>movies have been around for 120 years >they are made almost

movies are not video games

>Videogames are movies

Trust a Sonybro to believe this

>>385199963
bait or just an idiot

Movies don't have controllable camera that you can rotate at fast speeds.

games are interactive, movies aren't

>>385199963
>>they are made almost exclusively in 24 FPS, which is accepted by everyone as sufficient and as the industry standard
That's dumb though. Once in a while I see some movie trailer or whatever that clearly has higher fps than the usual and it looks much better. I mean real life has higher fps than movies and tv so what the fuck

>>385199963
Only cheap movies are filmed in 24 fps nowadays. Back in the day black and white movies without sound were standart.

>>385199963
>they are made almost exclusively in 24 FPS
I want Peter Jackson to leave.
Also most movies were filmed in 30 fps to match the standard display technology. Standard displays have evolved.

File: 1422374129992.jpg (52KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 500x500px

>>385199963
>he fell for the cinematic 30 FPS meme
dont even care if this is bait. the fact that people look at this shit and believe it is fucking gold

most movies are filmed with the camera static and do not benefit from having more frames to show camera motion
A large number of video games have a dynamic camera that is usually always in motion. Increased fps allows camera movement to be more fluid or smooth

>>385199963
60fps game is more fluid to control

>>385199963
60 fps movies > 24 fps movies

I hate movies today because they blur so much of the action whenever anything fast paced happens or just have really close shots of the action so you actually can't see what is going on

Which gets even worse when it's in 3d

Wasn't there a movie that came out a while back in a higher fps and got poor reviews because of it?

>>385200251
why_not_both.tga

Movies are 24fps because that's all they could do at the time. People got used to it and for some reason it became standard. 60fps is just better. People are just scared of change.

>>385199963
>In a movie there is no such thing as responsiveness of controls
>In a movie the watcher has no control over the camera so there is little chance of pans over high detail scenes unless someone was retarded or they want to whip the camera around on purpose
>There are plenty of techniques that go into making low FPS look passable that aren't available or are difficult to do right in real time in CG

>>385199963
>unabashedly admits he plays movies, not video games
Lmao

>>385200563
this too.
who SVP master race here

>>385200590
the story was: a lot of critics didn't see the difference between 24 and 48fps (the reason was - many cinemas didn't actually have proper hardware to project the movie in 48fps)
That was the first Hobbit.

>>385200563
Yeah seriously, go look at 60 fps porn and tell me it doesn't look way better than normal

>>385199963
24 fps was chosen for a very specific reason. It was because higher then that looked odd for those watching. It was too smooth and actually brought people out of the illusion of the movie. When things began to look like real life, the fantastical events of the movie were seen as silly.

That is why 24 fps had become known for being cinematic. It's also why daytime dramas are filmed at this speed, while things like the news is at 60 fps.

Aside from that, video games require you to be able to take in as much information as fast as you can. More FPS means more information is getting to you and with a smoother gameplay, means you can accurately judge distances and when to be pressing buttons. It's certainly possible to adjust, but this is also why a steady FPS is better then one that jumps.

>>385199963
You don't control a movie, dumbshit.
Playing a game at 24 fps feels fucking awful because it creates a dissonance between your inputs and what's happening on the screen.

Movies should be switching to higher framerates, the only reason it's accepted is people are used to it and companies don't want to have to bother to do the extra work

>>385199963
As you're an artsy person, do the following:
Get a nice tv that supports 24hz, plug your computer on it, set to the mode and try drawing something on paint.

There's a reason why the new ipads use 120hz displays now.

24 FPS was only chosen because it was the most cost effective rate given the technology at the time.

Can you imagine how long Film reels would have been if they were recorded at 60 FPS? After that it just became standard and everyone's afraid to change. Despite technological limitations going away.

File: 1463594833903.webm (3MB, 1280x696px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x696px

>>385200669
it's less about player controlling the camera and more about fast camera movement, which can be vomit-inducing in movies as well, when shot by a retard camera operator.

File: 144439856822160_1.webm (3MB, 1280x696px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x696px

>>385201047
I think the shutter speed hurts the most here.

>>385199963
i don't have to defend anything to a retard like you

movies are 24 FPS because it saved film its really not needed anymore and could be done away with but it sticks because people otherwise bitch

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-movies-look-smooth-at-24-fps-but-video-games-look-terrible-at-24-fps-Is-it-because-of-motion-blur

I'm just going to say everything here and the top comment in it.

File: 1489974408114.jpg (22KB, 475x713px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 475x713px

>>385200375
>real life has higher fps than movies and tv

I can't, 60 fps LITERALLY gives you ass cancer.

>>385200882
>24 fps was chosen for a very specific reason. It was because higher then that looked odd for those watching.

bullshit. 24fps was chosen because film was expensive at the time, and 24fps was the lowest they could go without it turning into a slideshow, to save money.

