Why aren't you embracing 60fps film, it's clearly the superior format

Why aren't you embracing 60fps film, it's clearly the superior format

Other urls found in this thread:

nationalreview.com/article/442298/billy-lynns-long-halftime-walk-technical-and-dramatic-triumph
youtube.com/watch?v=40sMS27Ql_w
youtube.com/watch?v=kgGJJbajXrc
youtu.be/glBEm1Wr8u0?t=5m7s
thenextweb.com/gadgets/2015/08/14/samsungs-record-breaking-hard-drive-fits-16-terabytes-into-a-2-5-inch-ssd/
youtube.com/watch?v=x091jfFFe9g
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>60fps

this kills the capeshit

Name 5 good movies done in 60fps

>not watching 240fps kino

You bring shame upon your nation.

human eye, etc, etc

You don't have a proper monitor anyway

i can tell the difference between 60, 120, and 240 fps easily

do you have autism?

That's irrelevant

Does porn count?

How the fuck is it irrelevant, you idiot?

Ubisoft said 60 fps is not cinematic so why would I want to watch that?

Because is not a superior format for movies.

60fps porn looks unnatural

t. virgin

Kino

Your eyes can only see 30 fps buddy

bait

Stop your fucking 60fps shilling. 60fps is only medium frame rate, and if people switch to it they might never standardize on genuine high frame rate. Please promote 120fps or more.

Was this Rogue One? I honestly don't remember this happening.

I tought it was impossible to make RO more shitty... then I saw this webm

>makes shooting in low light more complicated
>uses 2.5 times as much storage (digital) or film
>not required for a clear image unless there's a lot of movement
>when using high speed cameras for slow motion, have to shoot at 2.5x the framerate to get what you want, further compounding light/storage issues
I get why they're reluctant to adopt it. Still, I'm sick of 24 fps, you can't even pan slowly and have a clear image, it's pathetic. Maybe someone could make 48 stick as a new standard, Peter Jackson tried but the Hobbit movies sucked. It'd have the unfortunate side effect of enabling/encouraging more Snyder-style camera acrobatics which are fucking dumb but oh well

>it's clearly the superior format
For plebs.

stick to videogames, soyboy

Cause I don't care

What fps is real life? If I shake my head real fast it all goes blurry as shit

Making movies look more like videogames (see: capeshit) is precisely what I want to avoid friend. But I would like to be able to perceive the scenery of a wide/establishing shot as something more than an amorphous blur if the camera happens to pan to the left or right, which 24fps doesn't permit

1/Planck_time fps, so about 1.85 * 10^43 fps. But in practice you only need about 10000fps to make it impossible to detect any motion defects under any circumstances.

I would prefer 60 fps if it was made by a director I trusted.

Most films aesthetics and/or effects wouldn't hold up if they were shot the same way but in 60fps, filmmakers don't have the skill and technology to do good 60fps yet.

>interpolation

Having a clear image is not the point of cinema

BUT ANYTHING HIGHER THAN 24FPS GIVES ME HEADACHES!

AFAIK no feature film has ever been shot in 60fps. Which is a good thing, because 60fps is insufficient for good motion quality. But 120fps has been done, and according to Sup Forums's favorite critic, done well:
nationalreview.com/article/442298/billy-lynns-long-halftime-walk-technical-and-dramatic-triumph

Fix your brains, friendo.

Billy Flynns Long Halftime Walk

How do you survive real life?

>interpolation

60 fps is what we call a high "Temporal Resolution" format. Temporal Resolution is different from "Spatial Resolution". Temporal resolution measures the quantity of information within a period of time (the number of Frames in a second for instance) and Spatial resolution mesures the quantity of information within a Space (the number of pixels inside a frame).

Our visual system (eyes + Brain) can perceive the diference btween a medium temporal resolution format (24fps) and a high temporal resolution format (above 48fps). Since we can perceive this difference, 60fps looks more similar to what our visual system perceives than 24 fps, that's why it's more real.

But the thing is, movies are not supposed to look real. They are supposed be a stylized representation of life (at least that's what 99% of filmmakers want it to be). Nothing in a movie is 100% realistic, the characters, the story, the colours, the sound, etc. And shooting and exhibiting it at 24fps helps to achieve this stylized efect, since it's a less "clinical" image, because it helps to create a sort of psychological distance to the viewer from the images. A "reality filter" as I like to call it. And that distance effect, actually helps the viewer to immerse much more on the film, since he feels that he is watching something "bigger than life" and not something that looks like life.

