Why aren't more movies in 60fps when its the superior format
Why aren't more movies in 60fps when its the superior format
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
distribution.bbb3d.renderfarming.net
twitter.com
too many frames, too much data
film reel would be too long, digital taking too much memory
Do it yourself
svp-team dot com
CGI in 60fps would cost over 9000 gazillions of dollaroos. Over twice the frames and much detail needed
Too much memory Lmao
BECAUSE NO ONE FUCKING CARES
...
...
DUDE I HATE CHANGE LMAO
DUDE WE NEED TO KEEP THE SAME FRAMERATE AS SHIT FROM THE FUCKING 1900S
DUDE CHANGE IS ALWAYS GOOD
DUDE JUST DO THE NEW THINGS DON'T THINK ABOUT LONG TERM EFFECTS OR EXTERNALITIES
WHAT ARE YOU SOME TYPE OF LUDDITE?
Why can't numales accept change
BECAUSE 60FPS IS FOR PLEBS
I WITNESSED 120FPS FROM A SPECIAL PROJECTOR SHIPPED IN ESPECIALLY FOR JUST 1 MOVIE AND IT WAS FUCKING AMAZING
LIKE GLASSESLESS 3D, RAZOR SHARP MOTION, REALER THAN REAL LIFE
=]
sports are broadcast in 60fps though
It isn't
Not for fiction
It's good for games because inputs
>Not for fiction
Prove it.
The human eye processes information at 30fps, it's a complete fucking waste.
>M-muh hobbit
Congrats, you paid for extra frames you can't even see.
>format
xd
this is blatantly false
Because it looks awful, like a cheap 80s soap opera
How many movies do you see in 60?
sports dont look like cheap 80s soap opera
60fps looks like ass every time and all good directors know this. Are you going to keep autistically making the same thread every day?
Lmao
No they look like sports
ya so 60fps films will look like 60fps films not soap operas
Prove it
anything fake (e.g. CG, bad acting) gets amplified a shit ton in 60fps.
i'd be really curious to see a jane austen drama shot in 60fps with subdued acting by good actors and no quick pans or shaky camera.
In 60fps costumes look like costumes, sets look like sets, makeup looks like makeup, camera movements look like camera movements etc
more realistic =/= better
because film makers aren't idiots and don't want their films to look like soap operas?
This batman scene looks pretty good in 60fps
Looks like documentary footage. Ross Kemp in Gotham.
whats with this maymay of posting interpolated clips as if its 60fps?
Can anyone explain why that is. A friend of mine has a 60fps TV and everything just looks so off and especially cheap. Movements are unnaturally fast and clunky. It ruins the emersion
And that's why they avoid anything higher than 24fps
The TV might be interpolating 24/25/30fps material into 60fps in realtime, which looks even faker than 60fps, which already looks fake
It's to do with our brains recognising 24fps material as fiction, and therefore being more forgiving of little imperfections in the source etc. The more realistic something looks without it not actually being real, the more our brain picks out faults and views it as unreal, similar to the uncanny valley effect.
It COULD be "we're used to 24, if we just got used to 60 it would be better" but honestly who wants to go through the uncomfortable period of acclimatising to 60 while having everything look like shit for years before we do, and costing millions more dollars etc etc
It's just gamers who like high fps becausr that's what they're used to in their games and they think 24 looks stuttery, but everyone else is used to 24 and thinks it's fine
Reminder that 60fps is merely an additional tool filmmakers can use. Filmmakers inexperienced with using 60fps will most likely not use that tool properly. Instead they end up using old techniques that get exposed when there's more frames to make the action less blurry. That is one of many differences that need to be accounted for when switching to filming with 60fps.
The lensflare tool is analogous to 60fps, in that many people don't know how to use it properly.
Yeah, my brother bought new TV as well and everything seems like 60fps.
This. Interpolation kills real 60fps street cred. I mean look at this mess.
>interpolated 60fps TV
That's fucking horrible.
>everyone else is used to 24 and thinks it's fine
no 24fps is actually dogshit universally. Compare some shit ass 20fps n64 racing game vs f-zero x
The human eye can't see above 11 fps anyway
Can it be shut down?
I used t o love this troll, it was so easy to do on Sup Forums. I haven't been there in years though. Is it still as effective?
Video game frames and film frames are different
Games aren't movies, don't pretend they are
Games need higher fps because they need to feel responsive with regards to the player's inputs
Movies aren't interactive, thank god, and 30 is just fine for cinema and television
With games consistent fps is more important than sheer max fps
It's just a setting you can turn off. But the average pleb doesn't even take a look at their TVs settings.
Was Hobbit interpolated too? Because the effect is the same, too real looking.
the movies would take twice as long to edit obviously since they all run at 24fps and some like the Hobbit trying 30
then you don't notice insane judder and shit on panning shots in movies?
Google the model name and number manual. Use "filetype:pdf" at the end of the search string to get the actual manual. Like say,
toshiba 40rv525r filetype:pdf
HOBBIT SEQUENCES WERE LITERALLY SHOT WITH FUCKING GOPROS SHIT WAS HILARIOUS JACKSON STOPPED GIVING ANY AND ALL FUCKS
hobbit trying 48fps*
Panning shots look worse in high frame rates because hfr reminds you what you're watching isn't real
Just go in you settings menu, it'll be called something like "auto motion plus" "smooth mothion" "motion enhancement" etc depending on your manufacturer.
Rather panning shots look shit than the entire movie looking fake
>watching isn't real
>looking fake
only because you're conditioned to think so
>only because you're conditioned to think so
Yes, and you're conditioned to think otherwise. Your point is...?
looks like shit
Because it's not real 60 fps.
