48fps

yes this is me you could definitely not do it with FPS or action games but for RPGs it's fucking amazing

It doesn't look strange it looks real. And that's an issue when you're wearing costumes and fake makeup. The reality is that those things are fake. So if you can see the image more clearly the illusion of movie magic collapses. 24fps blurs the imperfections so you can't see them.

It doesn't. I play 60fps games all the time. It only looks strange to boomers who are used to 24fps films and only know higher frame rate motion from soap operas. With digital being the new norm someone like based James Cameron will come along and make the Avatar sequels 120fps at 12k resolution just to piss off traditionalist fags. Get ready for the future old timer.

The human brain can process upwards of 10,000 frames of light per second actually.

>frames of light

Yeah had a poorfag ass rig in highschool, its not unplayable

memes aside i'm thinking noticeable framerate tops out somewhere around 70-80

TFW you'll never see this in 48 fps
youtube.com/watch?v=d-ltRBEu0IU

A lot of people can tell 90fps from 120fps. Mostly gamers who are used to noticing these things.

Rather than frames (2D), think of it in lightcubes (3D). The cubes go into youre receptors like SCHOLOP SCHOLOP SCHOLOP SCHOLOP SCHOLOP SCHOLOP SCHOLOP SCHOLOP SCHOLOP SCHOLOP but three times as fast (30 CPS (cubes per second)) but each cube has 6 sides so we can see 180 frames per second. Thats why big gaming computers and joysticks often lock out at 180 cause more than that is not really possible (because light speed is constand cubed)

can they really notice it? or do they just claim they can to justify buying and bragging about their 144hz monitors?

We associate high frame rates with "cheap." Watch a low action show like Boardwalk Empire using tweeting to up the frames. It feels like you're watching a Bush league cable soap opera. This is just the way things have evolved. Films are more "theatrical" at 24fps. The jitter inadvertently makes what you're seeing larger than life, probably because your brain is being made to use itself to fill the gaps, and triggers imagination to assist.

And why does 24fps look so shit?

Attached: 24fps_in_motion.webm (1280x696, 2.82M)

Tweeting = TWEENING

Because like all things in America’s early tech atmosphere, it all comes back to that fuckwad Edison.
slrlounge.com/how-24fps-became-the-standard-8-times-you-should-not-use-it/

Basically, Film was incredibly hard to make and expensive, and during the early days of its development in Menlo Park NJ they did tests and found that 24fps with a 180 degree aperture gait on 16mm film (16 referring to the hypotenuse of the gait) was the bare minimum standard that tested well with groups of viewers for creating believable passable motion. If you play backnoriginal Edison reels at 48fps they look fantastic. There is no other reason than early budget development for proof-of-concept laboratory tests. It became the cultural standard. It also made for a much cheaper manufacturing infrastructure through distribution via Edison’s proprietary Kinetiscope viewers which were used at film parlors and arcades to display the short little movies. Not even memeing OP, this is the actual reason. Film history is full of the same trends and decision making tactics you see in tech development today.

This

Attached: F4769CB3-DD4F-440A-9F6E-58FE6A2AF198.jpg (547x357, 59K)

This guy is generally correct, but the fake sets thing reeaaally does bother the shit out of me. I bet if you grew up only seeing 48fps, going to 24 would also looks strange.

Still 24fps is patrician and 48fps is video game fake cartoon pleb

Attached: 25592428-2D29-40CB-9E48-DC00F2B499CA.jpg (500x750, 165K)

>Watch a low action show like Boardwalk Empire using tweeting to up the frames
Interpolation != frame rate. I can only disregard the rest of your post as bullshit.

nice shitpost

In non-scientific youtube videos I've seen people easily point out which was the higher frame rate. People are better at spotting that than differences in resolution.

Attached: silky_smooth_24FPS.webm (1280x696, 2.82M)

Attached: panning_24fps.webm (1280x720, 1.03M)

well fine, it's just nerd wankery then i guess. i'm perfectly content with 60 fps

the thing that really pisses me off is that they never released a 48 fps dvd version. apparently dvd/bluray players cant even do 48 fps so they never bothered releasing it

>48fps is video game fake cartoon pleb
60fps is a golden game standard. 48fps is a compromise. 48fps 3D was the most they could get without expensive upgrade of projection systems.

Attached: panning_60fps.webm (1280x640, 1.02M)

fuck ok

Attached: myeyes.jpg (1357x964, 96K)

This is a prime example of a scene that would look retarded in 48fps. It would be painfully obvious that you're just watching actors faking punches and making silly noises. If anything, this is the type of thing that would be shot in 21-22fps so that the blur could help sell the staged blows.