Also, there is the hypothesis that as 24fps is less information for the brain to process, watching content at 24fps will put your brain in a more relaxed state, similar to hypnosis.

RAPID BLINKING

this is why i always play my vidya at 24 fps

I saw the hobbit in 48 fps, the CGI looked horrible but the slower scenes and the camera panning felt better than usual when your eyes adjusted.

My monitor is 60hz so I'll have to go to the theater for true HFR.

>60 fps is what we call a high "Temporal Resolution" format
Only retards or shills call it that. It's only medium resolution. High temporal resolution starts at 120fps.

>that distance effect, actually helps the viewer to immerse much more on the film
You have been scammed by the film industry. Low frame rate is purely a cost cutting measure. It has zero artistic benefits.

>i always play my vidya at 24 fps

>being able to see the scenery the filmmakers went to the effort of scouting a filming location for and composing the shot to best exploit the aesthetic/thematic potential of is not worthwhile
the possibility of having a clearer image under certain circumstances is literally just adding artistic potential to the medium. Where did I say it was the be-all end-all of cinema? I even acknowledged that it would spur a lot of Snyder-style fancy camera movement trash. i don't watch that shit anyway so who cares?

DUDE JUST TURN YOUR EYES OFF! 24 FPS IS PERFECTLY FINE!!!

overly stylized movies is the worst problem in contemporary filmmaking imo, Nolan and Villenuve being the worst offenders.

I think it's pretty stupid to assume that 24fps is the optimal viewing experience when it's just an arbitrary number that arose from technical limitations and habit.

>there is the hypothesis that as 24fps is less information for the brain to process, watching content at 24fps will put your brain in a more relaxed state, similar to hypnosis.

So that's why my eyes get red and my heartrate increases whenever I look out my window!

The most low-motion movie I've seen is Tokyo Story. It's almost entirely static camera shots of people talking. But even Tokyo Story contains enough motion that it would benefit from 120fps+. If you hate motion so much, you should be in Sup Forums not Sup Forums.

>if you hate motion so much
Where are you getting this? I literally just don't like when a nice shot is compromised by blurriness as a result of 24fps, and I'm sure the people who set up that nice shot don't like it either. I don't have a boner for movies looking like real life or still pictures or anything, 24fps totally works for me aside from those specific circumstances when it detracts from the aesthetic value of the film and my personal enjoyment. On that basis I'm looking forward to higher framerates being viable in mainstream filmmaking.

fucking hell I'm saying literally all the time this morning. shoot me

>Snyder-style fancy camera movement trash
It's funny how people shit on Snyder's works, but praise Citizen Kane, which is an entire film of camera tricks. It would be completely forgotten if it wasn't for the photography.

>shoot me
Literally?

It feels like I'm watching everything at 2x speed
youtube.com/watch?v=40sMS27Ql_w

Because its 48, not 60. Looks unnatural as fuck.

60fps looks worse
youtube.com/watch?v=kgGJJbajXrc

I haven't even seen anything other than Man of Steel, I'm going off of that and the webms that get posted here a lot, where it's obviously just a software camera flying around in what amounts to a videogame world. For what it's worth I also don't like flashy long takes (e.g. early PTA, Inarritu) that just draw attention to the technique of the filmmakers and add nothing to the narrative. It's an artistic philosophy thing. And Citizen Kane had innovative camera movements but that's hardly all of what's made it so influential.

heh. no, not this time.

>interpolation

>It has zero artistic benefits

t. not artist

Yes, you are more alert when not watching a film.

...

>Yes, you are more alert when not watching a film.
I am more alert while watching a film on average, because I pay attention to what's happening. It's tiring enough that I rarely watch more than one a day.

Christ that really happened in the movie? What the fuck were they thinking? I'm glad I stopped watching that shit long ago.

Looks incredible.

MAKE
A HUGE
FUCKING
HIGH CAPACITY BLURAY

OR STOP REPOSTING THIS SHIT

60FPS x STANDARD BITRATE = HUGE FUCKING SIZE

dumb nignogs, especially if its 4K, you'll need like 4 blurays to play one fucking movie if its at current bluray capacity

4K is mostly pointless without HFR. Even 1080p is dubious.

>60fps porn
Thanks for reminding me of this wonderful thing, user.

>all dis interpolated shit

Why do you make this thread every week, OP?

hes an autistic faggot that has nothing better to do than make terrible threads on Sup Forums

>4k, H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, 392kbps, 60fps
>played on 60Hz native 1080i smartphone

The future looks really great.

He is a type of a guy who likes to feel a big warm load up his ass.

