Defend 24 frames per second beyond an 'Im used to it' argument

Defend 24 frames per second beyond an 'Im used to it' argument

Is being "used to it" not a valid argument?

its weak af

That's basically it, people are used to their movies to look certain way and will resist change no matter what.

Sure, I'll grant it's definitely not substantiated by anything other than "feels".


Watching those shitcan Hobbit movies in 48 was just nauseating. Reducing motion blur for a more clear image is nice and all, but when 90% of the frame is CG anyways it just looks and feels incredibly off putting IMO.

>Watching those shitcan Hobbit movies in 48 was just nauseating
they were in 24FPS too, blame the shitty camera work

24 FPS is a thing because a century ago a bunch of jews sat together and said "oy vey, how do we make these newfangled kinoscope pictures at the lowest cost possible?" while rubbing hands.

tradition bias could be considered a fallacy, so yeah.

I bet you typed this post using a qwerty keyboard

speech to text
now what faggot?

>he doesn't use dvorak

It certainly could. But most people don't justify their tastes in strictly logical terms. People like what they like regardless of whether or not they can logically back up why they do or don't.

Have you watched a film past 30 frames? it looks like shit

>it looks like shit
Basically another way to say "I am not used to it".

And yet in in Videogames 60FPS is considered the standard, and anything below 30FPS is shit.

>b-but videogames are an entirely different thing

We are talking about visuals here, moving pictures.

If you can watch the Hobbit films in 48 frames and honestly say "Yeah. I want more of that!", you have a mental disability.

>in Videogames 60FPS is considered the standard, and anything below 30FPS is shit.
That's only the case for fps spergs. 30fps games are fine. Feel free to look up games commonly cited as "the best" and see how many run at 30.

>The human eye only sees at 25 fps
Actually thats bullshit but the way the brain processes movement is more analogous to 25 than 60. The ULTRASMOOTHNESS of 60fps looks unnatural to the human brain, if not the human eye.

I'll take "What is motion blur" for 600 Alex.

Well I believe that the first held cinema jews roundtable made an effective rational decision to make the 24 fps the standard and I'll take their word for it.

Also every other film fps gimmick which emerged since then was a massive fail.

>30fps games are fine.
Sonygger detected, enjoy your CINEMATIC SILK SMOOTH 30 FPS.

mute point, it could be said the same about that movie in any other framerate

>Feel free to look up games commonly cited as "the best" and see how many run at 30.

That's because technical limitations on older hardware, there was no enough horsepower under the plastic to push more FPS without sacrificing visual fidelity and eyecandy, much like 24 FPS was implemented in the dawn of cinema because of the problems of working with film. Those limitations are not an excuse anymore, both in games and movies.

I used dvorak for a year and list the ability to tell "b" from "d".
I mean I could still tell, but I had to think about it. It really fucked me up.

If you said "Yeah. I want more of that!" after watching the 24 FPS version of The Hobbit, you too would have a mental disability.

it's cheaper and moviegoers have low standards so why would studios waste money

>The USAF, in testing their pilots for visual response time, proved the ability to percieve 1 image within 1/220 of a second.
>Myelinated nerves can fire between 300 to 1000 times per second in the human body and transmit information at 200 miles per hour.

>I bet you typed this post using a qwerty keyboard

Switching from Qwerty to any of the alternatives requires active effort due muscle memory. Switching off 24 FPS to 48FPS requires no effort, you just switch and watch.

Mario 64, OoT, BotW.

>Thinks fps in a videogame is the same as fps in film

wtf I love 200fps movies now!?!?

Mario 64, Metroid Prime, Ocarina of Time, Wind Waker, you can emulate all those on PC at 60FPS and they look and play much MUCH better

again, youre using cognitive bias and basically saying that no, "being used to it" or "liking it" is not a valid argument

I'm saying that expecting people to justify their tastes in purely logical terms is misguided at best.

we're talking filming and screening technology here, not your favorite ice-cream flavor

I think that movies look better at 24 fps but your post is retarded
(and for pc games, it's 60 or more)
and that's only the first 8, even minecraft, which is believed to have selled more than any other game and was acclaimed by everybody when it first came out, is expected to run at 60 fps minimum

Nerve firing does not equate to full visual recognition of an image. Yes you can tell what it is you're looking at and maybe even describe it in vague terms but you can't absorb it fully and soak it all in.

Give it a about 20 years and the 24fps meme will die.

We will eventually get much higher fps but right now it's probably hella expensive to higher the fps due to cgi.

I've watched real analog ShowScan, and it looked great. But 60fps is still inadequate for fast motion. We should standardize at 120fps minimum.

