Why are movies still stuck at 24 fps per second?

Because high FPS creates the soap opera effect and the lack of blurriness makes it look like shit.

He's measuring the acceleration of the framerate, obviously.

It looks like shit if you go any higher
No
A little bit
When something is streamed, it doesn't need to be stored on a hard drive. Streamers have access to it all online. When editing a film, you do need access to all the files and can't rely on the a website's servers doing that for you, and shooting at a high fps takes up a lot more space.

It's cheaper and looks better. Only brainlets think otherwise

>amerifat

is there one like this with 120 fps?

>24 fps
>looks better

Attached: file.png (645x729, 97K)

For me it's Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk 4K 3D 120 FPS

>I don’t like change
Can’t wait for retard 24 FPS faggots to all die
Liking when they have to remove motion blur from the movie for shit fps action scenes so it doesn’t look like blurry garbage

The human eye can only perceive 34 frames per second so it doesn't matter that much

there aren't 120 fps cameras

HFR Hobbit looked like it was shot on a shoestring in some scenes. You could almost see the polystyrene

Because that is what the human eye detects naturally. That's why soaps and broadcast sports look so damn weird. Higher fps is arguably suitable for sports but when watching drama it just isnt.

But there are 144hz monitors.
You just need to use vidya to showcase the refreshrate.

>looks so weird
No it doesn't you've just been told that so that's why you regurgitate such nonsense.

>Billy.Lynns.Long.Halftime.Walk.2016.REPACK.UHD.BluRay.REMUX.HDR.HEVC.Atmos-EPSiLON.mkv
>60FPS
>Native 4k
>Dolby Atmos

feelsgoodman.jpg

I guess tits arent everything.

I always thought that 3d animated movies should release in 60fps

>muh bideo games
kill yourself manchild and fuck off to your cancer containment board

Lol imagine actually beieving this

I’m not sure what that has to do with showcasing what 144 refreshrate looks like

>soap opera effect

The reason most people think HFR movies look bad is because none of them have applied proper motion blur. without proper MB, the motion won't feel natural (just look at the hobbit 48 fps)

Isn't that the result of interpolation?

Yes you can

What is this image even saying? That 120hz is best because 120hz car is winning?

...but there are.
Specialty Slow Mo camera shoot extremely high frame rates, i think I head one that does 6000 frames per second.

alot of cameras shoot at 120fps user

>Because that is what the human eye detects naturally
>naturally

No, you've been conditioned to think that by wathcing 24 fps movies since birth, like a monkey in a lab. If you could watch HFR movies with proper motion blur for an year, that would become the new normal and you would have a hard time remembering you though 24 fps was acceptable...

are there any examples of 30+ framerate movies besides the hobbit

Even my fucking phone can shoot 120FPS.

because no one gives a shit about 60 fps bullshit

Watch a soap opera and tell us the movement looks better

Anything higher looks like shit

Luddites who are so used to slideshow movies that hated the Hobbit trilogy. Our only hope is James Cameron with Avatar 2.

Soap operas look like shit because they don't have the time to make them look good. The frame rate is not their issue.

because of this:

Did anyone here catch the 120 fps release in theaters? Or any one of ang Lee's other movies shot on that framerate.

Shut the fuck up video game zoomer, go back to 60fps fortnite

The best solution would be to variably increase the framerate for fast motion scenes to remove some of the blur. This could be done, as modern film projectors use a motor, but this tends to fuck up audio sync.
At any rate, who the fuck cares. Have you ever watched a silent film era film? Some of that shit was shot at higher framerates and it looks retarded.

Don't reply to this meme.
It's true though.
That was 48 fps iirc. I actually liked it because combined with 3D, the camera placement intentionally put you in the scenes.
>t. dumb zoomer who watches TV with forced motion smoothing ON
>proper motion blur
lmao. Motion blur is already there in 24 fps and 30 fps. It's used to "enhance" smooth motions and hide the fact they're shot at a lower framerate.
Why the fuck would you shoot something at a higher rate only to put motion blur in? It's like playing some game at 144 hz and leaving motion blur on. Just why?
This is one of the most ignorant things I've read in a long time.

Isnt it becuase you would have to fuck with the shutter speed and thus making motion blur and movement look wonky. Idk too much but I thought the higher the ahutter speed the more light gets registered, thus making things look poopy

>as modern film projectors use a motor
meant to say they don't use a motor to move film rolls.

