> but it's more immersive to be low FPS

Bull-shit. a) That's subjective as fuck b) Get used to high FPS and then low FPS looks like slide-show garbage c) Ironically, reality is "high FPS" so low FPS can look fake.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=1La4QzGeaaQ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

With 24fps you are in that sweet spot where the blur of motion is at the right amount to make everything "believable", while at 60fps everyone looks like actors acting infront of a camera, no matter how "used to" it you get.

>reality is "high FPS" so low FPS can look fake
I hope this is bait because if not you're an actual retard.

Next time you're hoping to have a discussion, don't start your thread with a straw man. It makes you look like a dumb fuck begging for attention.

The Hobbit looked like everything was fake, even the real stuff. Enjoy those extra frames of CIA subliminal brainwashing, user.

I bet he looks like an even dumber fuck in 60fps.

But high FPS looks like shit user, I don't care about your hypothetical reasonings.

>60FPS VIDEO

ftfy

...

Wouldn't a combination be ideal?

I hate panshots where everything is blurry as fuck and you can't see faces/whatever is going on. So do those panshots in 60fps, rest normal for the moviefeel.

I hate that too but switching back and forth would likely be even more disorienting.

>"believable",
You are a moron. Reality is "high FPS". To me "believable" is to not be a slide-show.

You are a moronic shit. It's a quote that implies it answers to that bullshit. Not only that, you are a double moron, since the very first moron that replied said exactly that (that it's more "immersive" to be low FPS).

Movies are a work of art, not an attempt to capture what's in front of the lense as accurately as possible. It's like comparing a painting to a photograph. Of course the photograph is more accurate, that doesn't mean I wouldn't rather hang up the painting on my wall.

People are only averse to 60fps because they grew up seeing movies in 24fps and that's what they're used to.

60fps can be cinematic if you come into it with an open mind.

youtube.com/watch?v=1La4QzGeaaQ

Of course 60fps is good for nature documentaries and the like, but their aim IS to capture what's in front of the lense as accurately as possible. When you go to a movie you don't want to feel like you're watching actors on a set reading lines.

The frame is a canvas. Films do not exist to represent reality as accurately as possible. Artistic aesthetic is and always will be more important than realism in film
this
also this

24FPS is fine, no need for a change.

This is gonna look so awesome when it buffers

You are all deranged lunatics. You just got used to low FPS because it's relic from an age when film was very expensive to be high rate. If anything reality is high FPS so low FPS looks fake and campy.

Yes, but motion blur masks imperfections. At 60 fps you start noticing pulled punches, shoddy CGI etc. A movie is not reality, and can never be, there's no point in aiming for "silky smooth" framerate when all it does is make the movie look cheap and fake

Movies aren't real

Bullshit. High frame rate looks better and more immersive to me. If it's high FPS I feel the actor is next to me.

That's why it's more immersive to be high FPS.

Just like in your video games

Move your hand in front of your face. Notice the blur?

You don't see frames with vision. It is continuous but you still see motion blur. With high FPS there is no motion blur and it looks hyperreal.

The main people asking for high FPS are video game nerds that want to watch transformers in high FPS.

>Sup Forumsembryos that don't understand why games must be at 60fps thinking "IF WE JUS MAKE DA FRAMERATE BIGGER DEN DA MOVIE IS BETTER"

All them moronic shits that pretend low FPS is better, they should watch movies in 360p since they like it to be "bad and fake". Fucking morons, so hypocrical, they only say that because they are used to shit technology like the lunacy audiophiles have with vinyl.

OP is a teen who probably just played his first video game in 60 fps.

ikr, we should make all movies 3D because real life is 3D

...

>I like videogames so much.
>I bet movies would be better if they were more like videogames.

...

ITT: moronic shits that also believe "vinyl sounds better".

>If anything reality is high FPS so low FPS looks fake and campy.
"Fake and campy" is what they're going for. If a movie looked as accurate as possible it'd look like actors in a studio, since that is what they are filming.

Yeah, vinyl does sound better for some people. Nobody is saying it's more realistic or higher quality

The moronic shits in this thread that talk about "it's for TV" are so deluded that they don't even know TV shows are filmed in 24FPS. They confuse interpolation on a TV with a high FPS movie. They are so ridiculous they don't even get even movies are interpolated to high FPS in those TVs.

