When will 60fps become the standard for film and television...

When will 60fps become the standard for film and television? We live in the digital age the fact we're still using 24 frames per second as standard which only exists due to money concerns is pretty stupid.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=FhSHeYT2U70
youtube.com/watch?v=H9XfQBxMwwE
youtube.com/watch?v=40sMS27Ql_w
youtube.com/watch?v=1Oku4KXWnuI
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Shill that HFR meme to Ang Lee's latest flop.

Yeah as the theaters are closing everywhere I see no reason why the existing ones don't upgrade

Film isn't the same as video games you stupid child.

It's a visual medium that has been limited to 24 frames due to price reasons historical, now in the digital era there is no reason to maintain those restrictions.

>we want the "meme" audience

I don’t want my movies looking like YouTube videos you dumb millennial

damn that chick is fine

60 fps is purely esthetic and adds no value on its own, that's why 60 fps will never become huge

There is a reason, soap opera effect. It's never going away.

Wtf is it you think you said here?

I have seen three editions of that shit
Future 3D > regular digital > shitty 3D

60fps is only good for documentaries

i mean it's about as unnecessary trash as 3D

never, it looks like dogshit

Depends what this new no-glasses 3D requires to run effectively.
Otherwise the soap opera affect destroys the suspension of disbelief of movies. Even real locations looks like artificial sets. Everything has to be naturally lit to kill the problem, and even then the actors can't wear anything but the subtlest makeup.

At best you could call it a new form of theater. But the "movie experience" is killed by that shit.

and sports maybe

sometimes it seems bit distorting though

movies already cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make

doubling the amounts of frames would also double the amount of money needed to make the film and most people can't even see the difference so it would be pretty stupid to spend so much extra money on something most people can't even see the difference like for example it takes a computer like a whole week to do one frame of a disney movie and there are hundreds of people working on the movie and they get salaries and so if they need to make double the amount of frames they have to pay double the amount of salaries, of course I know not all movies are made in computers but most of the really expensive ones are like jurassic world and star wars and animated disney movies and it is just not worth it because most people can't even tell the difference between 24 frames per second and 60 frames per second and most tv's can't even show 60 frames per second I think

agreed

movies look so choppy
it distracts me

and with a bunch of action cuts it looks like garbo. Which is why it's not even worth paying to see flicks anymore

If 60 fps is so bad why do people go to live performance ?

That was an incredibly stupid post and I suggest you delete it to save yourself from further embarrassment.

The movies will die before 60 fps ever becomes a thing. As a VFX guy would you ever want to work on 60 images for one second of runtime? Is that a convienient use of your time? Postproduction on big movies would get twice as expensive with no net gain. It doesnt even pull people into theaters as a gimmick.

3-D became a thing because postconversion cost nothing and was it was easy to trick people into thinking it was a the same quality as Avatar. No shortcut like that with HFR, you have to double the labor in post no matter what

It'll be big in porn and soap operas and anything that doesnt require actual work, outside of that it wont happen

in Canada we call it the "Canadian film look"

real life isn't 60 fps because you don't blink 60 times per second, more like .2fps

??????????????????????????????????????????????
If 60 fps is so bad why do people people have eyes ?

is this a movie?

Live performances don't have close ups

The better question is why do people still insist on using awful digital cameras. Film looks so much better

60 fps doesn't look right with film stupid, it looks shitty as an art form

the real answer is that people who actually unironically watch movies have low standards, otherwise they wouldn't be watching a movie in the first place
why pay for quality when the plebs will eat whatever shit you feed them

I don't know but Billy Lynn did look great. About ten times better than Life of Pi

>As a VFX guy would you ever want to work on 60 images for one second of runtime? Is that a convienient use of your time?
Uhh I'm pretty sure they don't edit movies frame by frame

ok I agree. Those ridiculously awful Hobbit movies in 60FPS actually made people ill.

Yeah my bad I forgot you can just press a button to make a stunt wire disappear you fucking idiot

Those were 48fps

why does a higher frame rate change the look of a clip so dramatically anyway?

that's not how it works buddy

with 24 fps each frame has way more impact than with 60 fps. 60 fps allow for more mistakes and will also your eyes won't be as relaxed because of the faster flickering rate. try watching 60fps tv for a day then 24fps tv for another day, you will notice 60fps is way more tiring to watch.

