> but it's more immersive to be low FPS

>>87797138
With 24fps you are in that sweet spot where the blur of motion is at the right amount to make everything "believable", while at 60fps everyone looks like actors acting infront of a camera, no matter how "used to" it you get.

>reality is "high FPS" so low FPS can look fake
I hope this is bait because if not you're an actual retard.

>>87797138
Next time you're hoping to have a discussion, don't start your thread with a straw man. It makes you look like a dumb fuck begging for attention.

>>87797138
The Hobbit looked like everything was fake, even the real stuff. Enjoy those extra frames of CIA subliminal brainwashing, anon.

>>87798110
I bet he looks like an even dumber fuck in 60fps.

But high FPS looks like shit anon, I don't care about your hypothetical reasonings.

>>87797138
>60FPS VIDEO

ftfy

>>>/v/

>>87797138
Wouldn't a combination be ideal?

I hate panshots where everything is blurry as fuck and you can't see faces/whatever is going on. So do those panshots in 60fps, rest normal for the moviefeel.

>>87798403
I hate that too but switching back and forth would likely be even more disorienting.

>>87797585
>"believable",
You are a moron. Reality is "high FPS". To me "believable" is to not be a slide-show.

>>87798110
>>87798202
You are a moronic shit. It's a quote that implies it answers to that bullshit. Not only that, you are a double moron, since the very first moron that replied said exactly that (that it's more "immersive" to be low FPS).

Movies are a work of art, not an attempt to capture what's in front of the lense as accurately as possible. It's like comparing a painting to a photograph. Of course the photograph is more accurate, that doesn't mean I wouldn't rather hang up the painting on my wall.

File: file.png (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 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

>>87799313
Of course 60fps is good for nature documentaries and the like, but their aim IS to capture what's in front of the lense as accurately as possible. When you go to a movie you don't want to feel like you're watching actors on a set reading lines.

The frame is a canvas. Films do not exist to represent reality as accurately as possible. Artistic aesthetic is and always will be more important than realism in film
>>87799304
this
>>87798280
also this

>>87797138
24FPS is fine, no need for a change.

>>87799313
This is gonna look so awesome when it buffers

>>87799342
>>87799392
>>87799438
You are all deranged lunatics. You just got used to low FPS because it's relic from an age when film was very expensive to be high rate. If anything reality is high FPS so low FPS looks fake and campy.

File: 1430569143250.png (294KB, 393x443px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 393x443px

>>87799151
Yes, but motion blur masks imperfections. At 60 fps you start noticing pulled punches, shoddy CGI etc. A movie is not reality, and can never be, there's no point in aiming for "silky smooth" framerate when all it does is make the movie look cheap and fake

>>87799151
Movies aren't real

>>87799567
Bullshit. High frame rate looks better and more immersive to me. If it's high FPS I feel the actor is next to me.

>>87799583
That's why it's more immersive to be high FPS.

>>87799585
Just like in your video games

>>87799151
Move your hand in front of your face. Notice the blur?

You don't see frames with vision. It is continuous but you still see motion blur. With high FPS there is no motion blur and it looks hyperreal.

The main people asking for high FPS are video game nerds that want to watch transformers in high FPS.

>/v/embryos that don't understand why games must be at 60fps thinking "IF WE JUS MAKE DA FRAMERATE BIGGER DEN DA MOVIE IS BETTER"

All them moronic shits that pretend low FPS is better, they should watch movies in 360p since they like it to be "bad and fake". Fucking morons, so hypocrical, they only say that because they are used to shit technology like the lunacy audiophiles have with vinyl.

File: 1502304939485.jpg (30KB, 456x402px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 456x402px

OP is a teen who probably just played his first video game in 60 fps.

>>87799650
ikr, we should make all movies 3D because real life is 3D

>>87799650
>>87799618
>>87799550

>>>/v/

>>87799650
>I like videogames so much.
>I bet movies would be better if they were more like videogames.

>>87799650
>>87799550
>>>/v/

ITT: moronic shits that also believe "vinyl sounds better".

>>87799550
>If anything reality is high FPS so low FPS looks fake and campy.
"Fake and campy" is what they're going for. If a movie looked as accurate as possible it'd look like actors in a studio, since that is what they are filming.

>>87799708
Yeah, vinyl does sound better for some people. Nobody is saying it's more realistic or higher quality

The moronic shits in this thread that talk about "it's for TV" are so deluded that they don't even know TV shows are filmed in 24FPS. They confuse interpolation on a TV with a high FPS movie. They are so ridiculous they don't even get even movies are interpolated to high FPS in those TVs.