Attached: 1485370212349.jpg (300x300, 24K)

>it's what we're all used to
>recycling this old zoomer meme again

Attached: 456456.png (447x363, 157K)

perfect for that cinematic feeling

Everyone has explained well, i'd just like to add that anyone who is saying like 24fps is a slideshow and is subpar but cost saving etc., is wrong because it's perfectly smooth under the condition it's meant to be seen, which is very low brightness. The point at which things blur from slideshow to fluid depends strongly on absolute brightness, however, how bright a film looks actually doesn't depend on brightness, because your eyes and mind adjust their level. (not in a way that cancels out the frame blending effect)
so if watch on a screen and you've never tried it I suggest next film or even 30fps youtube clip you watch, turn your lights off and turn your screen to its minimum brightness (so fuckin dim you couldn't see it at all with a reading light on). then after a while you'll be looking at a fully bright picture that looks like fuckin silky smooth 60 and so oddly real you'll be like
>Is this interviewee on air crash investigation suddenly in tha fuckin room with me here?

...

by the order of your posts if seems like you're trying to respond to my explanation about extremely-dim projection with a webm which of course is going to be shown on a fully bright lcd screen? I hope you just mixed up the order.

HOWEVER, If you want a quick and dirty CONFIRMATION of what im saying, squint your eyes at this webm so that it looks a lot darker, and you'll see that it's smooth. Low light viewing (as cinemas do) means that same smoothness without the blur obviously

For capeshit or other films that use alot of green screen and cgi the 24fps is ideal since anything above that make the special effects look cheap and obvious

Hol up was that an actual thing with Boardwalk Empire? I want to rewatch this shit but haven't been able to find it online for two years.

This made my eyes throw a tantrum

@111722887 (You)
Low res bait post

It's not complicated, it's what you feel when you see it put into words.
For moving action sequences, the camera usually follows movement, with 24fps the rest of the scene is blurred and the thing we follow is focused. It's easier to follow. With 48fps we don't know what to look at since everything is in focus and makes us want to look away from the screen since it's so much information.
Otherwise, it does look a little cheap usually, but I don't really mind, just don't see the reason for it.

The ideal frame rate for fiction is the lowest frame rate which you can manage without causing judder or excessive motion blur. 24 is perfect and as you get faster things just look worse.
>But high frame rates look more realistic!
Yeah, if you're watching reality like sports or a documentary. When you're watching a narrative film, you're watching fake behavior on fake sets with actors putting on fake voices and doing fake movements. All of that becomes more apparent as you ramp up the FPS. The only fiction scenes that actually look better in 48fps are
>Fast pans
>Scenes that are so CGI dense that you're basically watching a video game
>Brief moments of high speed kinetic action (like an explosion)
There is absolutely no reason to shoot a normal film (which are mostly static shots, dialogue, people walking about etc) in 48fps. You would gain nothing, save for maybe slightly better looking pans, and you would make everything else look cheaper and shittier. The fact that the HFR advocates are posting nothing but webms of fast pans to prove their point is telling. Show me a great dramatic dialogue scene in 48fps and then maybe I'll be convinced. If anything, the future should be some kind of variable frame rate solution where the 30 seconds or so of a film that would actually benefit from a higher frame rate are projected at 48fps while the rest of the film is projected at 24. The only films that have any real bushiness being shot entirely in HFR are films like Avatar 2 (shot at 120fps) which are are really just CGI video games witch actors inserted in.

>tries to make a point about frames per second
>with a STILL image
u r rarted

Attached: 1519740248066.webm (720x540, 2.96M)

Literally makes me nauseous.

To add to this, here is a 24 vs 60 fps dialogue scene. Notice how all of the top comments mirror what I'm saying about how fake HFR looks.
youtu.be/SPZXR4sxfRc

my dick gets up at all fps

do the experiment and squint at it (lower the amount of light coming into your eyes)

24fps really looks like jittery shit when put next to 60fps.

>jittery
you know this is fake/stuffed up because 24 is juddering all over the place and the other one is silky smooth, then
>right click go to 'stats for nerds'
>@30
the embed is only playing 30. so this is supposed to be 6 frames difference? no, they fucked it because there is no way to play 24 fps at 30 without repeating some frames and not others, causing judder

>3 years ago
>in market for new vidya display
>see a 4k UHD for super cheap on black friday
>tfw dumb and didn't read beyond "4k UHD"
>get tv home
>hook up to pc
>test it with Star Citizen
>mind blown over how clear the resolution is
>"it looks realer than real"
>start moving around
>24hz refresh rate
>get my first migraine
>go back to my 1080p tv
>instead of returning 4k tv hook it up in bedroom for bedtime kinotime

That's wrong. The human brain can process 40fps; 20 in each eye. That's where the phrase 20/20 vision comes from.

