60FPS

>>85759264
OP's don't even get (you)s - what's your angle here?

>>85759293
I just wanted a discussion about "60fps" films, but I guess if its not an underaged actress or Game of Thrones I can go fuck myself.

>>85760019
that and there seems to be some raid or sleeping jannies or something.

explain to a pleb what is the failure of 60fps

>>85760544
not OP but it just looks like shit and cheap

>>85759264
>>85760634
Have you seen porn in 60fps?

>>85759264
Never saw the point of 60fps, it looked weird, maybe 48fps would have been better, but 60?

I rather support other things like Blu-Ray improvement in image quality

It doesn't look "cinematic". High FPS is great for immersive entertainment but crappy for films.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (194KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1280x720px

People are only averse to 60fps because they grew up seeing movies in 24fps and that's what they're used to.

60fps can be cinematic if you come into it with an open mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1La4QzGeaaQ

File: James-Cameron.jpg (97KB, 1600x951px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1600x951px

>>85759264
No, it's not a gimmick. Movies are in 24fps today because of technical camera limitations the film industry faced all the way back the early 20th century, and it was that way for so long that people just got used to it and stuck with that despite the technological advances along the way. It became the "movie look" and of course they don't want to move ahead because they're afraid of change; people like them find comfort in tradition even if at the expense of reason.

People forget that if it weren't for those limitations back then, movies would have been filmed in 60fps or higher.

>>85759264
I don't know if that counts as gimmick, so few media and so badly advertised...

>>85761528
What is "immersive entertainment?" Aren't films supposed to be immersive?

>>85759264
It wasn't that bad, you rally just need to get used to it.

Only reason it isn't industry standard are the massively increased production costs in CGI, special fx and the over doubled space requirement.

AT least porn is doing it, 2160p 60fps porn is amazing.

>>85762538
>>85762958
24 fps is the minimum required for the picture to appear as being in motion. The less information (frames) you see, the easier it is to fool the brain into believing what you see is real. Therefore anything higher or lower than 24 fps looks jarring, unless it's not trying to fool the brain into thinking what it sees is real when in fact it isn't.

I've been watching movies at lower frame rates my whole life, 60 fps looks fucked and weird. I saw one of the Hobbit movies in theatres at 60 fps, and my brain just couldn't suspend the disbelief - it looked like a bunch of people sitting around in costumes, instead of a window into another world.

>>85764542
>24 fps is the minimum required for the picture to appear as being in motion.

Not exactly true. Most cartoons and stop-motion animations are produced below 24fps and get away with it. Here is a stop-motion animation done at 15fps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQpZ9UR1ukA

>>85764542
>The less information (frames) you see, the easier it is to fool the brain into believing what you see is real.
Got any source for that or are you just spouting bullshit?

>>85762538
Still looks kinda cheap and less artistical. Maybe it's more than just conditioning but a similiar phenomena like the uncanny valley, where near-realism makes it look worse.

>>85762538
That video is amazing. I feel like I can just reach through the screen and touch everything.

>>85762538
>DAT 8K VIDEO

HOLY FUCK 8K MARKET STANDARD WHEN THAT LOOKS AMAZING LIKE HOLY FUCK

>>85765099
>looks kinda cheap
How the fuck does more frames look cheaper? It's objectively more expensive if anything.

>>85765414
He has seen 48fps mexican telenovela and now thinks better video = cheap

>>85759264
Turns out, people don't like their movies looking like TV soap operas. This was impossible to predict.

>>85765010
I'm did exactly what those other two posters did, why don't you ask them for source?

>>85765401
Your reddit is showing

>>85765533
60 fps would still make movies look way better. Soap operas don't have movie quality lighting, camerawork and set design to go with the high fps.

I suspect you need to change completely the way you produce movies to actually be able to shoot 60fpsecond

>>85760544
Checked

>>85765533
You're saying higher frame rates are bad just because soap operas use it and nothing to do with the actual technology itself?