>>87799708
Vinyl is a lossless format you utter retard

>>87799708
So actually, the reason why some vinyl sounds better than CDs is that the audio technicians of the 1960s were catering more to audiophiles.

Modern mastering crushes the high end in order to make everything "louder" so everyone can listen to music really loud.

CDs natively have higher dynamic audio range than vinyl but modern masters rarely use all of this latitude.

Anyway, calm down.

>>87799751
Which proves you are deranged lunatic that does not an opinion on this matter. If I play a viola - you moron - it's a traditional instrument. If I play it on a high quality recorded movie - or audio - it won't be less "real" you pathetic shit, it would be less real if the fidelity is shit.

>>87799782
That's not strictly true.

t. audiophile.

>>87799708
Depends on the genre but classical, jazz, acoustic singer songwriters etc. typically aim to record what is heard from the instruments as accurately as possible. That's why it's called a recording. Movies aren't meant as recordings of actors acting.

Modern pop music is so autotuned it doesn't matter if you're listening to it from a gramophone.

ITT: Deranged lunatics that believe if I play a traditional violin on high fidelity recording is "less real" than on a shitty recording from the 60s. You are meme'ed, and get over it.

File: 592ee35342c5a.image.jpg (120KB, 1200x799px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1200x799px

>>87799782

>Vinyl
>Lossless

Enjoy "feeling" the producer compressing the hell out of your tracks to get it to all fit on your candle disc, caveman.

I hope that extra $14 was worth it!

>>87799850
Shitty recording isn't the fault of vinyl as a format. It's the fault of shitty recording equipment. A modern vinyl record sounds as good as FLAC
>>87799885
I don't but vinyl

>>87799799
>>87799850
Again, nobody is saying vinyl is more realistic or higher quality. There isn't much of a difference in quality if the actual audio was recorded nicely, processed nicely, has a high sample rate and high bit depth. Some people prefer vinyl because it's analogue. I've never heard anyone say that vinyl is more realistic or higher quality.

>>87799899
>A modern vinyl record sounds as good as FLAC

This isn't true. Vinyl doesn't have the range or clarity of FLAC. Most people who like Vinyl like it for imperfections in the medium like the sound of the needle traveling which can actually obstruct any subtle nuance the track has.

People like it because it's nostalgic. Producers like it because they can mark it up and print an MP3 on wax.

>>87800060
>There isn't much of a difference in quality if the actual audio was recorded nicely, processed nicely, has a high sample rate and high bit depth.

So. Things that don't happen ever.

File: cc1.jpg (26KB, 619x453px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 619x453px

>tfw moronic shit

>>87800176
Yeah you're probably right. I was bullshitting my way through that argument tbqh. OP is still a faggot though

Hey let's make movies VR too thats more immersive right???? Also let's make it so the actors look into the camera and talk to you specifically because that's more immersive too!

>>87800219
Badly recorded music sounds just as bad on any ditribution platform though.

>>87800318
FOUND FOOTAGE IS TEH MOST IMMERSIVE MOVIES EVER!!!!!!!!

60FPS retards are like ISIS.They're(by they I mean 3 people) in a war they cannot win

>>87800370
we should make movies more and more realistic until we reach a 1:1 singularity point and I can't distinguish real life from movies,

>>87800176
Isn't it because it's analogue? Analogue really does sound warmer. Never heard anyone say it's because of the needle. Regardless, most of what I listen to isn't even lossless let alone vinyl. OP made a dumb comparison between 24fps and vinyl. There are legitimate aesthetic reasons to use analogue equipment.

>>87800402
2D retards are like superfags. 3D movies are superior because real life is 3D

>>87800411
Yeah, because everyone goes to movies to be reminded of real life.

>>87799634
>Move your hand in front of your face. Notice the blur?

Was going to say exactly this.

>>87799744
Someone needs to film a shitty horror movie in 60 fps to add to it's campiness

>>87799625
that's why I only play videogames that run at 24fps

>>87800470
Now you're starting to get why I hate high frame rate advocates

>>87800511
t. doesnt understand that games are different from movies

you'll understand one day

I bet lot of retards also defended that film looked better in black and white and color was a mistake

>>87800429
>Analogue really does sound warmer.

Warmer is just an intangible effect from all the tweaks and imperfections of the medium. All those scratches and hums make up the nebulous "warm" of the record.