> and will also your eyes won't be as relaxed
and your eyes won't be as relaxed**

RETARD ALERT

digital is cheaper

unfortunately not in the near future. just look at all the stupid reactions in this thread. the only one who had enough balls to try it was Peter Jackson and the fact that pretty much every other aspect of the Hobbit was pure shit damaged HFR in the public eye. slow pans that are choppy as fuck and fast action scenes where it's physically impossible to see what's going on are here to stay.

cause now you have 36 additional frames per second to realize how shit it is

Can you guys post examples of these fps. Some of us don't know the difference between 60fps, 48fps or digital and film

RETARD ALERT
E
T
A
R
D

A
L
E
R
T

60fps porn is an improvement bigly
keep being luddites

It's about how much time the frame is exposed for, 24 frames allows motion blur so that movement feels fluid. 60 fps or higher is like watching lots of super crisp photos it's great to pause a frame and still have all the detail but the lack of motion blur makes it look a little robotic

whateverthefuck don't fix what ain't broken capice?

>The better question is why do people still insist on using awful digital cameras. Film looks so much better
I believe it is for economic reasons, but I completely agree with you. Film looks warmer and less sterile.

youtube.com/watch?v=FhSHeYT2U70
You're all wrong

Uhh I'm pretty sure (You) are an actual retard.

>your eyes won't be as relaxed because of the faster flickering rate
>60fps is way more tiring to watch
This sounds like a problem for plebs who get car or motion sickness

Because live performance is so tiny to most people they are naturally blurred and flattened

60fps makes me puke
I hope 24fps remains forever

Is 60fps really natural?

Whenever I see 60fps video it looks like it's slightly sped up to me.

How many scenes with stunt wire do you think there are in an average movie? Not that many. And how much do you think those stunt wire removers get paid? Not that much.
>hurrr double da budget of da whole movie

60fps looks too real, takes me out of any movie or television

it may be a result of being used to seeing films and shows at that fps for all your life.

It will never become standard because it looks like crap compared to what we're used to. Case in point:

youtube.com/watch?v=H9XfQBxMwwE

The vast majority of people find that 60fps looks "cheap" and not as dramatic as 24fps. Conditioning is a part of that reaction (we're surrounded from a young age by media running at 24fps) but it's also possible that the lack of frames/information gives our brains more space to imagine in the details, making things feel more real.

There's nothing wrong with digital you idiot. It simply requires more processing in post.

This is a meme answer right? I hear this at work every now and then, when people watch 4k content playing on our displays. How the fuck can it look too real? That doesnt make sense.

This.
60fps movies look jarring

this
wish everyone did it

I hate when they shake their butts at 24fps

>cgi rendered for 24fps looks shit in 60fps
well, no shit. it's just like you can get away with shitty textures if you are aiming for VGA graphics vs 1080p. yet you never saw anybody argue that we should stay at VGA, so the textures don't look like shit. everybody just used better textures.

>Conditioning is a part of that reaction (we're surrounded from a young age by media running at 24fps)

yet if 60fps became the standard people would get used to it then 24fps would look like choppy shit to everyone.
you can say "the lack of frames/information gives our brains more space to imagine in the details, making things feel more real" for 24fps but for me 48/60 always looks better

The clip is more to show the soap opera effect in the scenes that don't have cgi (in the control room, close ups with actors), the shitty cgi effects at 60fps are just a cherry on top.

>we're surrounded from a young age by media running at 24fps

Umm, sweetie, most TVs nowadays have some sort of motion smoothing effect on by default and most people never change it :)

that's because you're a Sup Forums manchild

Yeah the whole thing looked like a cheap car commercial / behind the scenes / some tech expo footage

the only glaring problem with the control room scenes I can see is that the cam is a bit shaky sometimes. everything else that is terrible about it is also terrible at 24fps.

>There's nothing wrong with digital

Cinema is not porn, sports, documentary, reality TV, video games or home video.