I wonder if he's a film industry shill who's aware that 24fps isn't sustainable, but who hopes to hold off genuine HFR with this inferior measure. 60fps is still cheaper than 120fps or 240fps.

>1080i
Interlacing needs to die too.

LACES OUT!

We should just stop all this Jew shit and skip to 960fps with 960Hz and 32k res, for film, video games, and displays.

>960fps with 960Hz
Would be very nice.

>32k res
Pointless even with full dome FOV. 16k is sufficient.

>not injecting RNA retroviruses of your kino directly into your cerebellum
the absolute state of this board

All I know is that 4K 60fps porn is a real game changer, bros

As anybody who's taken psychedelics knows, the human visual system is bottlenecked by the eyes. Direct brain stimulation is the future of cinema.

Always go beyond what is needed, because there's just some shit you really need to pause and ZOOOM in on.

What do you think we are already doing right now?

Space Engineers

he must be consolefag feeded with Sony/M$ propaganda spread by hambeasts like himself

No, it is all part of the same bot catalog. There's many topics that are loaded up that are simply put on repeat now. Everything from cunny to cuckshit to Sup Forumsshit. It is all the same group.

lol

>interpolated
My fucking eyes.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

is this what glaucoma feels like?

It is actually better than the last time it was posted. Still eye bleach is needed.

Hurts less than watching it in 24fps

It's fine, I didn't need eyes anyway.

>interpolated webms and videos
EVERY FUCKING TIME
STOP
YOU'RE MAKING 60 FPS LOOK BAD
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Do you understand how large movies would become if they were 60fps?
According to this video, every scanned frame is 50 mb in data
50x60=3000mb, thats one second
3000x60=180 000mb, thats one minute
180 000x90=16 200 000mb, thats your average film and then we arent even including the audio and bonus material.
Filming 60fps with actual film would also be tremendously expensive, you'd need about three times the film for one film. There is a good reason that movies are filmed in 24fps.
Now ofc they probably compress the information in the end, but the raw files used for masters will take up almost 3 times more data per film.
youtu.be/glBEm1Wr8u0?t=5m7s

this wasn't filmed in 60fps you stupid nigger. it literally is sped up

ow fuck

ITT

>people who don't realise shutter speed is the key factor here

>it literally is sped up
You dont know how video works do you?

Oh no, poor Hollywood, they'd go broke! Oh wait...no they fucking wouldn't. Those people are made of money, they could do anything they wanted. There are sovereign nations that generate less geetus than Hollywood.

Get chink moot to allow VP9 so we can post webms that look better, be smaller in file size, all the while being 60fps. This is unacceptable as it is now.

>180 000x90=16 200 000mb
>muh storage space concerns!

This isn't the 1990s, gramps.

>2015
>16TB SSD
thenextweb.com/gadgets/2015/08/14/samsungs-record-breaking-hard-drive-fits-16-terabytes-into-a-2-5-inch-ssd/

daily reminder that this Natalie Portman upskirt would be crystal clear in 60fps

Support 60FPS, if only for better fap material

>Those people are made of money, they could do anything they wanted
Maybe for the people making the films. But this has an effect on other markets and areas too, three times larger filmes, three times larger filmrolles.
Now mind you, filmrolls are already quite large, now they would need three times that.The projectors in cinemas might not be able to handle those kinds of projection speeds etc. And if the cinemas cant play the films that the industri's pushing, well then you have a problem. You cant ask all the cinemas to change all of their projectors all over the world just because the industri wants to change to framerate, Peter Jackson already tried this and it failed.
But then there is the problem of physical media, blurays can hold alot of data, but some movies are already spread across two discs (Gone with the wind, ben hur, lotr extended), now imagine three times the size, that would be 6 discs and 2 by standard.
Just changing one thing has quite the butterfly effect.
.

You realise that they dont film the exact 90 minutes and thats it?
They have tons of b-roll footage, alternative takes, unused scenes etc. You have to take all of that into account as well.

No one gives a shit. You are like some dino ranting about how 720p is a gimmick to expensive to film or something. I actually remember people ranting about that shit and how it wasn't needed.

Check out this Billy Lynn 60 fps clip:

youtube.com/watch?v=x091jfFFe9g

This version is available on the 4K Blu-Ray (and on The Pirate Bay)

>319MB for the 4K60fps download
>1m43s long

Damn, I'd make it into a full 4k webm but Sup Forums doesn't allow VP9 or 4k webms. Is that the movie that was filmed in 120fps and shown in 120fps in select theaters? I read it was, "realler than real life".