>>85765736
There's a feature on most TVs nowadays than can put in more frames by "guessing" every other frame, it looks awful
>uhh uhh it's the technology that's shit!
The Hobbits movie looked like shit too
>uhh uhh uhhhhhhh! you're just used to 24 fps!

>>85765736
60fps makes all the movie stuff look more fake though, by paradoxically making them more real

>>85765736
>>85765810
By all means, I'd love to see filmmakers use it well and make a great, immersive viewing experience with it, but The Hobbit looked like a bunch of guys in dwarf costumes running around on fantasy sets.

>>85765882
Of course computer generated 60fps looks fucking awful, holy shit sherlock kys.

>>85765942
No not really. Does the Peru 8k look "fake"? No, it looks way better than what we have right now. Just the CGI and special fx would hurt.

>>85765964
>The Hobbit looked like a bunch of guys in dwarf costumes running around on fantasy sets.
>>85764652
>it looked like a bunch of people sitting around in costumes, instead of a window into another world.

yeah i fucking wonder why

File: 1491253041512.gif (2MB, 320x239px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x239px

>>85765882
>"guessing"

>>85765810
>You're saying higher frame rates are bad just because soap operas use it
Where the hell did you get that from?

>>85766005
And you do realize why that's a problem?

>>85766051
The popular association between 60fps and soap operas, despite that video games, news broadcasts and sports broadcasts use them as well.

>>85765414
Maybe seeing the illusion of frames being played one after another makes a film look more artistic because it's abstract in a way. 60fps look just too smooth, too clinical. I don't see an interpretation of reality but a second rate replica of something my eyes could do better.

>>85765987
>Does the Peru 8k look "fake"?
That's not a movie set trying to look like it's real, it's a nature documentary. Are you retarded or something?

File: 3 (1).jpg (406KB, 974x720px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 974x720px

>>85766210
Moving goal posts.

Besides not all films look like your staged Hollywood crap, cockmongler.

>>85766156
>soap operas
Something fake trying to convince you it's real
>video games, news broadcasts and sports broadcasts
Not trying to convince you it's real because it is real

>>85766100
It's not like The Hobbit flicks look any better or more convincing in 24 fps. They have absolutely shit tier visuals compared to LotR.

>>85765882

The Hobbit being in 60fps is not the reason why it looked like shit

>>85766299
>It's not like The Hobbit flicks look any better or more convincing in 24 fps
But it is

>>85766329
Yes it was

I play video games in 60 fps. I liked the 48 fps Hobbit movies.

I legitimately cannot watch panning shots in 24 fps, it completely takes me out of the movie. Movies should be 48 standard.

File: tumblr_mekpzj9WH41rnr47go6_250.gif (261KB, 245x190px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 245x190px

>>85766276
>vidya is real

>>85766373
>panning shots in 24 fps
there's a few webms showing that

>>85766373
>I play video games in 60 fps
That is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Video games is not movies.

>>85766373
>I legitimately cannot watch panning shots in 24 fps, it completely takes me out of the movie
They do look glitchy 99% of the time, really kills any scene where you can see it. fucking annoying.

>>85766404
every normal 24-23 fps film with a panning shot shows the issue, it fucks up the scene completely.

60 fps only works for sports video games and porn and maybe action movies or movies with a lot of fast movement in them. Watching some cuck prance around in 60 fps during his soliloquy looks like some cheaply made spanish soap opera.

>>85766476
And anything more than 24 fps fucks up every other aspect of a movie

>>85766299
In 24 fps you only have to deal with the goofy CGI, the scenes with real actors on real sets look fine.

File: hobbit clone army.jpg (634KB, 1920x800px) Image search: [Google]

634KB, 1920x800px

>>85766333
>>85766367
The movies look like absolute dog shit even in still pictures. Has nothing to do with the high fps.

>>85764340
>>85760997
Any links to decent free 60fps porn? I'm having trouble finding legit ones.