>>385200375
>I mean real life has higher fps than movies and tv so what the fuck
>not watching your favorite harem anime at 1.855094832e+43 fps

>>385201442
Well maybe I'm just retarded but it always seemed like that to me. I mean I know real life doesn't have fps, I just mean that tv looks more sluggish. You get what I mean

>>385201380
Man, half of that top comment was fucking bull. Motion blur for example isn't even tied to framerate (in games it is though).

He also didn't go into how much of a fucking logistical nightmare it is to double your film reel for just framerate. It's the same why films with a fully digital process are rare, they have to log around huge systems to store that shit in RAW, like CODEX. Most filmmakers also have their own personal limits where they decide the amount of equipment just gets in the way of the creative process.

>>385201736
>In the year of our lord 2010+7 we are still using archaic film reels
Why

Thank god 48 frame rate is dead and buried

>>385201442
real life has 300000000fps technically. Thats about the speed of light which is what our eyes perceive

>>385201969
Yeah it's pretty silly but it's a complicated process and arguably, a number of creative tools become available to you when you process the negatives and also before you print the final film.

Aside from that, the amount of people wanting to innovate on the production process is probably pretty limited.

>>385201047
>>385201167
shit dizzying shot anyway.
why tf did they even include it in the movie?

>>385202112
>h-hayaku!

>>385199963
>defend this

I will and it's easy

1- Response time. Lower FPS mean way smoother gameplay and a game that actually does what you ask in time

2- Motion blur. 24FPS movies feels fine only because real life has perfect motion that camera can capture, games don't, yet, but even if they do one day, that won't solve the first issue and, there are still some retards who disable motion blur anyway.

Kill yourself.

File: ABF2816F-D572-48CA-A49A-CB0F8AEF5F5B-7769-000015955CF7A524.jpg (33KB, 559x720px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 559x720px

The gfx cards in tv's and bluray players are crap obviously.
If you haven't jerry rigged a 1080ti to a tv for real movie pleasure you haven't lived.

>>385201724
Real life does have FPS. It's the rate at which your eyes can interpret different images per second, which is a hell of a light higher than 24 or 30 fps

>>385200490
The Order 1886 developers wanted to make their game locked in 24fps because FULL CINEMATIC, but even they ended up realizing it looked like fucking SHIT and quietly changed it to 30fps. They have way too much pride to ever admit the reasoning though, especially when they had spent the last few years shitting on anyone who gave them shit for having low framerate which they defended as cinematic

File: blue.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

Motion blur makes a heap of difference.

File: noblue.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>385204006

File: dc1e11060a7c0816ab006a7850f5cb44.jpg (42KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x500px

>>385202907
>jerry rigged
>jerry

I'm not controlling a movie

>>385204006
>>385204035
Blur emulates speed and movement
It looks slower without the blur on

Movies have developed numerous camera tricks to obscure the low framerate. Most of those can't be carried over to video games because camera is in player's hands.

File: hqdefault.jpg (11KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 480x360px

>>385204006
MDABUDIDABUDA, MDABUDIIIDABUDADABUDIDABUDA

File: dood 2.png (49KB, 346x341px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 346x341px

>>385200375
>tfw 60fps HD porn

File: halp.png (219KB, 583x535px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 583x535px

>>385204360
>tfw 90fps UHD VR porn

File: this doggo is fuckin insane2.png (23KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 125x125px

>>385204718
>having sex

>>385199963
friendo, i'm a 180 FPS fag

File: f0b36f80_ae1f_43b6_ae1f_4d7760a2e301.jpg (53KB, 800x744px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 800x744px

>>385205210

movies aren't interactive and don't need to immediately respond to your inputs
you're retarded

File: troubled.jpg (26KB, 676x370px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 676x370px

>>385200375
>real life has higher fps than movies and tv

File: 1439731262845.png (387KB, 598x369px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 598x369px

>>385205210

>>385202298
Only 05-08 is dizzying because your eyes have nothing to focus on and the camera speeds up while panning.

>>385203861
>phoneposters
Your eyes are analog, there is no such thing as FPS for them. The 250Hz for combat pilots is a soft cap of our brain, where we conciously cannot percieve anymore without conducting experiments on children, who could be theoretically trained from young age to percieve more. The only thing we would get from it is more framerate shitposters, so noone cares.

>>385200375
>movie trailer or whatever that clearly has higher fps
Like what? The Hobbit? No one makes films in anything other than 24fps except for some very very rare exceptions, like The Hobbit.

>>385201167
No. You need a 180 degree shutter angle for it not to stutter, unless you're going for some Saving Private Ryan-esque effect. It's just a badly designed shot, unless the point was for it to be disorienting.

>>385199963
Videogames require precise input and the prevention of motion sickness, movies do not. 24fps was also the lowest common denominator to save money for film, while preventing audiences from getting sick.

