Discuss

Discuss.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=jQDjJRYmeWg
bbb3d.renderfarming.net/
youtube.com/watch?v=gQGjD3b3FVo
twitter.com/AnonBabble

The future of capeshit maybe. But not real cinema.

No one who has actually seen it likes it.

So probably not.

should be 6 000 000 FPS

Eyelets and hack directors will disagree.

It would take a very long time to take over if ever. Lots of retarded plebs like that can't stand reality and need their artificial "moobie mayjeek".

Thank you for promoting genuine high frame rate instead of 60fps medium frame rate.

"Film look" is for morons.

>2018
>not wanting a silky smooth, cinematic 24 frames per second

TVs barely even support 60fps media on 1080p, but keep throwing numbers, kid

...

It's jarringly realistic. It seems much more like a movie set rather than actually being there. It definitely takes away from the immersion. Just because something *technically* looks nicer and is more fluid doesn't mean it's actually good for the medium. Films require a lot of trickery to make them work, it's kind of what cinematography is all about. Making films 60 or 120 fps absolutely ruins a lot of that. 30fps works literally just fine, if it isn't broken, don't fix it. just because you *can* add more fps doesn't mean it's a good idea.

that webm isn't even 120fps

Then why do video games look better at 120fps than 30fps?

What webm?

120 FPS 4K FUTURE 3D

Video game frames are different from movie frames

There is no reason to film fiction at 120 fps, because higher framerates specifically expose the fakeness of a film production. The 'magic' of 24 fps is in how it retains a certain distance from reality.

Video games are a much different animal, and I discussed in my post very clearly that it negatively effects cinematography, something that has nothing to do with video games. You can compare apples and oranges all you want but your bait thread is shit.

its over 9000

24fps is max what our eye can see anyway

>the 'magic' of 24 fps

Can you please stop repeating this information. It's demonstrably false, and apparently retards parrot it.

...

Making good movies is the future of cinema. Lag gode filmer for faen!

>expose the fakeness of a film production
The solution is 100% CGI. When it's all fake there's nothing to expose.

That is actually true, because full CGI is already hyperrealist in itself.

Imagine how good Hardcore Henry could have been at 120fps. Such a waste shooting it in low frame rate.

24 fps has always been the refresh rate of classic cinema films. However, in the cinema at the playback every frame is shown with a shading 3 times. Thus, there is computationally a refresh rate of 3 x 24 = 72. In the transfer of a motion picture to video, conversion is required since PAL is the default standard 50i, which means 2 x 25 interlaced fields are displayed per second ("i" stands for interlaced). To adjust 24p to 50i, you convert 24 frames into 48 fields and slows the runtime by 4%. Therefore, the (PAL) video versions of cine-films are useful at e.g. 100 minutes longer by 4 minutes. As a result, neither the movements nor the sound correspond to the original. For NTSC, where video standard 60i is used, the 2: 3 pulldown is used for this purpose. Again, 24 frames are converted to 48 fields, then every other frame is doubled to produce the (NTSC) video frequency of 60i, i. 60 Hz to achieve interlaced.

With the introduction of HDTV and the new high-resolution formats Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD now 24fps is also introduced for the video and television picture. So then the described Conversion method 24fps / 50i or 24fps / 60i no longer required and the video version of a movie exactly matches the original - without conversion-related artifacts.

not possible with technology atm

>To adjust 24p to 50i, you convert 24 frames into 48 fields and slows the runtime by 4%.
You got it backward. PAL conversions are 4% faster.

You could literally buy 120fps GoPros when they made it.

The actual (near) future of television is looking pretty awesome so far; 7680x4320@120fps, REC.2020 colorspace w/10,000 nit HDR. Film will likely always remain at 24fps though, because it looks too strange and "un-film-like" when it's higher.