The truth about "warm" is it's just a fallback fir hipsters when they realize they're arguing a losing position on sound quality when you bring up mediums like FLAC.

>>87799650
Does your mom know that you're on this site?

>>87799519
>>87799313
I miss my 1Gbps fiber connection. 50Mbps shite right now

>>87799342
This. Higher frame rate = more information going to the eyes at a faster rate. Exactly what you would want for a documentary or other styled movie. Not ideal for movies focused on story and exposition.

>>87800511
>that's why I only play videogames that run at 24fps

With video games you get less responsive control input if your screen isn't refreshing fast enough. Action is occurring between the frames that you shouldn't be missing if you want the best possible experience. And yes, some idiot vidya directors have defended poor FPS by claiming that it's more immersive.

>>87799313
too bad peru is full of peruvians

>>87800511
The difference is that in a video game there is player agency and interaction with a virtual environment. The higher the frame rate, then the less lag between the player and whats happening in the game.
None of those things exist in a film, a passive medium. And the things that standard frame-rate hide is what makes the artifice of the medium possible.
In shakespearean days the people who sat right in front of the stage didn't have the best sear in the house, it was where they let the plebs sit. The good seats were far enough away that they couldn't see the costumes were cheap and the swords were wood.

File: is it a thumbnail.jpg (3KB, 99x94px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 99x94px

>>87800790
>In shakespearean days

>>87800651
But lots of vinyl records are lossless. And vinyl definitely does sound warmer than CD. One uses a needle and one uses a laser

File: 4tard.jpg (558KB, 2272x1704px) Image search: [Google]

558KB, 2272x1704px

HIGHER FRAMERATE = BETTER STORY!!

>>87800812
What I'm saying is that in cinema and theater there is a distance between the observer and the subject. Its a fundamental necessity of the format of story telling.

real life has motion blur, 60 FPS movies do not. this is why it looks wrong.

File: megatip.gif (3MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 500x281px

>>87800908
ah yes very shakespearesque observation old chap innit m'lady, would you perchance pardon me while I read Othello from the upper balcony ?

>>87800858

They're not perfectly lossless. It will "pretty much" playback whatever you print. But some music is too complicated to cut, and some music is too long to run on record. And almost all music now is produced digitally and formatted that way. So ultimately for most modern productions you are essentially paying an upmarked as hell price for an archaic CD.

>>87800908
Yes but he's right, you should never use the phrase "in Shakespearean days" in this context. Very interesting information though.

>>87797138
Modern action movies are a fucking mess because of the motion blur. I can't tell what the fuck is going on in any of the Bourne movies unless things slow down to highlight a joint break or something. I don't think there's anything wrong with fast-paced fighting or shaky cam, but it's incompatible with the 24 fps paradigm and the massive amounts of motion blur necessary to make low fragmentary video watchable.

File: dealt with it.jpg (69KB, 334x400px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 334x400px

>>87801247
I'm too much of an alt-right MRA to acknowledge and era named after a roastie.

>>87801357
you're just a retard

24fps 720p is all you need.

I remember with The Hobbit the 60fps really improved the 3d for me. I hate 3d because it just has more motion blur to the point where it is almost impossible to follow the action. 60 fps got rid of that.

>>87801343
>I can't tell what the fuck is going on in any of the Bourne movies
That's mainly because they have a heavy overuse of shaky cam, spastic editing and cluttered framing.
Take a well executed film like Fury Road that is non stop action, but it's well framed/blocked/edited/choreographed so you don’t have any problems like that.

>>87801501
Too bad it made everything, even the practical set pieces, look like a literal videogame.

>>87799313

DONT RUN THAT VIDEO AT 8K

>>87801501
the Hobbit was 48 FPS, not 60.

>>87801650
oh shit my bad

>>87801612

I tried it on my decade old notebook and I regreat it

>>87801612
worked just fine, stop being poor

>>87801678

my 6600k got shat on D:

>>87801678
>stop being poor

Why didn't I thought of that before?

>>87798154
>Throw the world's ugliest Instagram bloom filter all over your two and a half hour long films
>Expect anything to look real after that

>>87799313
>tfw we will probably never get a 60fps Malick kino
I honestly think only he and Mann could make it look good. Maybe Malick is not the master of innovation but the nature and style of his work would do it IMO.

File: 1484780388755.png (13KB, 284x284px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 284x284px

60fps make movies look like soap operas or "behind the scenes" shots.

60fps might be ok for fast action scenes but mostly brainlets enjoy those anyway.

Didnt a director try to make a movie in 144 fps and people simply didnt like it?