>>85766509
No it doesn't. Well it does if you watch video game films like Batman V. Superman with lots of CGI and special FX.

You don't watch /v/ermin crap do you now

>>85766593
Register to Pornbay.

File: 1309889932373.jpg (22KB, 493x387px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 493x387px

>>85766544
what the fuck

File: hobbit rivendell.jpg (683KB, 1920x798px) Image search: [Google]

683KB, 1920x798px

>>85766536
>the scenes with real actors on real sets look fine.
Think again. This looks like some shitty cosplay event.

>>85766708
dude even Jackson said the films were terrible and rushed

>>85766544
I've only seen the first one in 48 fps. The scene with Bilbo running with the roll of paper really says it all.

>>85762538
I didn't even realize Youtube supported 8k.

>>85766806
I know, but I didn't even bother watching the third, and I've never seen that image. That's disastrous.

I believe all documentaries, animated films, and any film that doesn't rely on CGI should be shot at a minimum of 48fps.

Blockbusters, however, would look like crappy.

Looks too "real"

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

>>85767195
This isn't even real 60 fps you fucking idiot. Just some terrible motion smoothing.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (253KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1920x1080px

>>85765401
>>85766883
Yes, while Blu-ray is still trying to transition to 4K, YouTube has already beat them to 8K, and you don't need proprietary hardware (a 4K Blu-ray player, which Sony's PS4 Pro doesn't even have) to play it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLprVF6d7Ug

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChOhcHD8fBA

They'll probably be on 16K long before Blu-ray gets to 8K, that is, if the Blu-ray industry hasn't given up by then.

>>85767195
TDK was not shot at 60fps.

FAKE NEWS!

>>85767315
ty for the links senpai. I am watching these through 4k lg oled and these vids look fucking insane. best vids i've seen this year.

>>85767355

Look up the HDR channel, they have some great demo videos in HDR

>>85767385
8k is finally enough detail when you sit like 2 meters away (still could probably be higher). beautiful stuff man.

>>85767355

Not 8K but this video is what OLED was made for

https://youtu.be/CTNgVQGLy24

>>85767468
Knight of Cups has few city scenes at night that look gorgeous on oled.

>>85766872
I saw it in 24 FPS but the lack of motion blur because of filming in higher rate made it look really awful

File: shutter-speed-example.jpg (122KB, 1406x416px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1406x416px

>>85767558
Isn't motion blur determined by the shutter speed?

I can't think of any films shot in 60fps but plenty of porn companies are shooting in 60fps and 4k and it's really next level. I can't go back to regular porn after watching a handful of scenes at max res. It's the future, at least for porn desu.

can somebody remind me how many fps our eyes see in

>>85767607
Yeah, but since they recorded at higher framerate they had lower shutter speed...

>>85767639
On principle, the shutter speed is supposed to be increased the higher the framerate is.

>>85767355
I forget what it's called but there's a technology that converts 24 fps to 60 (or even animate a series of still shots). You can tell by the way certain transitions look distorted. My buddy has a TV that does it for everything and it looks awful.

>>85759264
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.

>>85767558
>>85767639
Saving Private Ryan had a high shutter speed (~1/1000s) at 24fps with no motion blur. Here's an example of a similarly shot clip at 25 fps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpPnfEME02A

>>85767772

It's called motion interpolation and only current Sony tvs can do it right

>>85767713
Yeah, by lower I meant the shutter is open for a lower/shorter time, sorry I'm tired and non English

>>85767857
48fps is merely a halfway point for compromise. Full 60fps is the true target.

>>85767615
The human eye can't see more than 30fps

>>85767615
Your eyes don't see in frames, that's just how movies are presented.

I totally support 60 fps
It looks great.

Billy Lynn looked great. Too bad it had nothing else

I remember there was some talk about Cameron shooting the Avatar sequels at 60 fps. Does anyone know if that's still happening?

>>85767615
I'm not sure if there's a definite answer but I remember reading about tests that have shown that humans can see at least 200 fps.

