I bet you typed this post using a qwerty keyboard

>>81848050
speech to text
now what faggot?

>>81848050
>he doesn't use dvorak

>>81848047

It certainly could. But most people don't justify their tastes in strictly logical terms. People like what they like regardless of whether or not they can logically back up why they do or don't.

Have you watched a film past 30 frames? it looks like shit

>>81848146
>it looks like shit
Basically another way to say "I am not used to it".

>>81848146
And yet in in Videogames 60FPS is considered the standard, and anything below 30FPS is shit.

>b-but videogames are an entirely different thing

We are talking about visuals here, moving pictures.

If you can watch the Hobbit films in 48 frames and honestly say "Yeah. I want more of that!", you have a mental disability.

>>81848285
>in Videogames 60FPS is considered the standard, and anything below 30FPS is shit.
That's only the case for fps spergs. 30fps games are fine. Feel free to look up games commonly cited as "the best" and see how many run at 30.

>The human eye only sees at 25 fps
Actually thats bullshit but the way the brain processes movement is more analogous to 25 than 60. The ULTRASMOOTHNESS of 60fps looks unnatural to the human brain, if not the human eye.

I'll take "What is motion blur" for 600 Alex.

>>81847794
Well I believe that the first held cinema jews roundtable made an effective rational decision to make the 24 fps the standard and I'll take their word for it.

Also every other film fps gimmick which emerged since then was a massive fail.

>>81848335
>30fps games are fine.
Sonygger detected, enjoy your CINEMATIC SILK SMOOTH 30 FPS.

>>81848322
mute point, it could be said the same about that movie in any other framerate

>>81848335
>Feel free to look up games commonly cited as "the best" and see how many run at 30.

That's because technical limitations on older hardware, there was no enough horsepower under the plastic to push more FPS without sacrificing visual fidelity and eyecandy, much like 24 FPS was implemented in the dawn of cinema because of the problems of working with film. Those limitations are not an excuse anymore, both in games and movies.

>>81848105
I used dvorak for a year and list the ability to tell "b" from "d".
I mean I could still tell, but I had to think about it. It really fucked me up.

>>81848322
If you said "Yeah. I want more of that!" after watching the 24 FPS version of The Hobbit, you too would have a mental disability.

>>81847794
it's cheaper and moviegoers have low standards so why would studios waste money

>>81848350
>The USAF, in testing their pilots for visual response time, proved the ability to percieve 1 image within 1/220 of a second.
>Myelinated nerves can fire between 300 to 1000 times per second in the human body and transmit information at 200 miles per hour.

>>81848050
>I bet you typed this post using a qwerty keyboard

Switching from Qwerty to any of the alternatives requires active effort due muscle memory. Switching off 24 FPS to 48FPS requires no effort, you just switch and watch.

>>81848416
Mario 64, OoT, BotW.

File: 1487956460192.jpg (68KB, 431x450px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 431x450px

>>81848285

>Thinks fps in a videogame is the same as fps in film

>>81848636

wtf I love 200fps movies now!?!?

File: Jillia Valenvoth.jpg (105KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 960x960px

>>81848665
Mario 64, Metroid Prime, Ocarina of Time, Wind Waker, you can emulate all those on PC at 60FPS and they look and play much MUCH better

>>81848135
again, youre using cognitive bias and basically saying that no, "being used to it" or "liking it" is not a valid argument

>>81848931

I'm saying that expecting people to justify their tastes in purely logical terms is misguided at best.

>>81848964
we're talking filming and screening technology here, not your favorite ice-cream flavor

File: hurrrrr.jpg (81KB, 281x912px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 281x912px

>>81848335
I think that movies look better at 24 fps but your post is retarded
(and for pc games, it's 60 or more)
and that's only the first 8, even minecraft, which is believed to have selled more than any other game and was acclaimed by everybody when it first came out, is expected to run at 60 fps minimum

>>81848636
Nerve firing does not equate to full visual recognition of an image. Yes you can tell what it is you're looking at and maybe even describe it in vague terms but you can't absorb it fully and soak it all in.

>>81847794
Give it a about 20 years and the 24fps meme will die.

We will eventually get much higher fps but right now it's probably hella expensive to higher the fps due to cgi.

>>81848146
I've watched real analog ShowScan, and it looked great. But 60fps is still inadequate for fast motion. We should standardize at 120fps minimum.

Friendly reminder, that if your TV does any sort of interpolation to pretend like what you are watching has a higher frame rate than what the source is running at you should kill yourself.

Creating messy blurry intermediate frames to fill the gaps is disgusting and does nothing but degrade the quality of whatever it is you are watching.

>>81848391
Real motion blur is generated by the eye/brain. It reacts to eye movement. Objects don't magically turn semi-transparent when they move. The only way to get realistic motion blur from movies is ultra-high framerate (even 120fps is distinguishable from reality by the appearance of the motion blur, you need 1000fps or more for it to be perfect).

File: Billy_Lynns_120FPS.jpg (38KB, 216x338px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 216x338px

>>81847794

120 FPS 3D

THE MOST AMAZING SHIT I'VE EVER SEEN IN A THEATER, REALER THAN REAL LIFE

ONLY 2 THEATERS IN THE COUNTRY GOT THE SPECIAL PROJECTOR TO SHOW IT

File: 1411890881580.png (20KB, 559x406px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 559x406px

The human eye can't see past 12 fps anyways.

>>81849199
if you have any data on 'full visual recognition of an image' on the human brain that supports 24FPS on film feel free to share them

>>81847794

Ok I'll bite. The following are some technical reasons for choosing 24 fps over higher framerates: Lower cost, lower bandwidth usage / use of storage space, etc., covers up imperfections in set design and CGI to make the film appear more real than it is.

But you should not dismiss all "i'm used to it" arguments. 24 fps has been the ndustry standard framerate for about a century, just about every great film was made using 24fps, and as a result it has shaped the way people collectively believe films "should" look.

Saying "defend 24 fps beyond an 'I'm used to it" argument" is tantamount to saying "defend oil on canvas beyond an "I'm used to it" argument." Yes, acrylics may have certain advantages over oils, but the fact that people are "used to it" carries an intangible weight with respect to the way people look at a painting which ought not to be ignored.