>not wanting a sick mission impossible action scene in 60fps
Fag alert

Buying big enough SSDs to make 60fps movies would literally cost a few thousand dollars. That is NOTHING for blockbusters.

>lmao. Motion blur is already there in 24 fps and 30 fps. It's used to "enhance" smooth motions and hide the fact they're shot at a lower framerate.
>Why the fuck would you shoot something at a higher rate only to put motion blur in? It's like playing some game at 144 hz and leaving motion blur on. Just why?

because movies are not videogames. There is no motion in movies, just still frames in succession, causing the illusion of motion, and this produces no motion blur, hence the reason it must be added, making the experience more natural.

>This is one of the most ignorant things I've read in a long time.

oh, the irony...

>cmd-f shutter angle
>no results
disappointed

>and shooting at a high fps takes up a lot more space.
that's wrong tho unless you're talking about uncompressed video but that doesn't matter to the consumer

yikes calm it down there buddy

I can't tell the difference between 30 and 60. Also lol at the background girls.

If you run with a fleshlight your speed equals speed of light plus speed of semen ejaculation

But it matters to the people making the film

But that's only double the frames, so double the storage space. Its basically nothing desu.

This is the answer. Whatever is being portrayed is smoother than real life so it's very jarring. Games don't have this problem because it's already apparently fake.

I remember back in the late 2000's some films and Blu Ray players were faster fps, I think one of the direct to DVD scorpion Kong's. It was awful.

not really, they're already paying $2350 for a 1TB M.2 SATA card that costs $100 to produce

If the car has more frames per second to travel, then it will always win because it has more time to move for every second that goes by

A movie looks fucking stupid at higher framerates. Stop trying to argue otherwise.

The fuck you on about, a 1tb M2 SSD is only like $400.

M.2 SATA not NVME, retard, and I said "to produce"

What if they shot the monster/ghost/alien in 60 fps but kept the rest of the movie in 24 fps

even NVMe is not that much:
rakuten.com/shop/adata/product/ASX8200PNP-1TT-C
$114 for 1TB

What is quantum intrication ?

some retards don't notice it.

>24 fps per second
>24 frames per second per second

Attached: 1561402821449.jpg (356x357, 20K)

Imagine actually being retarded enough to think anything above 24fps looks good.

Imagine defending that.

Imagine your lips literally fused to a bbc 24/7

>noah pan shot.webm

>I DON'T LIKE CHANGE!
>KEEP THE FRAMERATE FROM THE EARLY 1900s!!!

post it

>muh soap opera effect
you guys are so fucking retarded and have no idea what you're talking about, the soap opera effect occurs when something is shot at 24 (or 30) fps and then played on a 60hz TV which uses interpolation (fake 60 fps). If something is shot at 60 fps you don't get the soap opera effect.

>smoother than real life

Attached: alita disgust.png (804x804, 638K)

>smoother than real life
nice going, smoothbrain

i don't get it, why is the 240 car faster than the 144 car, but the 120 car is also faster than the 144 car? the 60 car being slower i understand

underrated

this

>RREEEEEEEEEEEE I'M RETARDED

Movies aren't videogames
Though
Videogames can be movies

Using interpolation for higher fps will result in soap opera effect

>Games don't have this problem because it's already apparently fake
games don't have this problem because they run at high framerates natively

Saw that in 60fps. Absolutely majestic.
Can't wait for more high frame rate Ang Lee kino later this year when Gemini Man comes out, starring Will Smith.

Attached: fps comparison2.gif (1280x720, 121K)

Wrong.

Attached: fpscomparison.webm (600x338, 726K)

30 fps looks more cinematic and less like a porno

You're an idiot.

Billy Lynn, and later this year Gemini Man by the same director.
This chinese movie called Detective Dee: The Four Heavenly Kings.
And the Avatar sequels are apparently being filmed at a high frame rate.

clearly not a gamer

You are so wrong. The Hobbit was shot at 48 fps and still looked like shit.
People who think movies are supposed to be filmed at more than 24 fps are the same retards who praise capeshit and should stick to playing their dumb vidya gaems instead of instead of trying to infiltrate the superior type of art of cinema, which requires no more than 24 fps.