>>85767958
Perhaps if someone shot 60fps at 1/48s, the same shutter speed that 24fps movies are usually shot at, perhaps you would get a more desirable result.

>>85768149
pls b trl

>>85766593
Try eporner and porn.com

>>85759264
I have never been happier about a technology meme dying. Everything looked like complete shit.

>>85759264
>have to make 60 frames of CGI instead of 24 per second of CGI on screen

and people complain about CGI already, you just know they'll go cheap on it

>this is what high FPS autists want movies to look like

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_4S_-cr9Rs

>>85768350
Then why did you post a low fps clip? Fucking idiot.

File: sony-ex1.jpg (336KB, 2500x2500px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 2500x2500px

>>85768350
It was shot with some Sony F23 cameras, some F900s I believe, but more of the "worse" shots were actually shot on the EX1 all at 360 degree shutter angle which gives it the horrible "video" look, and couple that with bad framing, horrible lighting and needing to pump up the Gain, which introduces noise... you have a crappy, horrible looking film.

>>85768350
That looks like it uses a REALLY low shutter speed, which introduces a higher level of motion blur that isn't really typical for big budget Hollywood movies.

>>85768350
>people are saying "60fps movies look worse because of no motion blur"
>someone posts a clip of a movie at 24fps that uses TOO MUCH motion blur and uses it to criticize 60fps

>>85767195
that's interlaced garbage, nowhere near real 60fps

>>85765414
>>85765099
>>85764542
>>85762958
Oldish low budget soap operas used to have higher frame rate for whatever reason and therefor people nowadays associate higher frame rate with low quality.
Higher frame rate provides a smoother picture which is very evident in action scenes or whenever the the camera pans.

>>85759293
You know not everyone creates threads just so they can get replies, right? Some people are genuinely interested in discussion.

As for me, I want to like 60 FPS, but it just looks weird to me. It's somehow so real that it becomes too real and hurts my eyes. I can see why they say "30 FPS is a cinematic experience." Really, what's important is that the framerate is consistent.

That said, I haven't even seen anyone try 60 FPS outside of The Hobbit. And it was gone when it came to video.

>>85767988
It's pasta dumbass.

>>85768763
>Oldish low budget soap operas used to have higher frame rate for whatever reason
Wasn't it because TV is at 30FPS while films are 24?

>>85759264
Yes but not because it is bad just because people freaked out over something new rather than realizing it's actually better than what they already got.

File: 3d-glasses-theater-audience.jpg (1MB, 3412x1925px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3412x1925px

>>85767195
But people buy ultra high definition television displays and buy tickets to 3D stereoscopic movies to make the movie feel real. Why is this any worse?

>>85766593
off the top of my head, lubed/holed/dogfart all shoot in 60fps. i'd have to look around to figure out what other companies do but you can download any scene from them and it'll be at 60fps.

There's never been a 60fps feature film, unless you count Billy Lynn's Long Half Time Walk with half the frames removed. That movie gets it right with 120fps. 60fps isn't really high enough for totally realistic motion, although it's a massive improvement over 24fps. We need to standardize on 120fps as soon as possible. "Film look" is a scam.

>>85764652
>I saw one of the Hobbit movies in theatres at 60 fps
You did not. It was shown in 24fps and 48fps only.

>>85766544

Wow that is lazy

>>85766544
They should have gotten the guy who played Jango Fett to be all those elves, that would have been hilarious.

has anyone watched a capeshit trailer in 60fps? it's fucking hilarious. it looks like grown men running around in Halloween costumes

higher framerates are the future. +60fps will be the death of capeshit and other garbage fucking movies

if you don't prefer higher framerates KYS you fucking nigger

File: alexa_sxt_news.jpg (68KB, 660x265px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 660x265px

The "film look" is unnecessary when most movies aren't even being shot on film anymore, but on digital cameras. The technology we have right now is sufficient to capture at much higher framerates than traditionally used at amazing resolutions.