So, while 60 fps might be superior to 24 fps in a variety of ways and the use of higher framerates should be encouraged, the fact that people are "used" to 24 fps means that it will likely stick around in some capacity for eternity. It's simply aesthetically accepted as the way films look.

>>81848350
>The ULTRASMOOTHNESS of 60fps looks unnatural
You're right that it looks unnatural, but that's because it's LESS smooth than real life, not because it's ultrasmooth. And it's still a shitload more natural looking than 24fps garbage. Real life has effectively infinite FPS. You need >1000fps to look truly realistic. But in practice 120fps is good enough (see >>81849386)

>>81848643
It requires adjustment on the viewers part.
Watching a movie for me atleast is a lot more intricate than turning on a movie and keeping my eyes open.
60FPS makes it so I can only think about how it's 60FPS because it's so different from convention.

>>81849485
Ok I'll bite. The following are some technical reasons for choosing DVD over UHD BluRay: Lower cost, lower bandwidth usage / use of storage space, etc., covers up imperfections in set design and CGI to make the film appear more real than it is.

But you should not dismiss all "i'm used to it" arguments. DVD has been the ndustry standard framerate for about a decade, just about every great film was made to DVD, and as a result it has shaped the way people collectively believe films "should" look.

Saying "defend DVD beyond an 'I'm used to it" argument" is tantamount to saying "defend oil on canvas beyond an "I'm used to it" argument." Yes, acrylics may have certain advantages over oils, but the fact that people are "used to it" carries an intangible weight with respect to the way people look at a painting which ought not to be ignored.

So, while UHD Bluray might be superior to DVD in a variety of ways and the use of higher quality data storage formats should be encouraged, the fact that people are "used" to DVDs means that it will likely stick around in some capacity for eternity. It's simply aesthetically accepted as the way films look.

24fps is not somehowess natural than 30, ir 60, or 120. All of it is still just a digital simulation of what was in front of the camera. my brain already knows what I'm seeing on the screen is artificial digital projection of something else. I'm not looking out a window. It's also why cinema lenses look good, because our brains accept the artifice of the situation and the artist warping of natural perspective. Because that's what art is, the ability to represent reality in whatever way you feel evokes the emotions you want to evoke.

Demanding that fps are as close to human perception is as illogical as demanding all camera lenses and perspectives duplicate the human eyes perspective and angle of view. No long lens shots, not wide angles, everything has to be filmed in a medium angle and you can only zoom by moving the camera. Because that's how the human eye works, cameras and displays have to match that viewing angle.

It's a silly argument. Art doesn't have to duplicate life. It shouldn't really, and expecting it to limits the possibilities.

Essentially you are arguing if the stories in books are more believable and lifelike if they have bigger or smaller print. Either way, you are not there in reality. You can never be, if you are watching a film. You are watching an artistic representative of something else.

>>81849827
You are proving his point. Red box rentals are still mostly DVDs because alot of people are still ok with how DVDs look and they don't really expect it too look any better. Using DVDs as you counter argument confirms 24 is likely to stay around for a long time.

>>81849827
This analogy is incorrect, though, because DVD and BluRay are ways in which 24fps films are delivered and viewed, not ways in which the films themselves are made.

Furthering my painting analogy, 24fps is to 60fps as oil paints are to acrylic paints, and DVD is to UHD BluRay as viewing a Van Gogh on Google Images is to seeing it in real life.

File: litm3ryRy51qenyex_This_Will_Blow_your_Mind-s305x400-199454-580.jpg (16KB, 152x200px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 152x200px

>>81849914
>Essentially you are arguing if the stories in books are more believable and lifelike if they have bigger or smaller print
so it doesnt matter whether you watch a movie in 240p or 4K... woah...

>>81849914
>Art doesn't have to duplicate life. It shouldn't really, and expecting it to limits the possibilities.

I hope you realize how incredibly contentious that statement actually is.

File: nice wall shame if someone blew it up.jpg (118KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1680x1050px

>>81849914
>I'm not looking out a window.
120FPS IS LIKE LOOKING OUT A WINDOW

A GIANT WINDOW WITH THE CRISPEST RAZOR SHARP MOTION YOU'VE EVER SEEN IN YOUR LIFE

ITS SURREAL AND TAKES SOME GETTING USED TO, BUT YOU DO GET USED TO IT, THE POV IRAQ SHOOTOUT IN BILLY LYNN COULD INDUCE PTSD

>>81850000
>This analogy is incorrect
no its not, its perfectly usable
But anyway, take the 240p vs 4K example then >>81850034

>>81849914
>It's also why cinema lenses look good
But they don't. I see all kinds of distortion/aberration/shallow focus etc. all the time. We need to go 100% CG so we're free from the limitations of real world cameras. (and ideally direct brain interface to overcome the limitations of the human eye - take psychedelics for a preview of this.)

>everything has to be filmed in a medium angle and you can only zoom by moving the camera
This would be an improvement. It's not done because photographers are lazy. But better still would be everything filmed with a wide angle, because human eye FOV is too low and we can easily get used to high FOV, as all competitive FPS players know.

>>81850034
In terms of having a feeling of it being life like and more or less real yes it doesn't matter because all of them are inferior to the infinate fps power if your brain when you look at something in real life. Pixel densisity, even increased by a power of 10 does nit come close to the massive amount of data you can perceive in real life and in person. 240p 4k, 24fps, 240fps is infinitely less dense than the brains ability to absorb, saturate, and synthesize information from you senses. A movie is just a pale experience no matter how technologically advanced. Thus demanding higher fps becauseit is more life like is silly.

>>81850034
Depends on what you are watching it on

>>81850136
Like I said, the analogy is not usable because you've made the leap from the way a film is made (i.e. whether it's made at 24 or 60 or 120 fps) to the way the finished product is distributed.

You can't just refute my argument by saying "no".

>>81850166
Something like 8K 1000fps would max out the human visual system for all but the most contrived test signals.

>>81850121
Your brain, and your eyes capture, saturate, and synthesize vastly more information than can be done by any camera, with the most dense pixel sensor, even at 120fps. You are selling your brain short.

