60fps

why are Sup Forumsedditors pushing this meme so hard?
It looks like shit

Other urls found in this thread:

files.futureleap.com/TheSpiritTrailer2HD60FPS.mp4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

because it's objectively better

more frames =/= objectively better

movies yes, vidya no.

Hope Cameron really doesn't plan on pushing the avatar sequels to be 60 fps

Please tell me about the abundance of high budget 60 fps films that you and everyone else are basing their opinions on.

no, it makes evrithing look like a brazil soap opera

>movies yes, vidya no.

No, poor lighting does that.

Also 48/60fps is much less forgiving then 23.976/24fps is. You can't get away with cheap costumes or bad special effects anymore.

Would be nice to see a car chase for once that isn't 90% motion blur.

The video game industry doesn't care about 60 fps so why do people keep associating it with it?

60fps in video games is always better looking

VR

even 60 seems too low

It's a gimmick and doesn't add anything to the quality of a movie. I mean it's alright for a novelty movie like Transformers or Lord of the Rings since the visuals are what sells the movie but there's no point of having 60fps in a drama for example.

iif Sup Forums says its shit its probably good, so im saying its brilliant

but what if Sup Forums also say it's good? I think you're seeing the posts you want to see to support your opinion.

it's a tool, not a gimmick. You use it to tell the story you need to tell.

With 60fps you're more aware of every movement of the frame and every subtle change. That clarity can help drama greatly.

60 fps looks god awful, 144 is where it is at

This is the limitation of low fps. If 60fps were adopted, it would look better in no time. People say "soap opera", etc, are not realizing 24fps techniques would need to be adapted for higher shooting rate. But innovation won't happen in the industry if capeshit-hungry luddites are happy with nothing more than stagnation and repetition ad nauseam.

Can you help me by providing an example? Being aware of every movements doesn't make anything more dramatic. If you want dramatic, slow it down. Learn visual language.

Yes, more frames are objectively better. A high resolution is objectively better. A higher bitrate is objectively better. Higher quality audio is objectively better.

Because that's what you associate it with.

Capeshit enthusiasts are the ones who are pro 60 fps for everything actually.

>what is shooting on digital

I don't know about aesthetics: the post

motion blur looks fucking shit, there is literally no excuse

The issue is you can't get away with bad make up, bad lighting and other things with 60 fps because it looks much more life like and realistic

It looks good in my animes. I want to watch Tron legacy in 60fps.

>I feel like the blur every time something moves on the screen looks "aesthetic"

The Hobbit's Goblin King sequence was dramatically helped by 48fps. I was aware of every single figure moving through that cluttered cgi cave, I knew where they were going even during the overhead master shots, I was more aware of their size.

It's just better for anything that involves you tracking what's going on onscreen.

>Learn visual language.
thx person who wants a blurry mess every time the camera moves.

> I watch my indie movies at 144p, 48khz audio at ultra-cinematic 12 fps : the post

Video games require user input so more frames is always smoother and therefore better to play

I don't know about films but porn certainly looks better in 60fps

motion blur =/= slow motion, even so, having more frame would probably make the slow mo look better.

realistic =/= good

Also nice job avoiding my question.

What would be the point of having 60 fps for a movie like Dogville for example?

Stop watching Brazilian soap operas then.

>this false flagging
Why would people who have no care for the medium advocate 60fps?

you get to see it in 60fps which would make it more like a theatrical play you're seeing in real time -- the intended effect.

lmao I haven't even mentionned motion blur even once

Relevant.

Here in better quality: files.futureleap.com/TheSpiritTrailer2HD60FPS.mp4

looks great imho, you can see every details

that's emulated. you can't webm any real 60fps movies because -- surprise! -- they haven't made any.

there are like 2 that are 48fps and they're not available on bluray afaik.

Billy Lynn is the first to be 120fps but again there's no plan to release that version on bluray.

Some of the most vocal proponents for HFR in the industry are Peter Jackson, James Cameron, Ang Lee and Douglas Trumbull.
Only Ang Lee has made a capeshit film.

awful

That one is from a trailer that was released in actual 60fps. Looks good to me imho.

I can't see shit.

>tfw Noland can't do HFR because it will set his film cameras on fire

it was filmed in 30 so it has to be emulated. you can tell as there are motion blur artefacts -- the same ones you get if you have a smart tv with 120mhz smoothing.

half of those frames don't exist so a computer stitches them together algorithmically.

Those are directors that rely heavily on special effects to sell their movies though. Aka visual candy movies. Capeshit movies are into that category. It really doesn't help the case.

Ang Lee's film that was shot in 120fps is a drama.

You know what, I'm reading about it right now and I think this could work since it's a war movie and he'll probably want to make us feel how a young soldier feel during these times. It could have worked as an imax movie also. He probably wants to make it feel like a simulation at parts. I think the 60fps has its purpose in that movie. Though, my point still stands. I don't think it's gonna add much during the dialogues. It's only gonna be cool during the war scenes. He's probably gonna add some gimmicky shot a la IMAX where stuff get's really close to the camera and shit.

better not get your hopes up. the reviews have been terrible pretty much all because of the frame rate.

Maybe you should watch it before including another "gonna" in your review.

The framerate for the animations is separate from the speed of the game, the animations never run at 60

Sorry english is not my first language and sometimes I have trouble expressing my ideas properly. Nice relevant comment btw

I wasn't attacking your language skills so much as your idea of reviewing a movie based on its synopsis.

I bet they think digital is better too.

Even if 60fps isn't bringing any special advantages to slower dramatic movies it isn't hurting them either. I don't see any real argument against it besides the fact you think it looks weird because you're not used to it. For that matter why did we need color or HD? It's about improving picture quality and overall experience for all films not that it was necessary to tell certain kinds of stories with.

Color film is haraam if it does not serve any function.

This is wrong and depends on the game. Animations can be tied to game framerate as it was in most games PS2 and earlier which is why they had to maintain 60FPS and why everything slows down overall when FPS is unstable instead of skipping frames and looking choppy like modern games. Modern games can have the animation at a higher framrate than the game's framerate and often run at 60 bar some nip games

It wouldnt be "better". sub 40FPS is good because it doesnt look realistic. If you look at low framerate footage your mind knows its not real because of it. 48+ FPS is too realistic and unsettling.

That has not so much to do with the FPS but rather the bitrate of this webm and the type of video it is.
Shooting foliage with digital is notoriously bad.

Provided the production value is first rate, it would be easier for dramas to transition to 60fps.
The hardest parts are action sequences and special effects. Both of these rely a lot on kinematic imperfections that aren't detected by the viewer. It's less true in 60fps. All the usual gimmicks used for decades by directors wouldn't work anymore. Even some cameras angles would be harder to do in 60fps.

Porn looks amazing with 60 fps. That's why it's being pushed so hard.