This thread gets posted every fucking day and the argument is retarded. "Why are artists still using paints when there are cameras LMAO"

How about you provide an actual rebuttal instead of a meme?
Film captures light different that digital, and in a way that's closer to what we see. Digital comes out looking flat and washed out because it doesn't capture light the same way. But, this can be compensated for through color correction, and then it looks fine.

Went to see Hobit 60 fps. Looked like a game. Uncanny.

Film soap operas in 24 fps.
Film films in 60 fps.

24fps will become the new "soap opera effect".

>But, this can be compensated for through color correction, and then it looks fine

Then why do all movies shot on digital look sub-optimal? Is it a matter of personal preference?

>Movies should be in 60FPS
>Posts 1FPS Image

Really makes you think....

>Umm, sweetie, most TVs nowadays
You can stick your sweetie up your arse.
Motion smoothing is not the same thing as 60fps, and we're talking about the acceptance of 60fps now, not in 18 years time. Everyone on this board grew up with TVs that did not have motion smoothing.

Because you have brain damage. Take the seawall scene from BR2049, for example. It would have been impossible to capture on film.

You are a retard and shouldn't be working there

i hope never.

Unless peoples' response to different frame rates has something to do with human biology and is not particularly culturally conditioned

Clearly nobody is doing the processing which is required to make it not look like YouTube video bullshit.

>the whole industry is there to make money
>OP thinks they should voluntarily lose money by changing tech for no reason

How can you be this retarded in today's world, user?

I only see things when I blink?

what the heck? there's no way it's just the framerate that makes that look cheap as hell. like seriously, is there a version of that clip running at 24 fps so I can compare?

You blink so that the brain has time to process the visual information it has just gathered and that's when you actually "see". You then open your eyes again and your brain takes another snapshot, rinse and repeat.

Soon, I hope. Digital native content will change that, as more people will get used to it.
For instance, on Youtube 60 fps video is increasingly common and it can feel unnatural not to have that option available on a video for no apparent reason, with what seems like people purposely downgrading their video quality.
There's no reason to limit framerate on originally digital content, like games, and all modern cameras and phones can record in 60 fps.
I could see a shift happening due to 'young people' mostly watching videos like that, on youtube and other platforms, and them getting weirded out when they see 'lol 24fps cinematic framerate' because that just doesn't make sense to them anymore.

What's the situation on the online streaming services like Netflix and Amazon and 60 fps content there?

>yet if 60fps became the standard people would get used to it then 24fps would look like choppy shit to everyone.

Fucking moron. A high shutter speed removes all motion blur from the moving picture, making it look fake. That's all there is to it. That's literally the entire and only reason why it looks shit. Remember all the complaints? Too smooth, soap opera effect? It is literally too smooth, it does not replicate the natural deficiencies of the eye in regards to what an object looks like in motion.

you don't have any idea how motion blur is captured, do you

>thinking I'll fall for this bait

Sure.

That was because of the retarded CG sequences like the ogres and the bridge breaking apart and turning into a toboggan/raft making the audience detach from the characters because what's happening on screen is so ridiculous you just don't give a fuck anymore because these 12 guys falling down a mineshaft emerge completely unscathed.

I'm getting sick of all these old fags. I play league of legends at 200fps for 3hrs a day and I never feel sick. Also pub g at 100 fps feels fine.

I feel like games on this one, more is always better.

You should honestly kill yourself. There's less blur in 60 FPS, that's one of it's touted features.

Blinking is actually like taking micro sleeps, or rather sleeping is like taking a giant blink. And what happens when we sleep? Yeah our brain process information and hands it to us in the form of dreams which we can "see" as real as real life.

youtube.com/watch?v=40sMS27Ql_w

So this looks good to you?

but motion blur is cool user.

>It looked like a game because they had perilous adventures

Holy fuck I will never get over the bro logic you can find here.

the cgi-scenes (statue falling down, bats, pan over the battle field, fight against orc, ...) look terrible. the scenes without or only little cgi look good.

It is just the framerate unfortunately:

youtube.com/watch?v=1Oku4KXWnuI