Friendly reminder, that if your TV does any sort of interpolation to pretend like what you are watching has a higher frame rate than what the source is running at you should kill yourself.

Creating messy blurry intermediate frames to fill the gaps is disgusting and does nothing but degrade the quality of whatever it is you are watching.

Real motion blur is generated by the eye/brain. It reacts to eye movement. Objects don't magically turn semi-transparent when they move. The only way to get realistic motion blur from movies is ultra-high framerate (even 120fps is distinguishable from reality by the appearance of the motion blur, you need 1000fps or more for it to be perfect).

120 FPS 3D

THE MOST AMAZING SHIT I'VE EVER SEEN IN A THEATER, REALER THAN REAL LIFE

ONLY 2 THEATERS IN THE COUNTRY GOT THE SPECIAL PROJECTOR TO SHOW IT

The human eye can't see past 12 fps anyways.

if you have any data on 'full visual recognition of an image' on the human brain that supports 24FPS on film feel free to share them

Ok I'll bite. The following are some technical reasons for choosing 24 fps over higher framerates: Lower cost, lower bandwidth usage / use of storage space, etc., covers up imperfections in set design and CGI to make the film appear more real than it is.

But you should not dismiss all "i'm used to it" arguments. 24 fps has been the ndustry standard framerate for about a century, just about every great film was made using 24fps, and as a result it has shaped the way people collectively believe films "should" look.

Saying "defend 24 fps beyond an 'I'm used to it" argument" is tantamount to saying "defend oil on canvas beyond an "I'm used to it" argument." Yes, acrylics may have certain advantages over oils, but the fact that people are "used to it" carries an intangible weight with respect to the way people look at a painting which ought not to be ignored.

So, while 60 fps might be superior to 24 fps in a variety of ways and the use of higher framerates should be encouraged, the fact that people are "used" to 24 fps means that it will likely stick around in some capacity for eternity. It's simply aesthetically accepted as the way films look.

>The ULTRASMOOTHNESS of 60fps looks unnatural
You're right that it looks unnatural, but that's because it's LESS smooth than real life, not because it's ultrasmooth. And it's still a shitload more natural looking than 24fps garbage. Real life has effectively infinite FPS. You need >1000fps to look truly realistic. But in practice 120fps is good enough (see )

It requires adjustment on the viewers part.
Watching a movie for me atleast is a lot more intricate than turning on a movie and keeping my eyes open.
60FPS makes it so I can only think about how it's 60FPS because it's so different from convention.

Ok I'll bite. The following are some technical reasons for choosing DVD over UHD BluRay: Lower cost, lower bandwidth usage / use of storage space, etc., covers up imperfections in set design and CGI to make the film appear more real than it is.

But you should not dismiss all "i'm used to it" arguments. DVD has been the ndustry standard framerate for about a decade, just about every great film was made to DVD, and as a result it has shaped the way people collectively believe films "should" look.

Saying "defend DVD beyond an 'I'm used to it" argument" is tantamount to saying "defend oil on canvas beyond an "I'm used to it" argument." Yes, acrylics may have certain advantages over oils, but the fact that people are "used to it" carries an intangible weight with respect to the way people look at a painting which ought not to be ignored.

So, while UHD Bluray might be superior to DVD in a variety of ways and the use of higher quality data storage formats should be encouraged, the fact that people are "used" to DVDs means that it will likely stick around in some capacity for eternity. It's simply aesthetically accepted as the way films look.

24fps is not somehowess natural than 30, ir 60, or 120. All of it is still just a digital simulation of what was in front of the camera. my brain already knows what I'm seeing on the screen is artificial digital projection of something else. I'm not looking out a window. It's also why cinema lenses look good, because our brains accept the artifice of the situation and the artist warping of natural perspective. Because that's what art is, the ability to represent reality in whatever way you feel evokes the emotions you want to evoke.

Demanding that fps are as close to human perception is as illogical as demanding all camera lenses and perspectives duplicate the human eyes perspective and angle of view. No long lens shots, not wide angles, everything has to be filmed in a medium angle and you can only zoom by moving the camera. Because that's how the human eye works, cameras and displays have to match that viewing angle.

It's a silly argument. Art doesn't have to duplicate life. It shouldn't really, and expecting it to limits the possibilities.

Essentially you are arguing if the stories in books are more believable and lifelike if they have bigger or smaller print. Either way, you are not there in reality. You can never be, if you are watching a film. You are watching an artistic representative of something else.

You are proving his point. Red box rentals are still mostly DVDs because alot of people are still ok with how DVDs look and they don't really expect it too look any better. Using DVDs as you counter argument confirms 24 is likely to stay around for a long time.

