This is a Test

Which one looks best?

why is lighting affected by fps?

48 looks more detailed.

it is also the final numbers of my post

im a time traveler

>.gif

>looped gif
vs
>0:02 webm
Brainlet

>implying webms don't loop
>implying gif gives any meaningful comparison at all.

hi OP
i prefer a locked 59.

60fps looks like a typical family video
24fps looks like kino

>implying the webm loop doesn't pause before replaying creating a jarring effect

>2018
>there are peasants not watching things on a 240hz monitor at 242 frames per second

lmao, maybe you poorfags will catch up 50 years from now

Is it really good kinography if you have to hide it in 24 fps?

they're the same
fucking idiots

ami ba

...

embarrassing user

...

Why are you browsing Sup Forums on a gameboy advance, you dumb faggot.

They're all the same fps. Did i pass?

The gif is the same in every frame.

You make random choices.

Wrong

None. All.

Realism is not the goal of cinema. Except when it is.

You've failed. A true auteur would recognize the significance of the whole picture together, the impact of descriptive numbers at the top and the post itself.
The question is not of framerates, it is of what looks the best.

Hyper realism often is. Include only the juicy parts of life. Make sounds more beefy. Colors more vibrant. Lightning more dramatic.
But frames? Needs to be choppy as hell. lol

The question was clearly intended to elicit a subjective, personal opinion. Not some hamfisted attempt at "high brow" critique.

you never see something look this bad in the theatre. there's something going on to do with computer monitors that makes it like this. not flashing the black frames between showing each film frame twice or whatever

eat shit

Triggered. :^)

So this was a replicant test all along?

theyre all going to look the same packaged into the same gif like that numbnuts

they're all the same. fuck you faggot

>24 fps video.webm
it's 60fps though

How is this a test? The camera isn't moving and tracking someone to properly show you that 60 fps does not work in film. It makes everything move too fast.

idk, but the artificial interpolation on recent tvs usually looks weird. Why does it make models and stop motion figures look closer to actual size?

No, it's because this webm was shot in 60fps and then rendered down to 24fps. There isn't any fucking MOTION BLUR.
>going on to do with computer monitors that makes it like this
This is the sort of person who shits on CGI and filming in digital.

Because it makes them move smoother, and your brain thinks they are real objects rather than models

The neat thing about video game framerate is each frame can have any length of exposure time :-)

I like to have more than 60 if there's no blur effect.

I mean it makes models look more like models. It's fun to watch Nightmare Before Xmas that way :-)

>shot in 60fps and then rendered down to 24fps
was robin hood shot in 60fps? I mean you're right that there's no motion blur but I watched Halloween and It Follows on my computer and the slow 360 pans looked absolutely terrible and hurt my eyes like that webm, and those weren't shot in 60 frames

2nd from the left