>>81850196
>you've made the leap from
learn what an analogy is, and then answer to this, mr strawman
>But anyway, take the 240p vs 4K example then

>>81850196
The point is about image quality, and DVD/Bluray/UHD is just a convenient reference point for low/medium/high image quality.

For motion quality we have 24fps/The Hobbit/Billy Lynn as equivalent.

>>81850230
like, people would have a fucking seizure? lol you cant be serious

It's a question of human biology.

Everything over 30fps feels real, everything under 30fps feels surreal and dreamlike AKA not real. Porn, nature documentaries, sports, reality TV shows etc. are "real" so they benefit from higher frame rates. Cinema is fiction, it's a dream, and it benefits from lower frame rates. That's also why higher resolution and sharper images makes watching porn/sports/nature documentaries better but is really jarring when it comes to cinema.

>>81850230
It would max out the human visual system in its ability to focus and absorb artificially captured and transmitted information from a rectangle yes, probably, but that is still vastly less information that the human brain can perceive when looking at a real life scene in person. Even that highly advanced projection of 1000fps and 8k resolution would still only be a simulation of the actually limitless quantities of possible information that was uncapturable even by that advanced camera. It is still artifice and simulation, no closer to reality in the the scale of actual transmitted information that 24fps and 1080pixels when compared to the scale of your actual visual capabilities in real life.

>>81850236
No, the human eye is shit. Even if you have test pilot quality vision, your brain is heavily bottlenecked by the eye. Take some LSD and look how much better the image quality is compared to real life.

>>81850344
Are you retarded? You'd have a seizure every time you opened your eyes if realistic video gave you a seizure.

>>81847794
PERSISTENCE OF VISION

File: 1488944613516.png (109KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 2000x2000px

>>81850236
SURE, THERE'S MORE TO GO, LIKE NEURAL INTERFACE

BUT 120FPS IS THE UPPER LIMIT OF CURRENT TECHNOLOGY, AND ITS SHOCKINGLY GOOD

SO AHEAD OF CURRENT TECHNOLOGY THAT THEY HAD TO SHIP SPECIAL PROJECTORS TO THE THEATERS

ITS LIKE WATCHING A MOVIE FROM THE FUTURE

>>81850398
Assuming good color gamut and dynamic range, you'd only lose the true 3D aspect ("3D" movies are not 3D, they are only stereographic, you need holograms for true 3D). But humans can be strapped in place like in Clockwork Orange, so it could be lost in real life too.

>>81850359
moot point, Rez is way better at 60FPS or higher framerates

>>81847794
more cinematic
,':°)

>>81850434
And yet it is no more real than any other artificial visual representation or simulation. It's still just a pale representation no mater how sharp or fast the images it is not more real than a finger painting of a frog can show you a real frog. You may have 100k more times the information in your 120fps documentary shot of a frog but it is just as artificial and simulated. Both are art. Not reality. Saying more or less real when neither are real in anyway is silly. You are not looking at a frog with your own eyes you are looking at an artificial representation either way. How detailed, how fast is purely a matter of artistic taste, not more scientific reality. Your images can never be reality.

>>81850434
>AHEAD OF CURRENT TECHNOLOGY THAT THEY HAD TO SHIP SPECIAL PROJECTORS TO THE THEATERS
projectors have been upgraded and replaced since the birth of cinema, same with almost any other piece of equipment used for screening, filming and storaging movies.

>>81850575
>Your images can never be reality.
Why should I care if it's real or not when I have the exact same signals traveling up my optic nerve? There's no technical reason why we can't perfectly replicate real life in video (assuming the viewer is strapped down like in A Clockwork Orange, realistic true 3D is currently impossible). It's just a matter of money now.

>>81850575
>>81850575
>Your images can never be reality.
they DEPICT reality
the higher the quality of the image, the more credible will be said depiction

PERSISTENCE OF VISION
PERSISTENCE OF VISION
PERSISTENCE OF VISION
PERSISTENCE OF VISION
PERSISTENCE OF VISION
PERSISTENCE OF VISION

>>81850726
That's not a defense, that's an explanation for how Hollywood was able to get away with it.

>>81848050
Czech here, so I use Qwertz

>>81850647
Well you are talking about something entirely different. If you strap someone down and shoot a dense signal into the optic nerve that creates in the subjects mind an scene that duplicates reality as close as possible, you will still have artifacts and signal quality noise to deal with. Likely the human mind would be able to detect the false reality of the situation just like that uneasy feeling in a dream that makes you feel out of place. You are talking about an Inception style of movies that i would be perfectly ok with. Dealing with the signal to noise ratios and artifact transition would be difficult. But all of that is not part of the discussion we are having witch is about looking at artificial images projected onto a 2 dimensional rectangle and how they can be more or less real. I am arguing that they are never real no matter how complex and detailed. But an inception style movie experience would be as close to real as possible as it would utilize a greater portion of your brains ability than looking at a rectangle with your eyeballs.

File: 1475779230801.webm (3MB, 1280x696px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x696px

b-b-b-but it's what I'm used to!!!

change is scary!!!!!!11

>>81850726
plesae, refer to OP's image.
see if you can discern which framerate persists your vision better

File: 1463232226948.jpg (22KB, 334x300px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 334x300px

>>81850575
WHAT ARE YOU ARGUING, FOR 24 FPS MOVIES FOREVER?

OR ABOUT THE PHILOSPHICAL NATURE OF REALITY
OUR EYES ARE PRIMITIVE AND MISS GIANT CHUNKS OF THE EM SPECTRUM, THE HUMAN EYE IS NOT THE END ALL OF PERCEPTION

>>81850586
AND?
THEY TOOK THE PROJECTORS BACK BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE IS STILL RATEPLEBS CHURNING OUT 24FPS

NOBODY ELSE IS MAKING 120FPS MOVIES, IT WAS A TECHDEMO BASICALLY, AND IT WAS AWESOME

>>81850834
>you will still have artifacts and signal quality noise to deal with
It's swamped by the artifacts and noise added by the eye if you do it right (which nobody has done yet, but I'm sure it could be done with current technology + trillion dollar budget). Human eye is a very low quality sensor.