>""actual"" (near) future of television
>biggest numbers I could find on Wikipedia

In my theater before the movie begins there was a short message from Ang Lee telling people thank you for watching his 120 FPS 4K 3D movie.
That sounds so awkward and cringy

>he doesn't know they had displays with those exact specs at CES this year or that NHK has already had several broadcasts in those specifications (minus the HDR) already

>It's demonstrably false, and apparently retards parrot it
again your brain translates analog singnals=solo pictures in to the movie, but human eue cant do it like digitaly technics, so everything above 24fps is not translated for you (just look first hobbit, faked and speeded up as shit)

digitally it is possible,i explained it in previeus >120fps GoPros
same digital technics here, for human eye ist called "Aliasing" loo k this videoyou can only see 24 fps also chopper blades are much faster of course
youtube.com/watch?v=jQDjJRYmeWg

This. 24fps was chosen like 200 years ago because it was the cheapest option. No need to cling to it now because "muh cinematic movement"

> No, the future is to deconstruct the patriarchal social constructs called "frames". We must strive for a "frameless" cinema. The future is female.

> Yes, I am being incoherent. And that's a good thing. Your attachment to logic is a relic of the past.

I don't think any amount of technological advancement can make television worth watching.

le epic bait

>muh vidya

opinion discarded, 24fps is king

>more info from Wikipedia
NHK had their experimental SHV material more than 5 years ago, retard. That means literally nothing for the market. Transition to 4k is going at snail's pace because most are already satisfied with FHD and there's even less incentive to go from 4k to 8k. Let alone the fact that even with most optimistic outlook on AV1 efficiency the infrastructure to carry 8k signal is just not there. This isn't near future, this is 20+ years from now.

high-FPS in movies is jarring as fuck. Yeah, it feels and looks much smoother, obviously, but it hits some sort of uncanny valley and completely breaks all immersion, it just feels weird. It should only be used in niche situations like some extreme action scenes and so on.

>but what about muh vidya

Fuck off, your opinion just lost its whole point. Videogames look better with higher framerates because nothing in it is real, its just fucking pixels. Movies are made with real people on fake sets. Sure, if you were doing a movie with no effects 60fps would look better. But what kind of movie comes with no effects? Those come off as cheap art film bullshit.

yeah bretty much. I'm a pleb brainlet when it comes to the technical aspects of television/film and shit, but tbqh I think 4k will only be really widespread when most people can afford some TVs with over 6 gorillion inches, because that'll be the only way to properly enjoy 4k. Current TV sizes are just too smol for it, 1080p is sufficient with what we have.

You do have a good point. Cgi movies would benefit greatly from the higher framerates.

the human eye can't see above 12 fps anyways

>Sup Forums in 1927
>"Sound in movies? Why? The human ear can hear only a few sounds anyway"
>Sup Forums in 1939
>"Color in movies? Why? The human eye can see only a few colors anyway"
>Sup Forums in 2018
>"120 frames per second? Why? The human brain can't make sense of more than 24 fps anyway"

Hodor. Also, hodor.

>all technological progress are the same

Here's a good analogy for the faggots who actually think this is a good idea.

Would the Sistine Chapel be more beautiful if all of the paintings were replaced with HD photography of real life recreations?

Except, you know, it requires 5 times the rendering power for CGI.

...

Hollywood bryr seg om penger ikke om kvalitet

Example

OP is a retard, discuss

kek

Then don't use CGI, fuckface. Practical effects are a thing, you know.

>comparing variations in fundamentally different elementary qualia between composite multifield performing and uniform visual art
Why is it that the more retarded and incompetent a person is, the more likely they are to supply their opinion with a shitty "analogy" that only further reveals their ignorance in other spheres?

I like you

kay you retard
>"Sound in movies?
as a human you can hear sound waves-thats not in discussion
>"Color in movies? The human eye can see only a few colors
thats true visible light is wavelengths from 390 to 700 nm. movies are made with whis wavelenght(after monochrome)
>the human brain can't make sense of more than 24 fps anyway

yes exactlty, its human biology(eye to brain)
only digital technics allows greater(faked) FPS
in games and shit

so learn your own body and science brainlet

weak bait tbqhwyf

double THIS

Human eye can't see above 24 fps. Enjoy your placebo

It's closer to 28.

>5 times the rendering power
The human labor is the expensive part, and that is unchanged. You can interpolate CG models before rendering with zero visible artifacts. See bbb3d.renderfarming.net/ for an example (although only medium frame rate, and this one did require some human labor because unlike 120, 60 isn't an integer multiple of 24).

