Iight real talk

iight real talk

is 60 fps important for film and tv?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=J2zItoDHK5M
youtube.com/watch?v=uzJERMiLiQM
youtube.com/watch?v=nJn1LjLaNVQ
youtube.com/watch?v=8HNwA11-U2E
youtube.com/watch?v=6z7mf6KVj7Q
twitter.com/AnonBabble

No, 60 fps look awful in film. Makes everything look like a 'behind the scenes' shot

reminder that there has NEVER been a proper 60 fps film so anybody saying

>le soap opera meme interpolation

shit are fucking retarded because they don't actually know how it would look

60 fps looks great for film u fag

It's a huge improvement over 24fps but not enough to represent fast motion. We need at least 120fps for good motion quality in action scenes.

Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk is 120fps, although good luck actually seeing it in 120fps. But I have seen some 60fps Showscan shorts.

It looks cheap as shit.

>My brain associates 60fps with something else therefore it is bad
anti-60fpsfags everyone.

>We need at least 120fps for good motion quality in action scenes.

higher framerates make action scenes better

if you don't have high framerate then they have to remove motion blur from high action scenes which makes it look even more shit

and if you don't remove the motion blur it looks like blurry shit

People like you are to blame for all movie fight scenes being unrealistic shit. Thanks for ruining movies.

>higher framerates make action scenes better
>if you don't have high framerate then they have to remove motion blur from high action scenes which makes it look even more shit

>live action should look like anime

>action scenes in movies look like anime

Wat. No one is removing motion blur from the movies. How would one even do that? Are you actually retarded?

literally this
I can't wait till 60fps becomes the standard

The options are:
Low frame rate, wide shutter angle: It's a blurry mess
Low frame rate, narrow shutter angle, bright lighting: It looks like anime
High frame rate (120fps+), wide shutter angle: It looks like reality
High frame rate, narrow shutter angle: It looks like a video game

60 fps sucks shit. I want my fast paced scenes to look like a smudge.

if course, it's an objective improvement.

there were people who opposed to color film because they didn't like change.

>60
i saw the hobbit in 48 and although it wasn't a good film i enjoyed that it was smooth, 24 can look very bad in fast pace or simply when the camera pans over details. going back to see a 24 movie was strange but now i'm used to that again. seems like 120 is going to be the next hfr standard though, going past 60.

No. People who think it is need to fuck off back to Sup Forums and their digital foundry manchild numbers games. Film is an art form you retards, nothing is an "objective improvement" over something else. People tried it and everyone agreed it looked like fucking shit so people stopped trying it.

Your eyes can only see 30 fps retard

60fps porn looks fine you niggers

>videogames used it first therefore people who want 60fps films play videogames
Why are anti-60fpsfags arguments so retarded, bros?

this

when will Ang Lee learn?

youtube.com/watch?v=J2zItoDHK5M

it doesnt look god

will 60fps movies be the pleb filter of the next decade?

They are immature manchildren who fetishize trivial technical aspects of filmmaking because they lack the taste to judge film on creative merits

There's nothing trivial about it. Motion is the most important part of filmmaking, and frame rate directly limits what motion you can show. If you don't care about motion then you should be drawing graphic novels instead.

I want Sup Forums to leave

Well the Hobbit was shot at 48fps. That video's at 60fps. So either the footage was sped up, or it was interpolated
Either way, still not the best measure

It also looked quite good anyway save a couple of the more cgi-heavy scenes

>60fps is creative

This

I want idiots who attempt to stagnate technical development out of misguided fear of change to leave
But what can you?

they are Sup Forums posters that carried over their marketing meme of 60 fps into expectations for movies

#TRIGGERED

it no more of a technical development than changing aspect ratio, it's just a standard. films are not video games, fps do not matter

>technical development
>60fps
it's been around for decades you underage Sup Forums faggot

>is 60 fps important for film and tv?
for pornkino it is

>I don't like change. Everything needs to look the same as when I was a child. I probably still am a child.
>I want my action scenes to look like a shit stain across my tv until such an age comes in which my own time is so lost to history that it is immemorial
>I don't strive for technical improvement, or any improvement for that matter. Technical mastery is nothing to strive for.

It looks like a soap opera and makes costumes look fake. Plus i associate it with those hobbit flicks

It hasn't been a viable framerate for films until the last decade due to the required change in lighting/iso

Aspect ratio can easily be altered in post (and normally is_
Changing the framerate in post is generally a bad idea and leads to problems depending on what you're trying to do
FPS does definitely matter, fast pans look like dogshit on 24fps and action scenes are blurry messes

This. Film will NEVER look natural with videogame level fps you stupid manchildren.

Reddit needs to fuck off.

Showscan has been around since the 70s. It looks great, it's just a lot more expensive than low framerate. "Film look" is literally a scam designed to improve film industry profits.

I have noticed action scenes in movies getting increasingly blurrier. I'm not quite sure if it is because the theaters switched to digital projectors or what, but I would be interested to see what they look like at a higher framerate (I didn't get to see the Hobbit in 48fps).

It's because there's constant pressure to outdo the previous movie by making it more "dynamic", which means faster motion and more camera movement, which 24fps can't handle.