>>81850673
And yet the most credible of depictions is easily distinguished by the brain as being artificial. As long as you are still staring at a rectangle your brain will be we to detect the artifice. 24fps or 240fps, your brain can still tell that it is just a depiction. You can have an oil painting of the Eifel tower, or a photograph of the same and both are easily distinguishable from reality. The photo may have more useful data. The painting may have more emotional impact ir meaning to the same viewer. But are equally artificial depictions and nor more or less real.

>>81850948
would you fucking disable the capslock already?! ffs

>>81850992
>As long as you are still staring at a rectangle
Windows are rectangles. A good enough video is indistinguishable from a window. But yes, full dome is much better, and this should be the next goal after we fix motion quality.

>>81850992
but one of them is a more accurate depiction of reality
youre talking about painting, do you even know what realism is? do you know about artificiality? Because reading your comment feels like you have no clue at all.

>>81850948
If you read My original post I am arguing that 24fps is just as valid as 60, or any other density. Because movies are art and not somehow scientific and accurate records of reality. Not anymore than the Three Musketeers is an accurate and scientific representation of renaissance France. Higher frame rates may give the impression of more realistic depiction but it is still not realistic when compared to the objective experience of really experiencing the same events. The D-Day vets who started shaking when they watched Saving Private Ryan in the theaters were having that reaction because the reality they went through was millions of times at least more fearful and traumatizing and the information they encoded visually was much more dense and their nightmares more real than anything Spielberg can film. It's also why we didn't leave the theater shell shocked l, because all we did was stare at a pale rectangle that can only very slightly create the impression of reality. Even at 120fps, you are not seeing reality or experiencing it.

>>81848335
Why do games get bumped to 60fps when they're remastered?

144 fps movies when? Even 60 looks like shit.

>>81850876
That was shit because mistakes were made. A high framerate could have salvaged some of that shot, but it'd still look like ass.

>>81851245
Just because it is more accurate does not make it more real. Realism is a quality of artificiality. Something that is artificial (in our case an image) can be more or less realistic. But even the most realistic image is still an artificial representation of something real and thus only a work of art, not reality or nature or whatever source of non human made objects is.

Paintings also have more or less realism but they are all still artificial depictions. They are not somehow less valuable than motion images today just because we have cameras and movies. To the contrary they have thier own artistic and economic value.

>>81851256
>Higher frame rates may give the impression of more realistic depiction
Exactly, and that's why they should be used. If you cant understand (or dont want to) that most filmakers inherently embrace realism youre delusional.

>>81851468
>Just because it is more accurate does not make it more real
it makes it more realiSTIC.
Also, im getting fed up of your way of differentiating what's real and what is not. A film is real, a screen is real, the light projected is real, and thus a movie is real.

>>81851468
>Realism is a quality of artificiality
no its not, check it again, please, if you're talking about the terms realism and artificiality present on my previous post, they are painting terms so that went way above your head.

>paintings have artistic value etc
yeah but youre digressing

>>81851748
At this point we are talking past each other. I am not saying that 120fps isn't less realistic. I'm saying its not less artificial and not more artistically valid than 24fps. I don't see much point in this argument. You say film maker strive for realism yet they still all overwhelmingly choose 24fps. I don't have any horse in this. I don't make films, and I don't dislike the stuff I have seen filmed at a higher speed. I also dont think 70mm is somehow more valid than 35mm or 16mm films. I have loved them all. I will like and love many films shot at 24, and 60, and 1million neurons cyber interface or whatever else they dream up. But it will not be any more real or any less artificial than whatever technology anyone wants to use. Nothing compares to the experience of seeing something in reality with your own eyes. That is my benchmark for what is real. Light bouncing off on abject and into my brain. I love all these topics and subjects and processes and movies are just the latest culmination of all our art and science. It will go on and improve and regress and change in ways we cant predict. I'm ok will all this. We don't have to fight about reality and artificiality. I will just go watch a great movie. But damnit if that movie doesn't make me want to go out and live life and experience something for myself. That's all I was trying to differentiate and express. Cave paintings to 3d hobbit porn, none of it stands up to reality or worse the imagination.

>>81848568
This. Stop bringing The Hobbit into it, you fucking cunts. It's irrelevant.

>>81847794
That is the speed your eyes capture information at, so it's meant to trick your mind into thinking it's real.

More frames would make movies look like vidya

>>81853204
Obviously wrong. If eyes only captured at 24fps then some higher frame rates (eg. 60fps, but not 120fps) would look less smooth than 24fps because the frame rates aren't synchronized, but actually even 60fps looks more smooth. 24fps is purely a cost cutting measure.

>>81852384
>You say film maker strive for realism yet they still all overwhelmingly choose 24fps
its the industry standard, if they could they'd choose 1000fps but they cannot choose what's not available.
Nowadays a film maker can choose to film on 16mm (like clerks), 35mm, 70mm, etc (although nowadays digital projection is the go-to) but nearly everyone sticks to the industry standard, just because its the most efficient and cost-effective. Gee I wonder why nobody uses 8mm film!
Dont you think most film makers would use 65mm IMAX or better picture quality if there werent any money constrains? now, ask yourself why, why would a film maker want to use higher quality picture formats for their movies. The obvious answer would be 'well, it looks better, duh'. But not even C.Nolan can make the theatres all over the world to upgrade their projectors to 120fps.
The reason why we are still stuck at 24fps is money. Plain and simple.
Hopefully with digital projectors it is inevitable that the tech cost will go down and the picture and framerate quality will only go up.

>>81849309
I agree, I almost puked when I watched a movie on my new LG OLED, I turned off that shit in an instant.

Higher frame rates only matter in videogames where analog motion blur isn't a thing

Higher frame rates in film look unnatural because they make accurate motion blur impossible, which is the bread and butter of "realistic" vision

>>81849309
Jesus christ, any time I go to a friend's house and they do this shit I get unapologetically autistic and make them change it

I don't want everything I watch to look like a low-budget BBC production

>>81853762
but motion blur does exist in vidya, anon, and the framerate can go as high as your monitor can handle and it always looks smoother (i.e. better)

>"realistic" vision
>analog motion blur
wait wut, youre just making those up

>>81853961
Motion blur does exist, but in a video game where you need to open the possibility of twitch-fast reflexes and tight motion tracking, motion blur is detrimental to the game

>>81848335
Just because the best games tend to be 30FPS doesn't mean that they're good BECAUSE of the 30FPS you retard. They would be better at a higher frame-rate.