Basically this. We've trained our eyes to associate movies with 24FPS. So when we see a movie that isn't, it's like watching a stageplay instead and everything is fucking wierd.

The higher level of detail thing is also something hollywood hasn't trained for, the frames per second for movies are essentially like a shutter speed for your eyes. So when you see shit in 48 FPS everything is fucking different and there's so many variables. You're now looking at film sets closer to what they look like on set than on camera after being hit with lighting.

If you've ever watched TV in europe and then seen it in the US, you'll also notice that tv looks wierd, and that's because europe has 25 fps whereas in the US it's 24 and there's also a different in hrz on the tvs. So it's like there's an immediate downgrade in quality. It's not just animation difference like when you see differing FPS's with claymation.

The human eye can only process images in framerates of 24, 30, 60 and 120fps. This is why 50fps PAL region videogames are awful.

Why aren't all movies 60fps?

This has to do with combination spinning dolly shot, shutter speed, and fps with digital cameras.
Just makes it so jarring to look at; they fucked up.

Attached: 022.jpg (480x368, 84K)

Because it's more expensive and it's easier to just convince retards that anything higher than 24 FPS is just "weird".

have you ever played bloodborne?

Looking at this I would say I'm just use to it, the 60fps looks cheap probably because it looks more real.

no, it's just too bright.

Cobditionning and habit.
It's like plebs being surprised by the sounds of real guns VS Hollywood bang bang pew pew.
Most people have associated 24fps with films. When watching 48 or 60fos, they subconsciously think they are watching a soap opera or a gopro/twitch stream.

>mfw went for one of the new 4k 120Hz HDR G-sync meme screen
I had massive buyer remorse right after clicking confirm on the website. Thought about canceling order. Now I'm glad I fell for it. It really isn't the same.

>SCHOLOP SCHOLOP SCHOLOP SCHOLOP SCHOLOP SCHOLOP SCHOLOP SCHOLOP SCHOLOP SCHOLOP
that's the noise ur mum made last night faggot

You're a real dumbass dipshit, you know that?

So why have I noticed this shit in every single movie I've seen in theaters in the last five years? Are you saying they all fucked up filming and/or projecting?
24fps is a slideshow and I will never forget all the critics who hated on The Hobbit for 48fps.

Since when is it possible to buy a tv/monitor with lower than 59hz? I call bullshit

Attached: question frog.png (231x218, 8K)

Early 4K panels were actually that bad, the technology just wasn't there yet.

Lab tests have shown that upwards of 1000hz is noticable. Do you really think that people cannot perceive motion faster than a hundred frames per second? Are you genuinely retarded?

the leap must have been something because now even those cheap $200 4k allow 60hz heck I saw a $300 one with 120hz it claimed

Because consolefags are used to 12fps with ample motion blur.

The Billy Lynn movie from a couple years ago was released in 4K at 60fps. And my normal Blu-ray player can play back high frame rate files. I think the reaction to 48fps Hobbut was lukewarm at best so they didn't see any profit to making special 48fps versions.

beautiful
wait are people saying this looks bad? I thought it was an exmaple of how nice 24fps looks? what is unironically wrong with people lmao?

looks cheap and bad

ah yes, these fabled "lab tests" that incels just make up out of thin air to justify spending 3000 dollar on a monitor because they're so easily manipulated by big coporate marketing and don't want to admit it was a huge waste of money for no noticable difference

Poorfag cope, 60hz monitors are fucking painful to use.

you should have spent those NEETbux on a car so you can find regular employment instead of a fucking video game screen bud

because the hobbit was edited like shit

mine was 120 in 2002

Attached: 601.jpg (657x527, 32K)

>spend money on fuel to drive someplace to spend more money
>spend money to store car
>can't go to places that serve alcohol

cars are wagie mobiles so you can get called into work at any time to pay for your car

Attached: 430.jpg (699x485, 34K)

Itty bitty titty.

HDMI was limited to 30Hz @ 4K at some version, same with single-link DVI and DP IIRC.

24 hours in a day.
48 hours in a day doesn't exist, not even if corporations try to make it happen.
The only other acceptable time-frame is 60.

>go see the Hobbit in theatres when it first came out
>it's in 48 fps or whatever the fuck
>looks like a bunch of old nerds sitting around cheap sets in cosplay outfits
nah, m8

Why yes I do have an Xbox One

Stay pleb, you low iq faggot
blurbusters.com/blur-busters-law-amazing-journey-to-future-1000hz-displays-with-blurfree-sample-and-hold/

Because the purpose of fiction is not to recreate reality, but to express things about it.