>I'm not quite sure if it is because the theaters switched to digital projectors
It's not
A combination of quick cuts, washed out colour-grading and faster movement means that it looks blurrier than otherwise
100% down to the creators though, not the technology

24 fps was just a meme frame rate which was the slowest (and therefore) cheapest where you could have synchronized sound along with the film not being choppy

thats what you get for only watching Disney capeshit, they make those flicks as cheap as possible

The faster movement making it look blurrier is not due to the technical aspect of the films making? Surly a better choice in technology would solve this problem

>I want common, industry-wide standards to be gone and replaced by constant arbitrary improvements as often as possible
>I don't want film to be seen as a medium of artistic expression, rather films should be treated as consumer products, like my iPhone and Playstations.
>I do not possess autonomous thinking necessary to evaluate art myself, I need numbers to explain to me what is good and what is better. If I buy the graphics card with the higher numbers in the tests, I'm getting a better product. Films should be like that too.

>technical development

fuck 60 frames I want 100+

24 fps only looks natural because we've watched filnm and television on it for like 50+ years, but really it's absolute shit

Exactly, and that better choice in technology is high frame rate. 120fps = non-blurry, non-anime looking action scenes.

Yes, 60fps is only medium frame rate not high frame rate.

>2017
>not shooting feature films at 4:4:4 8K 120fps

I meant it had nothing to do with the cameras used, or the projectors
But yes, higher framerates would solve the issue

>for like 50+ years
Jesus Christ how underage are you

>I don't want film to be seen as a medium of artistic expression, rather films should be treated as consumer products
You get the irony in saying that film should be a medium of artistic expression, but everyone must use the same framerate, right?
Fucking idiot
This better be b8

the benefit to a higher frame rate is also higher quality control, no longer can you get away with shitty action scenes and costumes because you are able to pick more up.

I am not imagining what those kung-fu movies would look like in 60 frames plus, I imagine we would have a harder time having the "suspension of disbelief" that they are actually fighting, but when done right it would look incredible

also most sports footage done with gopro is done in 60 FPS because it just looks so much better

I just guessed, the + means I literally can't be wrong

>not shooting feature films at 4:4:4 8K 120fps

With the red helium 8k sensor, there is literally no excuse. What the fuck is Hollywood doing?

That is not real 60fps you dumb fuck.

It was edited.

Show me ONE example of a higher frame rate producing a noticeable increase in quality in film.

Show me ONE example of a low fps action scene looking like "dogshit" because of the low fps.

a trip to fake and gay valley

go watch any car chase scene and pause it at any point where the car is going fast

it will look blurry as shit, you will now argue this is a good effect because it's cinematic or some bullshit

then go watch some skiing or skating footage from a go pro at 60 fps, it looks gorgeous and really captures the motion without being blurry

Hardcore Henry really suffered from the low framerate. POV action inevitably has a lot of camera movement so it just doesn't work at 24fps.

>youtube.com/watch?v=uzJERMiLiQM
(starts 20s in)

filthy

and so many high action scenes in lots of movies have to fucking do this or slow down the action

its fucking ridiculous that retards love low framerate shit

those arent the actual scenes in the movie...right? that low frame rate scene seems post edited by some fan

I agree. It looks altered. That's definitely sub 24fps.

It must be this, something fucked up in his video editor because that is just filthy looking

>when you thought the bvs apologists were just meme'ing with edited webms from civil war to trash it

it's just a shitty rip, it doesnt look that bad in the actual movie. and don't expect quality from Disney when they cant be even bothered to do colour correction, they cheaply mass produce those movies

60 fps is atrocious for just about everything. my brain hurts watching anything in 60fps

This is not 24fps you stupid fuck.

youtube.com/watch?v=nJn1LjLaNVQ

>I love no motion blur action scenes!

it's good for vidya (but generally the more fps the better for the game).
it's atrocious in movies.

youtube.com/watch?v=8HNwA11-U2E
(bad quality but fps is fixed)

Really shameful you have to resort to lies to push your agenda. Also, that scene unironically looks better than the knightmare fight.

>I'm a shitty inferior human being and get motion sick when seeing smooth motion

it looks better
but it still looks like shit

Retard. This looks good to you?

Iron Man 2 wasn't good but that scene has motion blur.

Are you by any chance the same user who above posted this lie? ()

youtube.com/watch?v=6z7mf6KVj7Q

sports look comical in 60 fps as well

holy shit that's bad, they're moving so slowly and it's still so blurry
(and the scene just looks terrible editing-wise)

It's disney, it's, not fps fault, those are the shittiest actions movies made in a long time. watch something with actual good cinematography, like anything from Cameron, Bay, Troy, Matrix and such to see actual good action scenes

Digital filmmaking was a mistake

you're fucking retarded if you can't tell the motion of that has "reduced motion blur" to not have shit like happen

People who watch "action scenes" are vulgarian dumbfucks.

its a shitty rip with low quality. coding issues, not fps

60 fps is true kino. I for one welcome our inevitable cinema future with open arms

>this is an action scene

>a 1080p bluray will remove the blur of motion

stop talking retards

I was talking about the actual quality of the rip you mongoloid. As far as what it is, it looks fine. I don't expect more from any capeshit (although R1 had some great setpieces). Also, fuck off with your company war faggotry.
I don't trust that webm since it's already been confirmed people are posting edited shit on here.

Interlaced frames, are you kidding ?

"They will start the project next year"

"The project will have been started next year by them"

is this correct?

I didn't make the video idiot. Just posting it to debunk the other faggots altered video.

edited and over-compressed shit

Posting an altered video to debunk an altered video. Who is the idiot ?

>I love motion blur!!

>look at this single frame in a series of literally hundreds of thousands
>look at that fucking blur
>who cares that motion blur implies and conveys action
>who cares what it looks like when it's actually playing, look at that fucking single frame
>every frame should be blur-free

>i'm used to this garbage and i want no change because that's how it's always been

>fuck technology!!1 reeeeee