Also >>81851283

>>81848350
>Actually thats bullshit but the way the brain processes movement is more analogous to 25 than 60
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>>81849309
This is true. That said, I still use SVP for watching stuff like Into The Badlands. Action even at fake 60FPS looks amazing.

>>81853762
>Higher frame rates in film look unnatural because they make accurate motion blur impossible
This is the exact opposite of the truth. Low frame rates make realistic motion blur impossible. You're forced to use baked-in motion blur, which doesn't react to eye movement like real motion blur. Real motion blur requires extremely high framerates.

>>81853961
He means temporal oversampling, which makes 24fps video look slightly less disgusting.

>>81848532
higher framerates don't really work in film because of how reliant upon the 24fps gaps film has been for a long, long time.

There's even a philosophy of motion to 24fps that simply looks unnatural in any other frame rate.

>>81854044
the statement isn't completely without merit. People/things moving faster than 24 fps can capture, on screen or in real life, makes people uncomfortable.

Hell a staple of horror "things moving fast = scary/dangerous!"

>>81854418
>implying you're forced to use slow pans
Hardcore Henry would have been great at 120fps. At 24fps it was barely watchable. Low framerate is artistically limiting.

>>81854475
>Whiplash was a horror movie
Who the fuck is scared of drumsticks?

Just because they want to be cheap they make bullshit excuses. Going from 144 down to 24 is jarring as fuck. I can't even enjoy movies as well since I'm constantly seeing the stuttering and the shit motion blur. If they just started having higher frame rates all the idiots would complain for a bit then get used to it. I can understand removing frames and such for a cinematic effect but when they pan over a vista all I can notice is the fucking camera hitching along instead of it being a smooth transition. You can't say it looks better to film action or anything at such low framerates.

>>81854475
It is because "frames" don't really exist in real life. When someone is looking at something, they aren't looking at it in individual frames like they do when they're watching a tv show or a movie.

60 FPS may look unnatural, which it is, because 60 FPS is technically less than how it would be in real life (more or less infinite).

Some dumb ass saying 24 or 30 FPS looks "smoother" or "more natural" than 60 FPS is just some deluded fuckhead who is just so used to watching things at those frame rates to the point where anything higher looks weird to them.

60 is far more natural than 30 is, and 120 is far more natural than 60 is. The higher it goes, the better it becomes.

>>81854475
so horror movies at 60fps would be scarier?
just another reason to push it

>>81854550
they specifically used how fast/frantically he was moving to speak to how much of a crazy idiot he was being.

>>81847794
Motion blur is part of the language of film.


/thead.

>>81854596
>The higher it goes, the better it becomes.
But you get diminishing returns. Beyond 120fps is probably not worth the extra cost.

>>81854606
Even less extreme examples of playing musical instruments routinely involve movement too fast for 24fps.

>>81854596
>>81854550

the point you missed is film actors are specifically trained to move in slow, flowing movements, so as to ensure the camera catches them, movements that only look natural in 24fps, and look weird as fuck in real life or higher frame rates.

>>81854606
w8 who? hardcore henry or whiplash kid?

File: least_rare_pepe.jpg (26KB, 656x465px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 656x465px

>>81847794
>it's a /v/ episode again

>>81854633
>hand-drawn animation isn't film
>old CG animation isn't film
>stop motion isn't film
>mid day outdoor scenes aren't film

>>81854662
Not my problem. Get stage trained actors instead, they work at infinite FPS.

>>81854640
>But you get diminishing returns. Beyond 120fps is probably not worth the extra cost.
Sure, but as far as just pure smoothness is, higher frame-rates are better, and more natural, than lower framerates. This isn't debatable at all.

>>81854722
I have done personal tests with LEDs and signal generators and I don't believe any human can tell the difference between 30000fps and 40000fps, no matter what test signal is used.

>>81854711
and the point you missed now, is how movements faster than what 24 fps can catch makes people uncomfortable.

>>81854765
Wrong. I'm looking at my fingers right now. They're typing too fast for 24fps to catch. I am not even slightly uncomfortable.

>>81854677
both?

File: 1401251089151.jpg (470KB, 1013x1500px) Image search: [Google]

470KB, 1013x1500px

>>81854711
>mfw I shitpost at infinite FPS

>>81854749
(assuming temporal anti-aliasing of course)

>>81854795
>dude you're wrong my movements don't make me uncomfortable

Go google "not even wrong."

File: 1490711369767.jpg (10KB, 235x235px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 235x235px

>those retarded consoletards ITT saying 30FPS is better than 60FPS

>>81847794

This may sound retarded but I watch movies at x1.25 speed. Am I turnibg 24fps into 30 fps?

>>81848483
>mute point
And you expect anyone to take you serious after that?

>>81854711
>>81854813
>infinite FPS
What it planck time

File: 1485235502303.jpg (19KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 400x400px

What's funny about these threads is nobody ever posts WEBMs of 60fps actually looking good in a movie. It's all just /v/edditors autsticly yelling that "MOAR FPS LOOK MORE REAL THEREFORE MORE BETTER."

Can anyone actually give examples of 60fps in movies that doesn't look like utter shit?

>>81847794
((they) used to have to save money on film
now they can spend less on sd cards and shit

File: 1380209418058.png (14KB, 897x491px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 897x491px

>>81854887
watch me shitpost and not even plenk can stop me

>>81854846
Even a very slowly moving vehicle has wheels spinning too fast to show at 24fps. People are not scared of slow moving vehicles.

>>81854887
1/tP FPS looks identical to infinite FPS, so infinite FPS is acceptable slang.

>>81854910
Literally the only feature length example is Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk, which is 120fps but available on UHD at half framerate.

>>81854887
>What it planck time
When daddy ties you to wrist to ankle over a saw horse while the neighbors take turns?