>>385208005
which looked like aids anyway

>>385199963
You think that is bad?
Try those retards who get 144hz screens when human eye cant see more than 60 fps.
30 fps is more than enough, hope teh 60 fps meme dies already

>>385199963
>What is motion blur

>>385199963
feedback
higher fps snappier controls =>higher feedback and immersion

also I love 60 fps videos in high res, they look freaking lifelike
for reference, effect is much worse at lower resolutions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1La4QzGeaaQ

>>385208275
Exactly, which is also why no one else shoots in anything higher than 24fps.

>>385208329
I know you're baiting, but you can't really measure how fast the eyes can track movement like that. You can definately see the difference between 60 and 144fps, and even more so with the difference between 60 and 30. More importantly, when you get fps drops with 60 fps as your base, you'll still get a pretty servicable FPS. However, when you drop from 30, you can easily reach the low 10's.

>>385199963
The average LCD screen is hard coded to update multiples of 30, this it related to keeping in sync on elections currents on the circits. Thus why games defaulted to to.

Movies at 24 were a compromised to analog projectors and tap usage.

How the two physical worlds combined is a meme to this day. Obey the natural lcd screen refresh, not old projectors and movie films, because that is WHAT the hardware is today. Anyone with a option against this does not know technology.

To put 24fps on a 30fps monitor, a compromising refresh artifact was done. Timing between updates ARE NOT EVEN, its like periods of 2 2 3 2 2 3 (on the 60 screen), or something. If you have a keen eye trained to see motion at 60, you WILL NOTICE STUTTER. Which is why 24fps is bullshit to this day to why anyone accepts it.

Also fuck you OP for not noticing the stutter at 24, you eyes are lazy and i can tell you are bad at action games.

>>385201380
"Motion blur" used in games is not real motion blur. It does not interpolate the "caught" frames as camera shutters do, but SMUGGGGGGG everything.

>>385199963
More fps looks better, and better is better
so it's better

>>385199963
>Why did movies settle for 24 FPS?

Because they couldn't do better back in the days of the first World War and settled for it.

First movies were also black and white, without any audio. I think we should remove colors and sounds from our games as well.

>>385210151
In the analog days you would've had to make a huge film reel. I have no idea why digitalfags settled though.

>>385210675
File-size, transmission over limited terrestrial TV bandwidths...

In the end, 50(EU)/60 FPS movies became practical only recently, but at this point, Hollywood is more than willing to sabotage their efforts since if someone started making stuff in Hz-tied FPS, they'd be fucked and would all have to buy new equipment to match.
They were already intent enough on killing off fullHD because their cameras were simply not designed to handle it (it's why so many movies today still have the infamous black borders).

>>385199963
>>they are made almost exclusively in 24 FPS
>which is accepted by everyone
Only by those who don't know any better. 24fps is absolute eye cancer and there is no reason that movies and TV shouldn't have moved to 60FPS when they made the switch to HD. Fuck, they should have been at least at 48fps in cinemas by the 70's. Movie technology has been dragging its feet so hard.

>>385202298
To show off the framerate, ya twit. It does the job.

File: 1415386359779.jpg (12KB, 213x144px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 213x144px

>>385199963
>pay $2000 plus tip for my pc so I can finally get 60 fps for my /v/ cred
>find out that to play shooters optimally you need 150+ fps
When will it end??? This shit is why people buy consoles.

>>385212770
It's a matter of standard. You just need to understand at what rate the standard will evolve.

>>385199963
>Watching a movie, for the interactions between the characters
>Playing a game, participating in the interactions themselves
Gee I don't know sonyfag, is it maybe because it just looks better?

>>385212770
You know you can still play at higher than 60 fps you faggot
Literally any mid tier graphics card can achieve high settings in CSGO at 200+ fps

>>385199963
24fps was chosen for two-fold

1. It was the cheapest route as film was expensive as fuck to manufacture

2. When sound was introduced later on, the technology they developed had to match the playback of 24fps so the audio wouldn't fall out of sync which even further solidified its place as the standard fps for film.

>>385199963
Use a framerate I will not notice when I am playing
that is it

>>385199963
>most multiplayer PC games support 60fps and more
>server side tick rate is 15/30fps and more(less)
>same with single-player games, animation rendering at 30fps

I wish retarded users would get banned.

If you have a 60hz monitor than 60fps and 200fps look and feel exactly the same

>>385199963
movies haven't been 24fps for a while mate.

prerendered scenes and especially slo-mo cams can break 120.

>>385213451
Who would shill the new popular meme otherwise?

>>385200643
It became standard because of the sound
Before it was around 16-18 fps
Hence why some old mute movies look speed up

>>385208329
>the human eye can't see more than...
look at one LED flashing at 60 hz then another flashing at 130, there is a perceptible difference, the military have been working on shit with perception.

but go ahead and keep quoting 90s science like you know shit