>Your point is...?
60fps is superior
There has not been a single Hollywood movie released in 60fps. Everything is interpolated. The Hobbit was shot in 48fps and only the theater version is 48fps. Any disc version will be interpolated up to 48fps due to the way it was distributed.
Avatar sequels and the Animal Farm remake will be shot in 60-fps and Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk was shot in 120fps and shown in only a tiny amount of theaters in 120fps.
Professional filmmakers spent years determining what looked most realistic to humans and realised it was 24fps. What reason is there to change other than to put more money in the pockets of television manufacturers?
It isn't. See: this thread
For me 60fps kinda looks odd. It doesn't look natural to my eyes. Sort of like time lapse, as if the characters would move faster than natural. 60fps also has this cheap video look, while 24fps looks more like cinema, I think.
>Professional filmmakers spent years determining what looked most realistic to humans and realised it was 24fps.
no I'm pretty sure 24fps was decided upon for financial reasons.
>It COULD be "we're used to 24, if we just got used to 60 it would be better" but honestly who wants to go through the uncomfortable period of acclimatising to 60 while having everything look like shit for years before we do, and costing millions more dollars etc etc
And imagine how shitty film would be as a medium if everything produced before 2020 (or whenever we'd get used to it) suddenly started seeming as strange to us as 60fps does.
If I believed we could get used to it, I intentionally wouldn't allow myself to for that reason alone.
I have a 144hz monitor I use for gaming, and I still think 24fps is BY FAR the best format for movies/tv
It's a contradiction, anything higher makes it look too hyper-realistic, and therefor fake. The more clearly you see things the faker they look, it's unnatural.
The ONLY movies that look better in 60fps is porn. I've noticed shooting POV makes 60 fps look more natural
THATS NOT HOW IT HAPPENED
THEY FOUND 24FPS WAS THE MINIMUM VISUALLY ACCEPTABLE RATE THEY COULD USE TO NOT BURN THROUGH EXPENSIVE FILM STOCK AND STILL ENCODE SYNCED SOUND
THEN IT JUST BECAME THE DEFACTO STANDARD
/thread
Oh fucking hell I wasn't even thinking about looking back at old footage.
Yeah, fuck 60fps, fuck it hard
>The ONLY movies that look better in 60fps is porn
wrong, 3d animation looks better at 60
Human eye can't eat ass past 25 fps.
and this is actually provable because big buck bunny looks way better in 60
3D is a gimmick and doesn't qualify for a say in this, 2d is the true cinematic format.
Things make look neat in 3D as a novelty, but it's never going to be the standard, it's a stand alone thing
If you want to see what 60fps looks like and your webbrowser, codec, and device can handle 60fps, go to youtube and google up some 60fps nature stuff. Keep in mind that youtube uses "variable framerate" in order to save on bandwidth shekles. Also keep in mind that some selections on the resolution menu may not be listed because your browser, codecs, and/or device doesn't support them. Like 4k60fps for instance.
>3D is a gimmick and doesn't qualify for a say in this
the fuck? So all those pixar films are just gimmicks?
1: Many soap operas were filmed in 60fps and look like shit since they are not trying to be cinmatic.
2: There's no Hollywood films released in 60fps so no one knows what that would look like at all.
3: All the youtube videos of people using 1080p60fps cameras and uploading those look far better than soap opera camera work of the same 60fps.
4: Porn in 60fps looks great. Ha!
5: Interpolated 60fps isn't actually "real" 60fps. It is low fps boosted to 60fps with all the missing frames filled in using a script and calculations. It is like the fps version of upscaling 480p to 1080p.
Conclusion: 60fps is better than the industry standard. It just needs to be in the right hands. People who dislike 60fps normally haven't seen real 60fps.
>fyi, all these avatar webms are interpolated 60fps
trips dont lie
He's talking about 3D computer animation as opposed to old school drawn animation. "Not 3D movies".
3D as in the kind of 3D that you need 3D goggles/glasses to see.
3D as in DDD
>I can't prove it but 60fps is better because I say so
can't tell if it's just the movie or the framerate that makes it even more apparent that they're in front of a green screen
Your conclusion has nothing to to with the points you are bringing up.
The movie didn't age very well.
It could only work on a few directors. For instance. 60 fps would be lovely for Alfonso Cuarón. It would be terrible for anything Marvel. Defeats the purpose of having 60 fps if they cut the scene every second.
>t. brainlet
wow that actually looks like crysis
Jesus Christ, nigger.
You’re the only one not saying anything.
Even I have arguments for hfr.
Looks like a video game, like every other example of 60fps I've seen.
the infrastructure isn't there and movie theater chains can't be bothered to spend money on upgrading
also, even if the infrstructure was there you still have to get people to come see it which is getting harder and harder to do. billy lynn's halftime walk was shot in 60fps and no one fucking watched it. people only watch meme movies in theaters now.
You can't prove something looks better with arguments, only examples, and you've yet to provide any examples and claimed all the examples posted so far aren't real examples when people say they look like shit.
no shit, it's animated. It's not supposed to look real
more time to edit -> more money that has to be paid -> won't happen
Just watch Inland Empire ans Public Enemies and tell me they look good.
I’ll wait.
To be fair, most special effects don't translate well from the theater screen copy to VHS or digital copies. The contrast and extra post processing can make the special effects look severely out of place. I noticed that a lot back in the days when I actually went to the theater to see a movie then watched it at home on VHS/DVD/Bluray rentals. VHS was the worst since they didn't have as much correction of that aspect in post processing.
Aged kinda bad for a movie but that could be a scene from a new videogame and still look good
nah I like the crysis look