Also now movies are being remastered in 60fps and they look all weird.

Video game playing manchildren will never understand film

>>87799634
>With high FPS there is no motion blur and it looks hyperreal.

This is false. Its mostly how actors are trained to move at speeds that can be caught easily in 24fps. This looks odd in real life and HFR.

Like the old story about how they needed to tell bruce lee to punch slower because 24 fps couldn't capture his movements.

>>87801823
Wasn't Doug Trumbull working on something like a 120 fps test film?

>>87801703
4790k did fine.

File: Lord James Speaketh.jpg (188KB, 1200x750px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1200x750px

Avatar 2 will be the first blockbuster to use 60FPS and 8k resolution.

as usual James Cameron raising the bar.

>>87801903
so that's why it took 11 years to render.

It'll be funny when video game graphics look better by the time avatar is finished.

File: 20170916_105846.jpg (235KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 960x640px

>>87801770
But look the blue means the flower is cold and alone :(

>>87801003
Are you having a stroke?

File: 1489062485444.jpg (49KB, 337x343px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 337x343px

>>87801883
>.
>This is false. Its mostly how actors are trained to move at speeds that can be caught easily in 24fps. This looks odd in real life and HFR.
>Like the old story about how they needed to tell bruce lee to punch slower

intredasting, and i could see it being the case. maybe even not 100% consciously, but they were trained to act so that it looks good in low fps, but not high fps

>>87800477
no one actually likes camp, as it's just a term for "looks like cheap shit."

File: 40f.jpg (12KB, 312x275px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 312x275px

>>87801883
>Its mostly how actors are trained to move at speeds that can be caught easily in 24fps. This looks odd in real life and HFR.

>>87802017
Then what about theater actors? They're acting in infinity FPS, they shouldn't have an inherent bias.

File: Noah (2014).webm (3MB, 1280x696px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x696px

Will /tv/ defend this?

>>87802162
These new Transformers are getting more and more ridiculous.

>>87802162
I love how they included the subtle acting of the rock monster in the shot.

File: Untitled.jpg (10KB, 664x87px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 664x87px

>>87802162
fuck you I just tried to post that

>>87802091
>They're acting in infinity FPS
what do you mean in infinity FPS? they are also adjusting to themselves and instructors in schools, who are humans and as such can only perceive 24 fps with their eyes (scientific fact) or 12 fps (with one eye closed)

>>87801866
I think it has a time and place, and in and of itself isn't bad.
I'd like to see it used more in a documentary style. And it has interesting applications for 3D because it can compensate for the loss of information when you have to overlap the L&R images because you're getting double the information in the same time.
I don't think it's going to instantly become a new standard though, but I imagine over the years people will find other creative applications for it.

File: disgusted sigh skully.jpg (30KB, 500x359px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 500x359px

>>87802350
(you)

>>87802440
bring scientific proof that human eyes can perceive more than 24 fps, you absolute total retard
the fact that 60 fps 'looks different' to you dumb chimpanzee doesn't actually prove your eyes perceive it differently.
oh my god what an absolute animal trying to challenge my expert knowledge on this topic

>>87802350
Dumbass, each eye can see 24 FPS max. They don't each see 12 FPS hahaha what a faglord

>>87802350
My god, /tv/ posts have either evolved into some advanced 4D reverse bait procedures or we have actual mentally challenged autists here.

>>87802162
I can't, Noah was a terrible movie.

>>87802517
another stupid animal who likes to bark but doesn't like conducting a quick google search to fucking find actual scientific studies, not one, not two, but at least tens of them to prove my words

>>87802162
Install madVR, pleb.

>>87802528
>or we have actual mentally challenged autists here
t. the expert on how human eyes work specifically in context of perceiving video material
right right right? wrong you animal.

>>87802559
>fake 60fps

Jej, mate.

File: 24FPS versus 48FPS.jpg (139KB, 1024x374px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1024x374px

>>87802509
there is your proof.

>>87802546
Your mums a bitch

>>87802162
Disgusting. Should you increase the FPS for a shot like this, or would that make it even more jarring?

>>87797138
Sight is our weakest sense

>>87802570
Yeah, I agree interpolation is garbage. MadVR fixes stuttering issues with panning even if interpolation is disabled

>>87802162
The Revenant has a similar forest pan shot to this and it looks absolutely flawless and silky smooth, Noah is just a badly executed movie.