File: your new idolfu.webm (3MB, 382x912px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 382x912px

>>81854910

>>81854597

Are found footage movies not 60fps?

>>81854765
How fucking autistic are you that everybody you see in the real world you think move unnaturally and are creepy? Record a video on your phone at 30 then record the same thing at 60 and try and honestly tell me that the choppier one looks more natural.

>>81855012
oh hell yeah

File: 1491824894921.png (1MB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x900px

>>81855022

>>81854869
It's sad isn't it? They probably are the only ones who think that a low framerate is a benefit in a movie so they can keep lying to themselves about their cinematic experience and justifying all that choppyness.

>>81855031
Some are shot at 50fps interlaced PAL video, but released as 24fps (deinterlaced with two fields merged to one frame and slowed down). AFAIK the original 50i is never released.

>>81855071
Sir you can't be turned on by that. That one autistic anon says anything that's not 24 fps looks unnatural.

ITT: autists being autistic

In the future, people will look back at 24fps-tards in much the same way that we laugh at the people who never thought talkies would become a thing.

"These talkies will never catch on; more realism doesn't make films better! We watch movies to escape reality!"

File: Rico vs Bug.webm (2MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x480px

>>81854910
yeah, lemme show you all these movies shot in 60fps, oh wait, they dont exist.
but anyway, here's a sped up clip so you can get some idea

>>81855287
Imagine if color film was never invented. The first color movie would have been Star Wars Episode 1. The second color movie would be some niche microbudget thing because all the retards would think Episode 1 was shit because of the color. Black and white is so much more artistic!

>>81855369
>Imagine if color film was never invented. The first color movie would have been Star Wars Episode 1
I don't follow
At all

>24fps was literally only chosen because it's the bare minimum that filmmakers can get away with to save on film reel

>if film reel was free, we would have been watching high framerate movies since essentially the dawn of filmmaking

>retards in 2017 are so deluded they actually think something that exists SOLELY as a cost cutting measure is objectively the best choice

>>81855394
First digital recording and projection, no film needed.

>>81854881
You're right, that is retarded.

>>81855394
>Imagine color film wasnt invented until Star Wars Episode 1
or
>Imagine the first color movie would have been Star Wars Episode 1
i.e.
>Imagine the first color movie would have been a shitty awful movie

>>81855317
Speeding something up is not the same as increasing the framerate.

>>81848335
lol no, even 60 fps is starting to get dated, most fps spergs have 144 Hz monitors

>>81855464
I said color *film* specifically, not color digital sensors.

>>81855477
It is increasing the framerate, but also increasing the speed of the motion so you need more framerate to show it.

>>81855487
60fps is "medium frame rate", not high frame rate.

>>81855477
yeah, true, but that webm is 60fps
since it was made from a 30fps source its sped up
happy?

>>81855510
>It is increasing the framerate, but also increasing the speed of the motion so you need more framerate to show it.
That isn't how frame-rate works you fucking idiot.

If you take a 10 second video clip filmed at 24FPS then speed it up 1.5x, it's still a 24 FPS clip. It's just increasing the play speed.

The first major picture filmed entirely with digital was Episode II attack of the clones.

>>81855517
No, because that's not how FPS works. doubling the frame rate doesn't speed anything up, it just makes things look smoother in motion.

>>81855586
It's a 24fps clip being played at 36fps, assuming you're not skipping frames.

Itt: Peter Jackson poops twice as fast as the rest of us.

>>81855613
how are you this fucking dense?
the source was 30 frames per second, then the clip was edited to fit 60 frames in one second, that means, the frames that fit 2 seconds now fit in 1 secons so the clip is half as long and THUS the action is sped up! Jeez...

>>81848047
Nobody outside of neckbeards that are on the internet 24/7 and don't leave their houses give a fuck about logical fallacies

>>81855690
But the action wasn't speed up, the action was portrayed at the same speed the actor delivered the performance but utilizing double the frames each delivered twice as quickly.

File: trashman doing his fucking job.gif (2MB, 580x433px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 580x433px

>>81855705
ad hominem

>>81855635
That's great, but increasing play speed doesn't increase the frame rate.

>>81855757
You're an ad homosexual

Your mom likes to make love at 24fps but I bang her at 60fps and then jump out of the window like a paratrooper.

/thread

>>81855733
yes anon, the editing of the webm didnt retroactively sped up Casper Van Dien on set when they were filming the movie in 1997

>>81855758
Yes it fucking does. FPS means "frames per second". If you show 240 frames in 6 and 2/3rds seconds, that's 36 frames shown in each second. Recording frame rate is independent from playback frame rate. See also "overcranking" "undercranking".

>>81855823
Couldn't hurt his dead fish acting tho could it?

>>81855827
Take a 10 second video clip that runs at 30FPS.

Then take the same clip, Double the play speed so that the video is only 5 seconds long instead of 10 seconds and change nothing else.

What is the frame-rate of the second clip?

>>81850163
Are you actually saying that movies need to be 100% cg or is that just hyperbole for the sake of argument?

>>81855733
for that particular webm the frames were not doubled (what would be the point of that?) they were re-encoded in a faster rate so the end clip was half as long because the frames are played twice as fast

>>81855886
Recording frame rate remains 30fps. Playback frame rate is doubled to 60fps.

>>81855898
I am actually saying that and I unironically believe that Final Fantasy: FSW is the most ambitious and underrated movie of all time and it deserves as much recognition as Citizen Kane. Photorealistic CG is already possible. Like high frame rate, the only problem is cost, and like high frame rate, it's getting cheaper all the time.

You faggots arguing about the Starship Troopers webm are all wrong.

It's 60fps but it's not sped up. It's artificially made to look 60fps through an interpolation technique.

>>81855886
Take a 10 second video clip that runs at 30FPS.

Then take the same clip, and re-encode it at 60FPS.

What is the lenght of the video?

>wanting movies too look like a soap opera

why though

>>81856056
>not wanting more colombian boobies in everything
you gay or something?

>>81856056
Soap operas are only medium framerate 60fps at best, we want high framerate.