Vinyl is a lossless format you utter retard

So actually, the reason why some vinyl sounds better than CDs is that the audio technicians of the 1960s were catering more to audiophiles.

Modern mastering crushes the high end in order to make everything "louder" so everyone can listen to music really loud.

CDs natively have higher dynamic audio range than vinyl but modern masters rarely use all of this latitude.

Anyway, calm down.

Which proves you are deranged lunatic that does not an opinion on this matter. If I play a viola - you moron - it's a traditional instrument. If I play it on a high quality recorded movie - or audio - it won't be less "real" you pathetic shit, it would be less real if the fidelity is shit.

That's not strictly true.

t. audiophile.

Depends on the genre but classical, jazz, acoustic singer songwriters etc. typically aim to record what is heard from the instruments as accurately as possible. That's why it's called a recording. Movies aren't meant as recordings of actors acting.

Modern pop music is so autotuned it doesn't matter if you're listening to it from a gramophone.

ITT: Deranged lunatics that believe if I play a traditional violin on high fidelity recording is "less real" than on a shitty recording from the 60s. You are meme'ed, and get over it.

>Vinyl
>Lossless

Enjoy "feeling" the producer compressing the hell out of your tracks to get it to all fit on your candle disc, caveman.

I hope that extra $14 was worth it!

Shitty recording isn't the fault of vinyl as a format. It's the fault of shitty recording equipment. A modern vinyl record sounds as good as FLAC
I don't but vinyl

Again, nobody is saying vinyl is more realistic or higher quality. There isn't much of a difference in quality if the actual audio was recorded nicely, processed nicely, has a high sample rate and high bit depth. Some people prefer vinyl because it's analogue. I've never heard anyone say that vinyl is more realistic or higher quality.

>A modern vinyl record sounds as good as FLAC

This isn't true. Vinyl doesn't have the range or clarity of FLAC. Most people who like Vinyl like it for imperfections in the medium like the sound of the needle traveling which can actually obstruct any subtle nuance the track has.

People like it because it's nostalgic. Producers like it because they can mark it up and print an MP3 on wax.

>There isn't much of a difference in quality if the actual audio was recorded nicely, processed nicely, has a high sample rate and high bit depth.

So. Things that don't happen ever.

>tfw moronic shit

Yeah you're probably right. I was bullshitting my way through that argument tbqh. OP is still a faggot though

Hey let's make movies VR too thats more immersive right???? Also let's make it so the actors look into the camera and talk to you specifically because that's more immersive too!

Badly recorded music sounds just as bad on any ditribution platform though.

FOUND FOOTAGE IS TEH MOST IMMERSIVE MOVIES EVER!!!!!!!!

60FPS retards are like ISIS.They're(by they I mean 3 people) in a war they cannot win

we should make movies more and more realistic until we reach a 1:1 singularity point and I can't distinguish real life from movies,

Isn't it because it's analogue? Analogue really does sound warmer. Never heard anyone say it's because of the needle. Regardless, most of what I listen to isn't even lossless let alone vinyl. OP made a dumb comparison between 24fps and vinyl. There are legitimate aesthetic reasons to use analogue equipment.

2D retards are like superfags. 3D movies are superior because real life is 3D

Yeah, because everyone goes to movies to be reminded of real life.

>Move your hand in front of your face. Notice the blur?

Was going to say exactly this.

Someone needs to film a shitty horror movie in 60 fps to add to it's campiness

that's why I only play videogames that run at 24fps

Now you're starting to get why I hate high frame rate advocates

t. doesnt understand that games are different from movies

you'll understand one day

I bet lot of retards also defended that film looked better in black and white and color was a mistake

>Analogue really does sound warmer.

Warmer is just an intangible effect from all the tweaks and imperfections of the medium. All those scratches and hums make up the nebulous "warm" of the record.

The truth about "warm" is it's just a fallback fir hipsters when they realize they're arguing a losing position on sound quality when you bring up mediums like FLAC.

Does your mom know that you're on this site?

I miss my 1Gbps fiber connection. 50Mbps shite right now

This. Higher frame rate = more information going to the eyes at a faster rate. Exactly what you would want for a documentary or other styled movie. Not ideal for movies focused on story and exposition.