>>87802582
ah yes strong retort from a mentally deficient animal WHO STILL CANT GOOGLE

>>87802578
idiot retard, a screenshot from a video doesnt prove anything. oh my god what animals really, i mean i dont expect much from such a fast board on 4chan, especially one that has to do with TV shows, but still you're really fukken dumb lads

>>87802509
the human eye can see up to about 225fps

>>87802743
>Google
>TL;DR: - Human's eye can see up to 1000 FPS and, perhaps, above

Actually very interesting. I would have thought it capped in the hundreds. You've done well today here.

File: quiet-mgs5.jpg (46KB, 640x367px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 640x367px

Kojima-san proved that media can have a remarkable impact at 60fps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzv3SRU2vdg

>>87802807
>>87802810
idiot retards, oh lord...

>>87802091
Non-maymay response:

To see what theater actos look like in film, before being told to tone it down, look to a lot of Asian film. As theater actors need to exaggerate all their movements so the people in the cheap seats can see what's going on. They also can't move too fast for the sake of the cheap-seaters.

>>87802509

nigga you dumb

>>87802973
kill yourself

>>87802843
Kojima-San can make the impossible possible, fool! Do not expect from the common man what you expect from sensei!

>>87803127
Classic Hollywood had a lot of theatrical performances too

>>87802843
>game trailer is at 60 FPS
>actual in-game cutscenes are 30FPS
Hideo can go suck a wet dick, he's a fraud.

>>87801572
>That's mainly because they have a heavy overuse of shaky cam, spastic editing and cluttered framing.
As I said, I don't think shaky cam is a problem on its own. It only becomes a problem when combined with overuse of motion blur.

>>87801501
>>87801650
Also, it was shown in 3D and HFR separately.

>>87802528
We passed the point where you can so much as pretend people are being ironic on 4chan in 2010.

Forget 60fps, 144 when?
I just can't enjoy kino on my nice gaming monitor

>>87800176
Help me understand here -- are there major releases that really are just 'mp3 on wax'? Any good examples of major, newer records put out on vinyl that sound laughable? Has this changed since, say, the 60's and 70's? Something different about how vinyl records are made in this era of resurgent vinyl market?

>>87802509
if it looks different doesn't that mean its being perceived differently?

>>87797138
You're right, but
1. morons with disagree with you
2. High fps can't hide bad CGI or fight scenes

>>87801886
Yes but the main point of that was so you could adjust the shutter angle. What retards like OP seem to miss is that FPS effects this as well and changes the image overall. There's no "better" here, it's how you use the tool.

>>87804127
>Has this changed since, say, the 60's and 70's?
Absolutely, but not because of they make lower quality vinyls but because of the "loudness wars" where todays music has to be compressed hard with limiters at the mastering stage to be on par with the loudness of other songs released today, especially if we're talking mainstream music. So you get digital distortion introduced into the song itself and the it's put on vinyl.
So the dynamics of all songs are squashed and you get a flat loud song which then can be put on vinyl, where the songs from 60s/70s are way quieter in comparison, but have a ton of dynamics (difference between the loud and the quiet parts) and are much more easy on the ears with zero digital clipping.

>>87803958
Cameron is likely shooting at 120fps for the Avatar sequels.

>>87800687
I live in a shit poor country and my internet conection is 2Mbps, don't be mad bro.

>>87801118
>when you've lived long enough to see the day when a digitally recorded song is pressed to a vinyl and people claim it sounds better that way

>>87802045
>no one

Sure bud

>>87804127
There are 2 different compression factors to consider- both in dynamics, and in the literal size of the medium. My sister has International Superhits by green day on vinyl, and it sounds absolutely awful, because it not only is loud as shit with 0 dynamics, but also jams 30 minutes of audio onto each side, which physically compresses the threads that the needle goes through. However, if you're buying an album pressed in the 60s or 70s, you're pretty much guaranteed high quality audio because the people who cut the Masters back then knew that both the casual listener and the audiophile were going to be purchasing the same product. My original 70s Bowie and ELP vinyls sound much better than the digital remasters of today.

>>87802350
Funniest fucking thread in a long time.

Some errors here.

24fps most certainly is a hangover from the old movie era but the motion blur comes from shutter speed. (48th of a second or 48/1).

It is possible to have a 24fps movie but with no or little motion blur by using a higher shutter speed. It is usually done as an artistic choice to create a hectic feel, like combat for example. The opening scene of Saving Private Ryan used this effect.

File: IMG_9038.png (1MB, 1243x651px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1243x651px

So is Billy good?

>>87802350
This is correct. I am an eye technician.