>>81856027
Depend completely on the method the computer uses

It could either
>interpolate, in which case it would remain 10 seconds
>double every frame, in which case it would remain 10 seconds
>double the rate of the existing frames, in which case it would be 5 seconds

>>81854827
Temporal anti-aliasing in no way applies to real life

>>81856021
>through an interpolation technique.
I want to know more

>>81856173
Frames are samples of motion in time. If you don't anti-alias then you can always generate a test signal that will produce aliasing at whatever frequency you like. And remember that rod/cone cells have finite analog bandwidth.

>>81855487
Games =\= films

>>81856227
Not him but the computer processing the video compares every set of sequential frames and guesses what could possibly be in between those two periods of time.

If on frame one of a 30 FPS video, a dot is on pixel #1, and then on the next frame of the 30 FPS video a dot is on pixel #3, the computer will add an extra frame in between the two and guess that one that frame, the dot would be on pixel #2

>>81856227

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=882c25af2hM

Basically creating a new frame in between two existing frames sort of like blending but more complex

>>81856325
aight, you know what, im gonna make a webm of that same clip from starship troopers in 30fps so we can compare them and judge this interpolation thing

>>81856259
Oh, OK, when I searched temporal anti-aliasing the only results were from nvidia about games, and it sounded as if you were suggesting that aliasing happens in "real life"

>>81856027
10 seconds.

>>81856132
correct
>>81856647
wrong

>>81856718
Increasing the play speed 2x is not the same as actually transcoding the video to make fake in-between frames.

So I'm right. Just encoding the video itself to reach 60 FPS would make the play time the same.

>>81856835
the post you quoted didnt say shit about making fake in-between frames, so no, youre not right.

>>81856954
>take 10 second 30FPS clip and transcode it to make it 60FPS

Yes it did.

Like I said , just doubling the play speed is not the same as interpolation or actually doubling the frames of the clip in question.

So I'm right.

>>81856954
Duplicating frames is still technically making fake in-between frames. They just happen to be identical to existing frames.

>>81857021
>>81857008
once again, the post didnt mention duplicating frames, youre making that up to fit your answer, which, one more time, is wrong. The correct answer can be found here >>81856132

>>81855402
This is wrong. 24 frames was chosen because of sound.

>>81848322
LOTR: Hobbits, Dwarfs, Kings, Wizards, Orcs, etc.

Hobbit (HFR): actors in costume playing on studio sets, video game cutscenes

>>81857126
>take a 30FPS clip and transcode it to make it 60FPS

Yes it did.

>>81857150
False. A standard frame rate was chosen because of sound. Sound only required the frame rate to be consistent, not any specific number.

>>81857162
>Hobbit (HFR)
It's only medium frame rate 48fps.

>>81857172
you can turn a 30fps clip into a 60fps clip without duplicating frames, a technique that, as you just showed, was not mentioned in that quoted comment. Ergo you're still wrong.

>>81857312
Yeah, it's called interpolation, which would keep the play speed the same and would make fake frames in-between existing frames.

Doubling the play speed isn't transcoding, so that isn't a factor here.

I'm right.

>>81848047
Not a tradition bias though. Not that I agree with 24fps.

>>81847794
I would argue it should be implemented, but it'd need somebody big in the business to start it. It'll take you out of it a little bit if it looks weird and you can't quite put your finger on why.

File: star1cut2.webm (2MB, 893x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 893x480px

>>81856435
30fps clip of that same scene here, the trimming isnt exactly the same but close enough. Also this one wasnt zoomed or panned

>>81857361
once again, that comment (that btw you keep misquoting) did not state the use of interpolation. You are not correct.

>>81857562
>You are not correct.
Yes I am.

>wanting to watch a film that looks like a news broadcast

>>81857727
This. Even morseo than the shit acting, writing, effects, and editing, the framerate is what most significantly turned me off of new Dr Who

>>81857630
>Yes I am.
your lack of arguments speaks for itself, you are now just resorted to profess you are correct with no further arguments to support your claim. The correct answer has already been provided several posts ago by other user, please refer to it for revision.

>>81857858
I already argued why I was right. If you want to see it, you just need to look back through the quote line.

>>81857885
your arguments have been refuted repeatedly and so you remain wrong.

>>81857967
No they haven't, so i'm still right.

>>81847794
Computer screens and video games are differnet than films. In video games each frame is rendered as a still frame. The result of bad frame rates is that motions look choppy and moving objects seem to teleport across the screen. Film can capture motion blur which can make up for several "in-between" frames. The end result is that 24fps film can look as clean or cleaner than 60fps video games. Motion blur can and SHOULD be added to games, but it's an incredibly costly visual effect and most (console) games barely push 30ps anyways for a variety of reasons (weak hardware, still frames or "bullshots" being used to market a game so the graphical fidelity of a single frame is more important than the animation, etc.) so it's not done.

Also the human eye can only see 40fps anyways (20 in each eye, hence 20/20 vision), so 24 is close enough.

>>81857980
>'denying the antecedent' fallacy

>>81858044
I'm not "denying" anything.

I already said how I was right. Just read back up the quote line.

>>81848665
Mario 64 was 30fps display, but polled the controller at 60fps so it maintained tight controls. OoT did the same thing, but displayed at 20fps and polled at 60.

File: 1404590152823.png (55KB, 276x251px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 276x251px

>>81858043
>Also the human eye can only see 40fps anyways (20 in each eye, hence 20/20 vision), so 24 is close enough.

>>81858043
>Also the human eye can only see 40fps anyways (20 in each eye, hence 20/20 vision), so 24 is close enough.

You had me until this part.

>>81858150
stop your argumentum ad nauseam, its just invalid reasoning

>>81858304
Right back at you.

>>81858358
>Right back at you.
that makes no sense

>>81847794
There are camera techniques that do not work as well in 60 fps.

cgi is more difficult

>>81848483

>mute point

wew

>>81858463
It does, because I gave valid explanations as to how I was right and all you keep saying is "no lol you're wrong".

>>81858675
>you keep saying is "no lol you're wrong"
I believe I have never used those words, and that just adds up to the numerous times you have misquoted or flat out made out stuff to fit your point. But even if we ignore it, that last comment is the equivalent of a "NO U" response.

And even then, I can look past all that and help you out of your messy reasoning. Lets try rhetoric.