Films in 60 fps looked pretty much like when people forget to turn off sports mode on their new TV to me. Just looked like absolute shit.

It absolutely has a place in film making if used correctly, but not for an entire film like The Hobbit.
Same thing with HDR photography. It has a place, but over do it and it just looks like shit.

Trying to mimic the human eye and adding so much additional information on the screen won't make a film or photo look better without actual artistic reasoning behind it.

>>85769261
There are no films released at 60fps.

The Hobbit was shot at 48fps.

>>85769261
>Films in 60 fps looked
name three films you've seen filmed in true 60fps and not upscaled garbage. how can you even say this when nobody has made a film in 60fps fucking retard

>>85769252
>it's fucking hilarious. it looks like grown men running around in Halloween costumes
Explain to me why it looks like this in 60 FPS but doesn't at a lower framerate.

>>85769321

because 60 fps is a closer representation of what reality looks like to us. so when you watch capeshit in 60 fps, you can literally point and say "lol it's just a dude with a costume on" and remember that it's a shit movie with nothing going for it other than explosions, animations, and other complete pleb-shit for children

60 fps will force the movie industry to start writing actual original plots with good character development, and not more michael bay explosion eye-candy bullshit

the best movies draw from real human experiences. if you want capeshit, watch cartoon or read a comic book, FAGGOT

File: MV5BNjRjYjRhNmQtNWE0YS00NWIwLWFhYjUtMTkzZTUwYTE4MTBiXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjA3OTI5MjA@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,706,1000_AL_.jpg (94KB, 706x1000px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 706x1000px

>>85769304
There are no feature length films shot in 60fps, but there are several shorts. I watched some on Showscan analog film once, and they looked great. There's also Billy Lynn's Long Half Time Walk, which was released at 60fps on UHD Bluray (the maximum the format supports), although it was shot in 120fps.

Big Buck Bunny is available in native 60fps and high resolutions:
http://bbb3d.renderfarming.net/download.html

(also on Youtube, but you should download it and play it with MPV and video-sync=display-resample so you can have perfect frame timing which you won't get on Youtube)

>>85769497
I exclusively watch Terrence Malick films, FAGGOT.

>>85769304
Well sorry, 48 fps, not thought about this topic since The Hobbit came out, but I find it interesting.

>>85762958

>of course they don't want to move ahead because they're afraid of change; people like them find comfort in tradition even if at the expense of reason

>tips fedora

YO WHERE CAN A BROTHA BUST A COPY OF BILLY LYNN @ 60 FPS??

>>85767315
This is the threadly reminder that 99% of youtube in "4k" is upscale and compressed to shit because they are too cheap to pay for true 4k bandwidth. I'd imagine 8k is similar. If you pay extra $ they will make it available in true 4k, see some samsung demos and the planet earth II trailers. Your gay videos recorded in 4k and uploaded to yt are going to look poor in comparison.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (106KB, 1278x720px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1278x720px

60fps is perfect for CGI animation. While with live action, filmmakers may have trouble compositing CGI elements into the live action content at high framerates, nothing will look out of place when the entire film itself is fully CGI.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqz-KE-bpKQ

>>85770200
By buying (or torrenting) the 4k blu-ray version.

>>85759264
I've never seen anything truly above 24fps, unless 'smart motion plus' shit counts. btw that feature absolutely degrades the viewing experience. It makes it feel like a home movie, turns action and drama into cheap dumb shit. It feels less immersive.

>>85762538
Looks cheap, like a soap opera

>>85771559
>it looks cheap because soap operas have a similar look

>>85771559
Looks expensive, like the Super Bowl

>>85762538
it looks too good to be real, and has a cgi vibe. In real life if you were looking at a sloth you wouldn't perceive it like it was shown in the video. This takes you out of immersion constantly.

>>85771919
Real life looks like at least 5000fps. 60fps is not high frame rate, it's only medium frame rate. But there are diminishing returns as frame rate increases, so in practice 120fps is good enough.