>that's why I only play videogames that run at 24fps

With video games you get less responsive control input if your screen isn't refreshing fast enough. Action is occurring between the frames that you shouldn't be missing if you want the best possible experience. And yes, some idiot vidya directors have defended poor FPS by claiming that it's more immersive.

too bad peru is full of peruvians

The difference is that in a video game there is player agency and interaction with a virtual environment. The higher the frame rate, then the less lag between the player and whats happening in the game.
None of those things exist in a film, a passive medium. And the things that standard frame-rate hide is what makes the artifice of the medium possible.
In shakespearean days the people who sat right in front of the stage didn't have the best sear in the house, it was where they let the plebs sit. The good seats were far enough away that they couldn't see the costumes were cheap and the swords were wood.

>In shakespearean days

But lots of vinyl records are lossless. And vinyl definitely does sound warmer than CD. One uses a needle and one uses a laser

HIGHER FRAMERATE = BETTER STORY!!

What I'm saying is that in cinema and theater there is a distance between the observer and the subject. Its a fundamental necessity of the format of story telling.

real life has motion blur, 60 FPS movies do not. this is why it looks wrong.

ah yes very shakespearesque observation old chap innit m'lady, would you perchance pardon me while I read Othello from the upper balcony ?

They're not perfectly lossless. It will "pretty much" playback whatever you print. But some music is too complicated to cut, and some music is too long to run on record. And almost all music now is produced digitally and formatted that way. So ultimately for most modern productions you are essentially paying an upmarked as hell price for an archaic CD.

Yes but he's right, you should never use the phrase "in Shakespearean days" in this context. Very interesting information though.

Modern action movies are a fucking mess because of the motion blur. I can't tell what the fuck is going on in any of the Bourne movies unless things slow down to highlight a joint break or something. I don't think there's anything wrong with fast-paced fighting or shaky cam, but it's incompatible with the 24 fps paradigm and the massive amounts of motion blur necessary to make low fragmentary video watchable.

I'm too much of an alt-right MRA to acknowledge and era named after a roastie.

you're just a retard

24fps 720p is all you need.

I remember with The Hobbit the 60fps really improved the 3d for me. I hate 3d because it just has more motion blur to the point where it is almost impossible to follow the action. 60 fps got rid of that.

>I can't tell what the fuck is going on in any of the Bourne movies
That's mainly because they have a heavy overuse of shaky cam, spastic editing and cluttered framing.
Take a well executed film like Fury Road that is non stop action, but it's well framed/blocked/edited/choreographed so you don’t have any problems like that.

Too bad it made everything, even the practical set pieces, look like a literal videogame.

DONT RUN THAT VIDEO AT 8K

the Hobbit was 48 FPS, not 60.

oh shit my bad

I tried it on my decade old notebook and I regreat it

worked just fine, stop being poor

my 6600k got shat on D:

>stop being poor

Why didn't I thought of that before?

>Throw the world's ugliest Instagram bloom filter all over your two and a half hour long films
>Expect anything to look real after that

>tfw we will probably never get a 60fps Malick kino
I honestly think only he and Mann could make it look good. Maybe Malick is not the master of innovation but the nature and style of his work would do it IMO.

60fps make movies look like soap operas or "behind the scenes" shots.

60fps might be ok for fast action scenes but mostly brainlets enjoy those anyway.

Didnt a director try to make a movie in 144 fps and people simply didnt like it?

Also now movies are being remastered in 60fps and they look all weird.

Video game playing manchildren will never understand film

>With high FPS there is no motion blur and it looks hyperreal.

This is false. Its mostly how actors are trained to move at speeds that can be caught easily in 24fps. This looks odd in real life and HFR.

Like the old story about how they needed to tell bruce lee to punch slower because 24 fps couldn't capture his movements.

Wasn't Doug Trumbull working on something like a 120 fps test film?

4790k did fine.

Avatar 2 will be the first blockbuster to use 60FPS and 8k resolution.

as usual James Cameron raising the bar.

so that's why it took 11 years to render.

It'll be funny when video game graphics look better by the time avatar is finished.

But look the blue means the flower is cold and alone :(