Why do you think this post >>81856027 included interpolating or duplicating frames in its methodology even though it wasnt explicitly stated?

>>81859206
>I believe I have never used those words
Are you actually denying that you said I was wrong? You said it at least five times.

>>81856718
>>81856954
>>81857126
>>81857312
>>81857562
>>81857967

>and that just adds up to the numerous times you have misquoted or flat out made out stuff to fit your point.
Where did I do this? The original post asked this question >>81856027 and I answered it. I answered it multiple times, yet all you did was ignore those posts. I didn't make up anything, nor did I misquote anything either.

>that last comment is the equivalent of a "NO U" response.
Not an argument. This is actually irrelevant.

>Why do you think this post >>81856027 included interpolating or duplicating frames in its methodology even though it wasn't explicitly stated?
Weren't you initially defending those two exact points in an earlier post when you want i was wrong but someone else was right?

Also because those are two methods of transcoding videos to get 60 FPS. You didn't ask for a specific method which did not include those two in particular, you just asked a general question with more than one answer (which those two apply to, you even admitted it in an earlier post of yours).

File: Super_brain.jpg (303KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 1600x1200px

Movies are not video games. There is no real benefit to higher FPS. All it achieves is looking like dogshit until people get used to it.

>>81859721
>All it achieves is looking like dogshit until people get used to it.
So just like 24 FPS?

File: kc_tyre.jpg (62KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 800x533px

>>81859751
perchance so, but we are already past that so your point is fucking dumb and moot

>>81859604
>>81859604
>Are you actually denying that you said I was wrong? You said it at least five times.
I never said 'no lol you're wrong' and I stand by it. I am positive I never used the acronym for 'laughing out loud' and I will deny any attemp to quote me on it.

I did say you were wrong because you are. I tried and I will still continue trying to show your flawed reasoning.

>I didn't make up anything, nor did I misquote anything either.
ignoring that I just proved this wrong above, let me show you a quick example: these posts >>81857008 >>81857172 contain misquotes. Next.

>Weren't you initially defending those two exact points in an earlier post when you want i was wrong but someone else was right?
first off, the grammar here is a kind of bad, but whatever, you'll have to be a bit more precise because I dont know what posts you're talking about. But I sense a bit of confusion on your part, something tells me you mistook me for someone else earlier. Maybe, I dont know what posts are on your mind so I cant be sure.

>Also because those are two methods of transcoding videos to get 60 FPS. You didn't ask for a specific method which did not include those two in particular, you just asked a general question with more than one answer (which those two apply to, you even admitted it in an earlier post of yours).
Aaaa, see? we're finally getting somewhere, thanks Aristotle.
As I said and you have just acknowledged, the full answer, the correct answer was this >>81856132 and yours was not only incomplete but deliberately neglected the option that the final clip was 5 seconds long. And THAT is where you were wrong.

Besides, and this is just a little side-tracking, I use ffmpeg for almost all my video needs, whether its encoding, droping streams, trimming, making webms for the 4chans, etc and you can easily do what I was asking with a simple command in ffmpeg, your videos go double the frame rate and half the time

>>81848285
>videogames

sounds like its a good thing film hasn't moved to 60fps desu

>>81848050
Can you offer a superior alternative? Didn't think so

>>81855705
people engaging in formal debates care about them
although, you have to be either pretty up on yourself (or up your own ass) or pretty autistic to actually engage in formal debates any later than high school while not being a major public figure

>>81848034
you can do a lower FPS and still have something that looks like motion

>>81848643
>not learning Dvorak in elementary school just because

>>81860887
>although, you have to be either pretty up on yourself (or up your own ass) or pretty autistic to actually engage in formal debates any later than high school while not being a major public figure
wheredoyouthinkweare.html

>>81847794
Beyond a certain level of fluidity, the brain doesn't handle movement in the same way. 24fps and a little higher still look solid because they fall into the pocket too high for stills/too low for reality. 48fps looks fake however large the budget because the fluidity of the image has to be resolved by the brain as "fake" before the conscious evaluation of the image ever happened. tl;dr: 48fps could be real, and so looks faker than 24fps, which could never be real, and so looks like a solid illusion.

>>81847794
HFR (48fps) is the beginning of a new age in Cinema. You won't like it at first, you will think it looks like a video game or a kids show. But the added information, coupled with the new possible areas of creativity it brings us will usher in a whole new era of film making. Mark my words.

Live action looks more like really good CG and subsequently good CG looks more like live action. Once we adjust to the new format we will no longer be able to tell generated artifacts from the real thing which will add greatly to immersion.

Action scenes are crisp and lively. Color saturation is fantastically present (improving 3D a great deal I might add).
It's a bit off putting at first and in particular scenes involving actors seem almost ugly at times. However, landscapes right from the get go look amazing. The setting of the film comes alive in a way that almost makes it the central character in the film. Again, I think this is a good thing.

I can say a lot and I'm sure others will disagree with me but I believe we are part of a great change in cinema and I for one intend to explore it to it's fullest extent.

>>81860991
They aren't your words, though, they're the Jew's words, who wants us to buy new tech versions of the same old crap while creating expectations that can be paywalled from indie producers - the only reason tech in the movies ever changes.

>>81847794
>HURR DURR MUH VIDEOGAMES ARE THE SAME AS FILM

>>81855369
a lot of people did think black and white was more artistic or more authentic for several decades

>>81860991
Very obviously it's not a good thing. You know what we call people who look at objects with more engagement than people? You know what we call people who look at people's faces as though they were merely surfaces?

File: 1492646938230.gif (1MB, 270x150px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 270x150px

>>81848335
>30fps is fine
Consolefag detected

Let's be honest, this is only happening because most blockbusters are aimed at gamers now. Cinema has no need for fluid motion of that sort, and it isn't illusionistically functional anyway - nobody ever believes in a 60FPS image. No problem if you're gaming, because you don't need that kind of immersion - your immersion is in the interactivity, not the narrative. Big problem if you're watching a movie.

>>81847794

HUMAN EYE

>>81861173
CANT

>>81861153
>Cinema has no need for fluid motion of that sort
why not? what about action movies?