This analogy is incorrect, though, because DVD and BluRay are ways in which 24fps films are delivered and viewed, not ways in which the films themselves are made.

Furthering my painting analogy, 24fps is to 60fps as oil paints are to acrylic paints, and DVD is to UHD BluRay as viewing a Van Gogh on Google Images is to seeing it in real life.

>Essentially you are arguing if the stories in books are more believable and lifelike if they have bigger or smaller print
so it doesnt matter whether you watch a movie in 240p or 4K... woah...

>Art doesn't have to duplicate life. It shouldn't really, and expecting it to limits the possibilities.

I hope you realize how incredibly contentious that statement actually is.

>I'm not looking out a window.
120FPS IS LIKE LOOKING OUT A WINDOW

A GIANT WINDOW WITH THE CRISPEST RAZOR SHARP MOTION YOU'VE EVER SEEN IN YOUR LIFE

ITS SURREAL AND TAKES SOME GETTING USED TO, BUT YOU DO GET USED TO IT, THE POV IRAQ SHOOTOUT IN BILLY LYNN COULD INDUCE PTSD

>This analogy is incorrect
no its not, its perfectly usable
But anyway, take the 240p vs 4K example then

>It's also why cinema lenses look good
But they don't. I see all kinds of distortion/aberration/shallow focus etc. all the time. We need to go 100% CG so we're free from the limitations of real world cameras. (and ideally direct brain interface to overcome the limitations of the human eye - take psychedelics for a preview of this.)

>everything has to be filmed in a medium angle and you can only zoom by moving the camera
This would be an improvement. It's not done because photographers are lazy. But better still would be everything filmed with a wide angle, because human eye FOV is too low and we can easily get used to high FOV, as all competitive FPS players know.

In terms of having a feeling of it being life like and more or less real yes it doesn't matter because all of them are inferior to the infinate fps power if your brain when you look at something in real life. Pixel densisity, even increased by a power of 10 does nit come close to the massive amount of data you can perceive in real life and in person. 240p 4k, 24fps, 240fps is infinitely less dense than the brains ability to absorb, saturate, and synthesize information from you senses. A movie is just a pale experience no matter how technologically advanced. Thus demanding higher fps becauseit is more life like is silly.

Depends on what you are watching it on

Like I said, the analogy is not usable because you've made the leap from the way a film is made (i.e. whether it's made at 24 or 60 or 120 fps) to the way the finished product is distributed.

You can't just refute my argument by saying "no".

Something like 8K 1000fps would max out the human visual system for all but the most contrived test signals.

Your brain, and your eyes capture, saturate, and synthesize vastly more information than can be done by any camera, with the most dense pixel sensor, even at 120fps. You are selling your brain short.

>you've made the leap from
learn what an analogy is, and then answer to this, mr strawman
>But anyway, take the 240p vs 4K example then

The point is about imagine quality, and DVD/Bluray/UHD is just a convenient reference point for low/medium/high image quality.

For motion quality we have 24fps/The Hobbit/Billy Lynn as equivalent.

The point is about image quality, and DVD/Bluray/UHD is just a convenient reference point for low/medium/high image quality.

For motion quality we have 24fps/The Hobbit/Billy Lynn as equivalent.

like, people would have a fucking seizure? lol you cant be serious

It's a question of human biology.

Everything over 30fps feels real, everything under 30fps feels surreal and dreamlike AKA not real. Porn, nature documentaries, sports, reality TV shows etc. are "real" so they benefit from higher frame rates. Cinema is fiction, it's a dream, and it benefits from lower frame rates. That's also why higher resolution and sharper images makes watching porn/sports/nature documentaries better but is really jarring when it comes to cinema.

It would max out the human visual system in its ability to focus and absorb artificially captured and transmitted information from a rectangle yes, probably, but that is still vastly less information that the human brain can perceive when looking at a real life scene in person. Even that highly advanced projection of 1000fps and 8k resolution would still only be a simulation of the actually limitless quantities of possible information that was uncapturable even by that advanced camera. It is still artifice and simulation, no closer to reality in the the scale of actual transmitted information that 24fps and 1080pixels when compared to the scale of your actual visual capabilities in real life.

No, the human eye is shit. Even if you have test pilot quality vision, your brain is heavily bottlenecked by the eye. Take some LSD and look how much better the image quality is compared to real life.

Are you retarded? You'd have a seizure every time you opened your eyes if realistic video gave you a seizure.