Maybe for porn.

is might be more, howeever you dont recognize anything above 24fps
e.g the cocacola experiment(might be cola ad anyhow)

Maybe you dont in the flyover states

True maximum perceivable framerate is about 10000fps depending on how fast you can move your eyes, although you get diminishing returns from increases, and in practice 240fps is good enough.

look and

>he's never heard of the phantom array effect

>fps will compensate for the stolid, predictable plots, appalling pacing, insulting and hateful protagonists and cringe-worthy "comedy."

it will also mean another excuse to raise yet again the ticket prices to get "record-breaking" movies again

>120fps
>8K resolution
dynamic range still in the 80s

indeed i had,
but the experiement was about measuring saccade length to the the time whey your eye can react, by moving yor fucking head around like a madman, try it at home user look at the lamp and move your head from left to right really fast, do you see line or point

but user its internal eye reception and not actually comrehending Information(movislike) so not an argument

>do you see line or point
Line or multiple points, and it depends on whether it's PWMed or not. And to represent this difference in video you need ultra-high frame rates.

so what yes you can create super high Hz but your brain cannot really decide what do to with it cause of 24 fps

here another experiment
eg. take a pencil or smth, hold it at one end and move it really fast from left to right. You can see the objekt all the time but your eye cant interpete whats going on with it in the movement

thats why movies above 24FPS might be created with technonogy of bazzilion hertz but it is slowed down for humans(or not in case of fucking stupid looking hobbit uj)

At 24FPS (or even 240FPS if the PWM frequency is fast enough) it's impossible to distinguish between a PWMed light and a DC light. Therefore 24FPS cannot accurately represent reality.

No it´s not. 24 FPS is the speed required for the eye to perceive still images as fluent motion. While the eye can perceive motion at less it looks choppy and not fluent enough.

You could say that 24 is enough but not the limit.

That said 48 already feels fucking weird on cinema because it makes the image feel more digital. I remember watching the Hobbit at 48... you could see the rolling shutter and the total absesnse of motion blur. It was disgusting.

I would say this guy gets it

Since cape shit is totally dependant on digital effects and uses unreal digital cameras more akin to animation than to cinematography one could see that kind of flicks benefiting from it... the rest of the movies are alright without it and will only move to that if it´s cheaper, which it isn´t since more frames at 8k or avobe implyies heavier render times and more time, more money.

yes you are right, of course 24fps in not reality
thats the problem of singnal transformation from analog do digital,
also nobody have said that movies are to represent reality, they are indeed moving pictures

I fucking hope so.

Directors that want fast moving action nowadays just have to make sure motion blur is covering all of their choreography, as the 24 FPS cameras literally cannot pick up anything that's going on when you move the camera while doing fast movements in front of it.

youtube.com/watch?v=gQGjD3b3FVo

Anyone who unironically says that scene is better in 24 FPS needs to get their eyes checked

>No it´s not.
okay i was to fast witht statement, maybe you can see more than 24 but not actually realize it
>While the eye can perceive at less
>I remember watching the Hobbit at 48

exactly Hobbit was filmed in 48fps or36 i dont remember, but human brain cannot comprehend more than 24, so me too felling the wrongness of hobbit, withióut being able to aim on whats wrong

starting from 0:44 you can see how fucking unrealistic every character moves,they are like itching, after that it is sometimes to fast or to slow, CGI water is not moving on the same speed as CGI charachers

that's fucking disgusting. 60 fps is not the reason, but it's disgusting. terrible shutterspeed results in overly sharp images, and generally the CGI on all that water and dirt is just not good enough to carry the scene and make you give a shit about what the characters are doing. it completely takes me out of it that 75% of the screen is muddy noise moving implausibly. also, ironically it looks like slow motion at times, when everyone always complains that higher framerates look "faster".

yup, they just did a terrible job with the CGI and probably the mocap acting as well (assuming the characters are mocapped and not entirely hand-animated).

>human eye can't see more than 24 fps
>but if you show it more than 24 fps then that creates a problem

the absolute state of brainlets and trolls.

