Why don't they make movies in 60fps?

because boomers shoved 24fps to our throats.

>boomers
lolno. 24fps has been standard since the inception of film. Stay mad though, zoomer.

muh motion blur

People who go on about high framerate are posers who love technology instead of film.

because conservative cinephiles hate change

cheaper/quicker to render cgi at 24/30fps since it's half the amount of work as 48/60fps

life doesn't run at 60 fps

>tfw rewatched Sopranos in 60 fps on my 42" TV

Attached: 1429019541474.jpg (1289x886, 158K)

All devices should convert movies to at least 60fps with no options for turning off because it's the way it's meant to be

Attached: Ramming speed.webm (702x292, 2.62M)

This.

that doesn't mean it was shot at 60 fps
tv series and sitcoms are usually shot at 24 or 30

This is so fucking retarded

This was made by someone who wants to prove that 60fps looks awful, right?

Worst moment of the film and that includes the space octopus

someone post that 60fps avenger .webm that makes it look like a cheap 90's tv show

>Boomer parents have motion plus for their new TV and refuse to turn it off no matter how many times I explain what it is and why it's bad
I would just do it myself but I don't live there so whatever, you'd think they could just see that it doesn't look right, but mention frames or interpolation and they'd look at you like you were some kind of alien

Normies don't have the visual processing power of gamers.

Until the first digital cameras became a thing around 2004 or so, shooting anything on video or film higher than 35 fps produced unacceptable tearing in the image that made the footage all but unwatchable.

Nowadays, 60fps in film just makes it too slick, and they come off looking like video games, which the average filmgoing audience does not care for. That, and the lighting required makes it all look washed out and blinding

Some people prefer motion interpolation for general viewing purposes because it looks better. Yes I admit, the implementations that are usually baked into TV screen softwares are not so great ones, but if you have a beefy PC, I highly recommend getting SVP for the highest quality ez home video interpolation. Think seamless 120fps sopranos and porn at no extra file size. See svp-team.com

This kinda ruined an otherwise good movie for me
>Sensors don't pick up a danger close contact
>Drunken imperial helmsman doesn't try to reverse direction, or counter with his own engines
>Drunk on the other ship doesn't move forward, backwards, ascend, descend, or literally anything besides sitting there
>Implying such a little ship has the force to push a full weight battle cruiser

What the fuck am I watching. No way that's canon.

Wasn't the SD emp'd and dead in the water?

It's from Rogue One, a very silly movie

I remember hearing about how some theater goers got sick during the screening of the first Hobbit movie.

that's the point. 60fps makes films look like a cheap tv show shot on video

I don't remember, but the other destroyer can still be seen firing away, so clearly it has power and should have been able to move out of the way or perhaps open fire on the incoming destroyer and try to reduce it's mass...

Or literally fucking anything, but that might be asking too much since modern sci fi writers have an image in their minds that space battles= dragonball z

99% of the general public don't even notice a difference between regular video and motion smoothed interpolated crap

60 fps is probably pretty good for sport or porn, shit like that but i just want my films to actualy look like film.

Sports is the only thing I can stand to watch in 60fps because it makes it easier to track the ball in football, but it still looks weird, like I'm watching someone play a next generation video game.

until 3d became popular it wouldn't even be possible in theaters. Now imagine which is more marketable, 3d or 60fps? Pseuds don't like either but would prefer 3d and general audiences obviously would also choose 3d.
60fps would be cool for nature documentaries

There are kids these days who will never know why Star Wars was successful.

Sports, nature documentaries and porn

most people on this board have never actually seen the original trilogy as they were first shown but just some remixed special editions with what ever soul they ever had being endlessly polished out.

Oldfags leave now and take your overwhelming national debt with you.

It's funny that your tiny squirrel brain thinks that, because if anything it would be a more cost-intensive production to double or triple the frame rate

Wrong, zoomer. It's called the soap opera effect because 60i video is cheaper than real film cameras which is why soap operas have been using them for decades.

We're not talking about interlaced video here. P or go home

The scene ruined for me what was an otherwise very good movie. Even with that dumb scene, it's still the best of the crop of nu-Wars movies.

I want to see movies shot in 60fps in IMAX format. Why don't we have that by now?

Do you want your ticket to be $100?

I watched it and was neither bothered or enticed by the fps. I was too distracted by how awful the effects were and how campily they gragged everything out into 3 movies

the human eye can't see past 30fps anyway so there's no point

But we can user.

GTFO you Jewish rat

I can't stand the way 60fps looks. The first time I saw it I thought there was something wrong with my eyes.
>but muh 60fps vidyagaems
I don't play videogames

kys zoomer

OP here, it's only sped up 2.5 times, no interpolation at all

>because it looks better
Imagine being this much of a fucking faggot

Attached: 1387088342423.gif (320x240, 2.87M)

It looks the exact same and 1080p60 still looks cheap

Because it calls attention to bad effects.

The problem with all of these is that the CAMERA IS MOVING TOO FAST. Surely its possible to have 60fps but have the camera pan and move not at 50mph?

You can't possibly believe this looks better. This is 10/10 bait material.

Becausse 24fps is literally better for watching

This too

24 to 48 is too low a jump, it will never catch on because people associate it with soap operas.
What needs to happen is a jump from 24 directly to 120 or even 240. Digital cameras can already shoot at these framerates and it will be such a huge shock to the average watcher that has never seen hfr that they won't associate it with soap operas. The main problem is the storage space but that will probably be cleared up in a decade.

at this frame rate the star destroyers look like they're going backwards in those first few seconds

>Zoomer mad because his parents lived better than him

Kill yourself you useless faggot

so what happened to the rebels in the ship anyway

Just another kys, in case the other two didn't sink in.

looks too video gamey

You're a fucking moron, you didn't even pay attention during the fucking movie did you?
The Star Destroyer being pushed was incapable of doing anything because of an ion bombing run by the Y-Wings, it's been set up in previous movies that the Star Destroyers don't do so well at evading things quickly as two of them run into each other while chasing the Falcon. Also, with what engines could the other ship have moved backwards, ascended, or descended? Show me these magical engines that we've never seen that allow for anything other than forward movement in space.
You're a complete fucking waste of a theater seat and should be eliminated.