>I bet if you grew up only seeing 48fps, going to 24 would also looks strange.
Of course, but that doesn't get into what it feels like to watch something in 48 versus 24 FPS. All these cynics talking about how 24 FPS was a money saving measure conveniently ignore that altering the framerate alters the expression. The added frames create a NEW motion, different from the old motion. 48 FPS is not an objective improvement because it's not an enhancement of a previous state but rather creating an entirely new initial state and a new expression.

quite humorous my good chum

If Yea Forums posters had any filmmaking experience, they'd understand that everything about filmmaking be it artistic or technical exists to mask how it's just dudes pretending in front of a camera.

i just want 60fps sports in 4k for fucks sake. fuck, I'll even take 1080p if it was 60.

Is there a single other example in film history where we see 48fps to compare?

Human eye can only see 30 fps, so everything above that looks "off" because our eye needs to start 'guessing' frames between the actual frames. Film-makers call them "dishonest frames"

>I just alt tabbed out of CS going 4k at 100fps
fucks sake now I'm gonna be sick

average human eye can detect a flash of light less than 1/100th of a second. A trained and healthy human can go even beyond that. The whole "human eye can only see 30 fps" is a total myth pushed by the low FPS industry. It's just frankly not how eyes work.

This kind of looks like panning a cross a still image.

Surely there's a middle ground.

theres only like 2 films that have been filmed at 48fps and the other is some war movie

Consumer recording, TV, Movie, Security cam

Human eye "FPS" drops tremendously when we "pan" across an image. We don't really pan, we "skip" through a series of still shots. So when a camera "pans" over a near object at an awkward speed while we're looking at a still screen, it looks weird, because you never really see like that in real life.
While staring at something it goes many times higher. In fact 60 FPS of still shot with natural movement in it will actually feel kinda weird at first because the FPS is still too low.
We adapt though.
The middle ground is honestly not using too many shots that pan over things that aren't long distance/landscape. You put things out in sunlight and far enough away you can get away with almost anything. Since we get used to the new norm so quickly it can be 15 fps up to 300 fps.

Why are video game manchildren so obsessed with higher framerate

Most 24fps = bad, examples here are due to camera men fucking up, or bad encodings.

1000 f(a)ps

because it looks and plays better. anything at or over 100 hz looks incredible compared to 60fps and it's insane if you're used to console games locked to 30.

People don't perceive reality at "60 fps" regardless of what their eyes are capable of.

The main reason video games require high FPS is the desire for twitch responsiveness in games like shooters.

>t. dishonest viewer

The 48fps one looks blurry, as if all they did was double the frames and added an interpolated frame between each frame.

Attached: 1524349065511.jpg (666x1348, 990K)

What does Yea Forums think about a film changing pfs part way through, perhaps only for a specific segment?
I mean it's 24 most of the film as standard, but then bumps that shit right up for some moment.
Too jarring?

The reason there's a difference in OPs still image is because of the digital file's bitrates. A bitrate determines how much digital info can be encoded into each pixel per second. 48 fps has twice as many frames per second, and therefore twice as many pixels. If the video file's bitrate is set at the same value as a 24 fps file, there will be less digital info per pixel. Hence, why the still image looks more compressed on the 48fps side.

I love how everyone's arguing about how 24fps looks while watching clips on 60hz monitors. Look up judder and the 2:3 pulldown effect. Unless you have a tv or monitor with 120hz and a 24p sync, you're not seeing how 24fps is meant to be seen like in theatre.

different medium

YO LIL DONNIE

I have aspergers so I can process light frames at the speed of light

higher frame rates are fine for sports, porn, nature docs and shit like that, but I just want my films to look like actual film.

Because everyone assumes that 60fps is bad because people who make 24fps movies who also make a side by side 60fps movie using techniques that have been designed to make 24fps look good don't like how the 60fps version looks.

Basically movie makers have their own heads up their ass and make movies in a specific way that specifically caters to 24fps and then think that means that when their 24fps techniques don't apply perfectly to 60fps movies that it means that 60fps is inherently inferior.

tl;dr people are fucking retarded

It’s not the fault of old directors that some idiotic gen x/millennial director tries and fails at making a movie in 60 fps.

Maybe if 60 fps advocates are so assmad that no one has faith in 60 fps then they should stop making their films so dreadful and nauseating to look at. There isn’t some industry wide conspiracy to gaslight people into thinking that 24 fps is superior. 24 fps is fine, and it’s only really pretentious and edgy tards that want to convert to 60 fps while repeatedly demonstrating the drawbacks of 60 fps without making a decent t and watchable movie.

I'm still waiting for filmmakers to use HFR for something cool like hyperrealism.

take a walk