>>85766046
is that mike love

>>85772031
Your eyes motion blur things in real life but don't when it's on a screen. That's why the footage looks off.

>>85772031
>at least 5000 fps
sauce me nigga, unless you're just blowing hot shit out of your ass.

60 FPS JAV tiddies where??

>>85768149

Physically impossible. I'll let you think about why.

>>85770440
You can download the videos. I downloaded the 8k Peru video to watch on my 4k TV (it didn't work for some reason, I don't know if it was because of the resolution or because it was .mp4) but the video's bitrate is around 59 Mbps which is better than most bluray rips I download. Not sure if it's like that when actually streaming from Youtube though. The downloaded video also wasn't 60 fps for some reason but that might be an issue with the software I used to download it.

>>85772241
Complete bullshit. Light is light, no matter if it's coming from a pixel or any other physical object.

Motion blur on screen looks different because it doesn't react to your eye movement. This is actually a good argument for 120fps being insufficient.

>>85772335
https://www1.essex.ac.uk/psychology/overlays/2013-207.pdf
Figure 1. Note that frame rate must be at least double the strobe rate, as each flash must have at least one light frame and at least one dark frame.

Also note small sample size of non-autists. In my personal testing I am much better at detecting flicker then they were.

>>85766593
http://hqporner.com/category/60fps

Might need to select 60fps from the player

Yes, makes shit look fake as fuck. It's good on video games though

>>85772381
What software do you use?

>>85772884
4kVideoDownloader. It allows you to download as mp4, mkv, and 3GP. MP4 was the only format that allowed you to download the 8k version but it wasn't 60 fps. And MKV only went up to 4k 60 fps. It might be an issue with Youtube, I know that what options it displays that downloading programs can latch onto depends on a lot of things.

>>85772360
I actually found some of this on YouTube, it was glorious. 360 degrees, too.

>>85772959
Ah ok, that's what I use too, was seeing if there's other programs people use.

File: 8K.png (414KB, 960x539px) Image search: [Google]

414KB, 960x539px

>>85762538
lol internet

File: 9780485120813-uk-300.jpg (33KB, 300x474px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 300x474px

has anyone ever heard of Zeno's arrow?

isnt the uncanny valley located in Peru?

does anyone know what appropriate technology is?


if you think 60 fps is the way forward then im sorry to say that youve once again fallen victim to artistic commodification

>>85773850
Zeno? The guy from Civil War?

>>85765099
>>85771559
retards

>>85759264
most actors can't act up to 60 fps standards so producers stick to 24 fps so we don't notice how shit they actually are

>>85776840
What the fuck? How do you act in a different FPS?

>>85768149
>>85767958
It's actually really easy to add perfectly natural shutter blur in post when you have extra frames to draw from
, I wonder why they didn't

>>85776863
Low FPS hides details so you need more "theatrical" style, with more exaggerated movement and expressions.

>>85766593
www.reddit.com/r/60fpsporn

>>85777301
>reddit

>>85768149
>Perhaps if someone shot 60fps at 1/48s
how exactly do you plan on recording 60fps with only 48 different exposures

>>85778387
Fix it in post.

>>85778387
You shoot at 240fps 360degree shutter, and blend overlapping sets of 5 frames.

But why would you go to all that effort to make things look worse?

>>85777673
Man, the only thing Reddit is good for is niche interests. Just ignore the cancer sense of humor and enjoy the consolidation of content.

>>85778682
It's still a shitty layout with no real organization. You know what would be a good way to organize 60 FPS porn? A booru. That way you could tag it with the relevant stuff and people could easily find what they're searching for.

>>85762538
Watching this on my 4K 50 inch right now.

>>85778743
Thing is, people know and browse Reddit on a regular basis. It's relatively easy to make a new subreddit and it's much easier to convince people to both browse and contribute to it. If you want to make another place for this feel free and give me a link.