PERSISTENCE OF VISION

SURE, THERE'S MORE TO GO, LIKE NEURAL INTERFACE

BUT 120FPS IS THE UPPER LIMIT OF CURRENT TECHNOLOGY, AND ITS SHOCKINGLY GOOD

SO AHEAD OF CURRENT TECHNOLOGY THAT THEY HAD TO SHIP SPECIAL PROJECTORS TO THE THEATERS

ITS LIKE WATCHING A MOVIE FROM THE FUTURE

Assuming good color gamut and dynamic range, you'd only lose the true 3D aspect ("3D" movies are not 3D, they are only stereographic, you need holograms for true 3D). But humans can be strapped in place like in Clockwork Orange, so it could be lost in real life too.

moot point, Rez is way better at 60FPS or higher framerates

more cinematic
,':°)

And yet it is no more real than any other artificial visual representation or simulation. It's still just a pale representation no mater how sharp or fast the images it is not more real than a finger painting of a frog can show you a real frog. You may have 100k more times the information in your 120fps documentary shot of a frog but it is just as artificial and simulated. Both are art. Not reality. Saying more or less real when neither are real in anyway is silly. You are not looking at a frog with your own eyes you are looking at an artificial representation either way. How detailed, how fast is purely a matter of artistic taste, not more scientific reality. Your images can never be reality.

>AHEAD OF CURRENT TECHNOLOGY THAT THEY HAD TO SHIP SPECIAL PROJECTORS TO THE THEATERS
projectors have been upgraded and replaced since the birth of cinema, same with almost any other piece of equipment used for screening, filming and storaging movies.

>Your images can never be reality.
Why should I care if it's real or not when I have the exact same signals traveling up my optic nerve? There's no technical reason why we can't perfectly replicate real life in video (assuming the viewer is strapped down like in A Clockwork Orange, realistic true 3D is currently impossible). It's just a matter of money now.

>Your images can never be reality.
they DEPICT reality
the higher the quality of the image, the more credible will be said depiction

PERSISTENCE OF VISION
PERSISTENCE OF VISION
PERSISTENCE OF VISION
PERSISTENCE OF VISION
PERSISTENCE OF VISION
PERSISTENCE OF VISION

That's not a defense, that's an explanation for how Hollywood was able to get away with it.

Czech here, so I use Qwertz

Well you are talking about something entirely different. If you strap someone down and shoot a dense signal into the optic nerve that creates in the subjects mind an scene that duplicates reality as close as possible, you will still have artifacts and signal quality noise to deal with. Likely the human mind would be able to detect the false reality of the situation just like that uneasy feeling in a dream that makes you feel out of place. You are talking about an Inception style of movies that i would be perfectly ok with. Dealing with the signal to noise ratios and artifact transition would be difficult. But all of that is not part of the discussion we are having witch is about looking at artificial images projected onto a 2 dimensional rectangle and how they can be more or less real. I am arguing that they are never real no matter how complex and detailed. But an inception style movie experience would be as close to real as possible as it would utilize a greater portion of your brains ability than looking at a rectangle with your eyeballs.

b-b-b-but it's what I'm used to!!!

change is scary!!!!!!11

plesae, refer to OP's image.
see if you can discern which framerate persists your vision better

WHAT ARE YOU ARGUING, FOR 24 FPS MOVIES FOREVER?

OR ABOUT THE PHILOSPHICAL NATURE OF REALITY
OUR EYES ARE PRIMITIVE AND MISS GIANT CHUNKS OF THE EM SPECTRUM, THE HUMAN EYE IS NOT THE END ALL OF PERCEPTION

AND?
THEY TOOK THE PROJECTORS BACK BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE IS STILL RATEPLEBS CHURNING OUT 24FPS

NOBODY ELSE IS MAKING 120FPS MOVIES, IT WAS A TECHDEMO BASICALLY, AND IT WAS AWESOME

>you will still have artifacts and signal quality noise to deal with
It's swamped by the artifacts and noise added by the eye if you do it right (which nobody has done yet, but I'm sure it could be done with current technology + trillion dollar budget). Human eye is a very low quality sensor.

And yet the most credible of depictions is easily distinguished by the brain as being artificial. As long as you are still staring at a rectangle your brain will be we to detect the artifice. 24fps or 240fps, your brain can still tell that it is just a depiction. You can have an oil painting of the Eifel tower, or a photograph of the same and both are easily distinguishable from reality. The photo may have more useful data. The painting may have more emotional impact ir meaning to the same viewer. But are equally artificial depictions and nor more or less real.

would you fucking disable the capslock already?! ffs

>As long as you are still staring at a rectangle
Windows are rectangles. A good enough video is indistinguishable from a window. But yes, full dome is much better, and this should be the next goal after we fix motion quality.

but one of them is a more accurate depiction of reality
youre talking about painting, do you even know what realism is? do you know about artificiality? Because reading your comment feels like you have no clue at all.