Attached: 1560020666729.jpg (640x856, 46K)

Because there hasn't been any studies about how FPS looks and feels to people. The majority of people are still in the dark about it.

Based on my experience, your brain will adjust to ANY FPS number given enough time and then it will begin feeling "normal" to you. This adjustment period is the roadblock for most people, it feels wrong therefore it sucks. There's nothing magic about the number 24, the only magic is that everything else is 24 FPS.

But the truth is even a shitty 10 FPS game could feel somewhat playable if you were to stick with it for 20 hours or so. It will be hell at first until your brain adapts. And then from there when you suddenly go back to 240 FPS on a 240hz monitor that will feel weird as fuck - until it doesn't.

i dunno but I really started to notice it on panning shots way more than I used to.

has anyone ever attempted a variable frame rate in movies?
I think that it could add some weird additional depth to scenes

mad max fury road removed some frames here and there (or something) to make the action scenes more frantic, and many of Jackie Chan's fight scenes were slightly increased in speed too. But that's not the same as variable frame rate.

3/8

>"""people""" still defending 24fps long after the technical reasons why you can't use the correct 16fps have disappeared
stay plebs, plebs

there's some spiderman cartoon or something were one character is animated at less FPS than another to make him look more clumsy. i don't watch cartoons for children so i'm not sure which one it is

Attached: crispr-8-3-18-685x368.jpg (685x368, 24K)

Yeah, there are. ARRIs all do 120, REDs can go up to 300 at 2K, and I think Sony has one that goes up to 960.

High speed is still in development across the board, and there are some bottlenecks in file transfer and capture, and editing requires some serious CPU power, but 120fps is pretty much standard for digital cinema now.

>modern film projectors use a motor
Yeah, no. Most theaters are now 100% digital, and get their movies on HDs. It's pretty hard to find actual film projectors in theaters now, and it's actually newsworthy if they go to the expense of releasing a movie on film, because so few places can project them now.

No, he's right, for a lot of cameras. RED cameras will shoot lower FPS at 4k, because of file size, to hit 300fps, you have to shoot 2K.
That will change, but there are limitations with some systems.

RED charges $2500 for their SSD carts. It's been a topic on a lot of tech streamers, like Linus Tech Tips. One of their competitors claims it's cheap commercial grade SSDs that cost a fraction than what RED charges.

correct

I can only fap to 60 fps porn now

yea he should grow up and watch tv shows and movies like real grown ups LOL

60 FPS is actually awful for FPS games, 120 or higher is essential

imagine being such a fucking retarded eyelet faggot that you think this is how your eyes are supposed to experience vision

Attached: 1543640458052.webm (1280x696, 2.82M)

They're right, you know.

Watch a movie at a higher frame rate and I guarantee you won’t ask that question again.

It gets faster and faster the more we can measure it because surprise surprise! We fucking measure light with light.

It's not just double the frames, special effects, cgi, etc... All add up. It takes time, money, space, to render something, from cgi, to simple color correction. A lot of stuff isn't even shot in true 4k for the same reason. When you watch a 4k movie, there's a high chance it was simply upscaled.

Am I supposed to see a difference here?

Attached: 1200px-Goofy.svg.png (810x809, 105K)

Attached: 1156123156461.jpg (282x272, 13K)

...

>The scene in which Elsa walks out onto the balcony of her newly constructed ice palace is 218 frames long, and includes the film’s longest frame to render. The single frame took more than 132 hours to render (that’s more than five days).

>This Black Hole from Interstellar, was made possible by 40,000+ lines of C++ code by the implementation of Einstein's calculations/formulas, rendered thousands of 23-megapixel IMAX frames on a 32,000-core render farm at about 20 core-hours per frame and the final clip was 80 Terabytes.

Hmm, I wonder why?

Attached: tumblr_inline_mvm5ncx4A61qhhciy.gif (500x150, 1003K)

While more fps would indeed have potential to be better, it is more work and the techniques are just not fully mastered to properly render motion.
Add to that the fact that the large majority of special effects would look horribly wrong at 60+ fps because it would become much easier to see the fakeness of it.

How so you get atmos to play? I dont have the audio codex for it

stop coping
you just have to adjust. watch 2-3 movies at higher FPS and you're already on board with higher FPS

Phoneposter with shit phone or locked in some game mode for some dumb phone game