You don't need that extra time of vfx rendering per extra frame.

but yes action films or with lots of camera movement should be at HFR (48fps or 60fps), I can't deal with the stutter mess, I remember watching The Revenant and looking for interpolation solutions for the first time.

Videogames feel better because you are using an input device so your experience is defined by how the image reacts to your input, that's why 90fps is a must on VR because you need the low latency.

You can cope with 24fps on tv/film because you're not in control.

i am not to here convince anyone to use brains
and learn smth about techs an biology
also this thread feels more like job now which is not fun
ill go sleep for 5 hours till my fucking job

games run 60 fps maximum, 120 is just a big number showing what the machine is capable of

t. never played a multiplayer shooter on PC in his life

I can't believe you retards still believe an arbitrary limit set by people decades ago because they couldn't go beyond that. Never seen an entertainment medium as held back as movies are.
Everyone is so fucking scared to push the limit and even if they do (like the hobbit), higher framerate movies will never improve because of people instantly writing them off since it's not what they are used to.
It's the future of cinema that will never be, at least for a long while because of familiarity.

>hodor
fuck off back to r|&ddit and stick your high FPS in your fucking ass

If you shoot at 24fps, you shoot 1 24th of a second (well not really because of shutter speed but that doesn't matter for this).
1 24th of a second is a period of time, things move during that time. The result is a very subtle blur.

Video games are different, one frame of a video game, regardless of fps, is not a period of time. It's a perfectly still snapshot of objects frozen in space.
It is computationally easier to add more frames than it is to perfectly calculate how much each object moved and to add the correct amount of blur that would be created in 1 24th of a second. "Motion blur" in video games is a cheap filter, it isn't accurate at all. That's why most people hate it.

Movies look unrealistic at higher frame rates because the lack of blur lets you see things more accurately. The makeup, the sets, the cgi, they all look like shit.

There's no need for it, but if there was, people would get used to the new frame rate and would dislike watching old movies. Imagine if you could only see taxi driver at VHS resolution. That's the effect that would be produced.

But if you really want high frame rate, wait for VR to take off. You'll get VR movie-type experiences some day.

>The makeup, the sets, the cgi, they all look like shit.
>Stuff made that way for 24fps movies will suck if it's added to 48fps movies.
No shit. Really?

That's why you tweak them to better fit 48fps but how will we ever improve on those things if we never test them? Nah it's better to just circlejerk over higher framerate being worse by current standards when we have never even given it a chance.

Now see and shut the fuck up.

60+fps looks weird for scenes where people are just doing stuff, while 24 fps looks like total garbage for action scenes, so the future of cinema would probably be switching between framerates for different types of scenes, although I don't think the current video encoding standards are ready for this.

Rendering costs nothing compared to the average budget of a movie

Variable framerate is worse than low framerate. Every change is hugely distracting. The solution is standardizing on 120fps and improving sets/props/costumes etc. to compensate. Either go 100% CG or go for real stunts on real locations.

Why should a movie be more realistic, are brainlets really this incapable of suspension of disbelief without HFR?

Watching a 24 fps movie already feels like you're switching between framerates. One minute everything moves naturally, the next minute some monster is fighting another monster while the camera is circling them and buildings behind them just "jump" hundreds of meters from frame to frame. This makes some scenes so fucked up you can barely comprehend what's happening on the screen.
Actually switching between framerates would seem natural, because you wouldn't switch mid-scene, and each scene would be displayed at its "best" framerate. I admit htat I'm just hypothesizing here though, someone would actually have to make a video like this for us to be able to judge whether it would be viable.

Because I want to see what's happening during pans and action scenes.

>Actually switching between framerates would seem natural
It doesn't. Lots of animation is mixed framerate and you always see the changes.

Or shoot on film and ignore gamers who want 240hz monitors because higher framerates mean a quicker response time.

Your eyes will get tired watching 120 fps movies. The motion blur at 24fps doesn't strain your eyes.

Any one complaining about framerate in regards to action is watching shitty camera work. Jackie Chan looks great at 24fps

>Your eyes will get tired watching 120 fps movies. The motion blur at 24fps doesn't strain your eyes.
Exactly the opposite is true.

>Jackie Chan looks great at 24fps
He'd look better at 120fps.

>MUUUGH ACTION