If you read My original post I am arguing that 24fps is just as valid as 60, or any other density. Because movies are art and not somehow scientific and accurate records of reality. Not anymore than the Three Musketeers is an accurate and scientific representation of renaissance France. Higher frame rates may give the impression of more realistic depiction but it is still not realistic when compared to the objective experience of really experiencing the same events. The D-Day vets who started shaking when they watched Saving Private Ryan in the theaters were having that reaction because the reality they went through was millions of times at least more fearful and traumatizing and the information they encoded visually was much more dense and their nightmares more real than anything Spielberg can film. It's also why we didn't leave the theater shell shocked l, because all we did was stare at a pale rectangle that can only very slightly create the impression of reality. Even at 120fps, you are not seeing reality or experiencing it.

Why do games get bumped to 60fps when they're remastered?

144 fps movies when? Even 60 looks like shit.

That was shit because mistakes were made. A high framerate could have salvaged some of that shot, but it'd still look like ass.

Just because it is more accurate does not make it more real. Realism is a quality of artificiality. Something that is artificial (in our case an image) can be more or less realistic. But even the most realistic image is still an artificial representation of something real and thus only a work of art, not reality or nature or whatever source of non human made objects is.

Paintings also have more or less realism but they are all still artificial depictions. They are not somehow less valuable than motion images today just because we have cameras and movies. To the contrary they have thier own artistic and economic value.

>Higher frame rates may give the impression of more realistic depiction
Exactly, and that's why they should be used. If you cant understand (or dont want to) that most filmakers inherently embrace realism youre delusional.

>Just because it is more accurate does not make it more real
it makes it more realiSTIC.
Also, im getting fed up of your way of differentiating what's real and what is not. A film is real, a screen is real, the light projected is real, and thus a movie is real.

>Realism is a quality of artificiality
no its not, check it again, please, if you're talking about the terms realism and artificiality present on my previous post, they are painting terms so that went way above your head.

>paintings have artistic value etc
yeah but youre digressing

At this point we are talking past each other. I am not saying that 120fps isn't less realistic. I'm saying its not less artificial and not more artistically valid than 24fps. I don't see much point in this argument. You say film maker strive for realism yet they still all overwhelmingly choose 24fps. I don't have any horse in this. I don't make films, and I don't dislike the stuff I have seen filmed at a higher speed. I also dont think 70mm is somehow more valid than 35mm or 16mm films. I have loved them all. I will like and love many films shot at 24, and 60, and 1million neurons cyber interface or whatever else they dream up. But it will not be any more real or any less artificial than whatever technology anyone wants to use. Nothing compares to the experience of seeing something in reality with your own eyes. That is my benchmark for what is real. Light bouncing off on abject and into my brain. I love all these topics and subjects and processes and movies are just the latest culmination of all our art and science. It will go on and improve and regress and change in ways we cant predict. I'm ok will all this. We don't have to fight about reality and artificiality. I will just go watch a great movie. But damnit if that movie doesn't make me want to go out and live life and experience something for myself. That's all I was trying to differentiate and express. Cave paintings to 3d hobbit porn, none of it stands up to reality or worse the imagination.

This. Stop bringing The Hobbit into it, you fucking cunts. It's irrelevant.

That is the speed your eyes capture information at, so it's meant to trick your mind into thinking it's real.

More frames would make movies look like vidya

Obviously wrong. If eyes only captured at 24fps then some higher frame rates (eg. 60fps, but not 120fps) would look less smooth than 24fps because the frame rates aren't synchronized, but actually even 60fps looks more smooth. 24fps is purely a cost cutting measure.

>You say film maker strive for realism yet they still all overwhelmingly choose 24fps
its the industry standard, if they could they'd choose 1000fps but they cannot choose what's not available.
Nowadays a film maker can choose to film on 16mm (like clerks), 35mm, 70mm, etc (although nowadays digital projection is the go-to) but nearly everyone sticks to the industry standard, just because its the most efficient and cost-effective. Gee I wonder why nobody uses 8mm film!
Dont you think most film makers would use 65mm IMAX or better picture quality if there werent any money constrains? now, ask yourself why, why would a film maker want to use higher quality picture formats for their movies. The obvious answer would be 'well, it looks better, duh'. But not even C.Nolan can make the theatres all over the world to upgrade their projectors to 120fps.
The reason why we are still stuck at 24fps is money. Plain and simple.
Hopefully with digital projectors it is inevitable that the tech cost will go down and the picture and framerate quality will only go up.