it's a conspiracy. it's more than 2 and a half times more frames. that means files are 2 and a half times bigger. Hollywood doesn't want to pay for the storage.
24fps films get converted to 23.98fps for Blu-Ray releases. They are shown in actual 24fps in theaters. 35mm film cameras can't even shoot 23.98fps. Televisions are the reason why 23.98fps exists in the first place.
>And I can get 8tb for a couple of hundred
Shit drives. They are making original content and spending millions to produce it. That means they can't risk shit equipment. Also means raided drives and backups.
The vast majority of films are still shot in 4K. ARRI is the most popular manufacturer of cinema cameras in Hollywood and they don't even make 8K cameras.
The opposite for me, it was distracting constantly. It might look good for a sleek sci-fi movie set in the future perhaps. I like the idea of variable frame rate, so it the higher fps is only used in action or scenes where there is a lot of camera movement
People dislike simply because they're not used to it.
If every movie/tv show from now on were 60fps then people would get used to it and may prefer it.
>People dislike simply because they're not used to it. >If every movie/tv show from now on were 60fps then people would get used to it and may prefer it.
Imagine how much faster Hollywood would collapse if they made a bad gimmick like 60fps mandatory. I'm almost in favor of the idea.
>People dislike simply because they're not used to it. >If every movie/tv show from now on were 60fps then people would get used to it and may prefer it.
Imagine how much faster Hollywood would collapse if they made a bad gimmick like 60fps mandatory. I'm almost in favor of the idea.
>Hollywood switches to meme format >Garage studios take over the industry
>makes the image way too dim >have to wear uncomfortable glasses >extra shitty for anyone who has to wear normal glasses underneath >limited viewing angles, 3D looks shittier if you're not sitting directly in front of the middle of the screen
It becomes an objective improvement only when they manage to create flawless glasses-free 3D that works from a large variety of viewing angles.
The only Hollywood CGI I've seen in 60fps was Gemini Man but that looked like shit in 24fps as well, so I'm still waiting.
It depends https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qLmp78nZWg&t
Making shots for a higher frame count is way harder because you need to fill more room for all the extra frames and there is less room for error 24FPS content in contrast looks fine because your brain can't fill the blanks and
just accepts the judder
For HFR content that looks good you need good content creators that aren't cheap and lazy and can present the motion picture that doesn't look off putting to your brain
it's too expensive they won't allow it
if cameron weren't gay for 3d maybe he could drum up something
he has the competence and autism to film a quality action in high frames per second but alas
also there's so much cgi in everything and this would triple its cost
Avatar 2 is in HFR. Although I don't think they have yet confirmed what framerate exactly.
>NATO (National Association of Theatre Owners) chief John Fithian in press session with CinemaCon media just said that James Cameron's sequel "will have more versions" than any movie in history: IMAX, 3D, PLF, high-res, high frames-per-second rate, variable sound systems, in 160 languages, etc.
>Imagine wanting all media you consume to be soap opera tier >imagine leaving frame interpolation "on"
Not gonna make it. People like you should be lined up against a wall and shot.
High frame rates are good for gaming and computer usage. Not for media. Frick you.
>Imagine wanting all media you consume to be soap opera tier
If soap opera tier means natively 60fps, then yes fricking please. >imagine leaving frame interpolation "on"
I don't. Interpolation is shit and different issue entirely. >Not for media.
Why not?
The Hobbit's frame rate caused many people to have nausea during its theatrical release.
It also just looks like shite. But I guess I can't fix shit taste in some people. They are just lost.
>motion of camera independent of user input.
What kind of a genetic failure feels sick when they watch 60fps footage they're not in control of
2 years ago
Anonymous
A lot of people apparently. Enough to impact ticket sales on the latest capeshit.
Personally I'm glad this happens to people because high frame rates look like actual dogshit in cinema. This isn't even a controversial opinion.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>A lot of people apparently.
According to...? Genuinely never met anyone who'd get sick from watching others play video-games for example.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You're a big guy. Scroll up a little to my post regarding the Hobbit. Probably one of the largest scale tests for audience reception of a film shown at 48fps (double standard frame rate)
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Scroll up a little to my post regarding the Hobbit.
So? Where are the numbers?
2 years ago
Anonymous
https://theweek.com/articles/469863/why-isthe-hobbit-making-some-moviegoers-sick
I don't think there have been any formal studies done, even if there was I don't think I'd want to engage in your blatant and annoying sea lioning.
Enjoy.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Oh wow, a whole two anonymous people in a random article from a israelite publication.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The fact you wanted me to have to pull up an article (of many) speaks volumes about your cognition level. >israelite
Fallacious cheery on top, too!
The zionists will win if this is the best the white race has to offer. Pathetic.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>is defeated >starts to blabber meaningless bullshit nervously
Why is it that 24-30 fps looks closer to real life than 60fps? Does there need to be an ultra high framerate in the hundreds/thousands to remote the soap opera look of 60
>Why is it that 24-30 fps looks closer to real life than 60fps?
Hard disagree. I personally don't see low-fps stutter with my own eyes. >Does there need to be an ultra high framerate in the hundreds/thousands to remote the soap opera look of 60
Gemini Man was shot in 120fps and shown in that framerate in certain theaters. It did look more natural than 60fps.
24fps is in a goldilocks zone where there are just enough frames to blur together and show motion but not enough to see every detail of the motion. It gives films a dream-like appearance that can enhance immersion
Getting rid of motion blur would only make low fps films look even more stuttery. The excessive Motion blur is the only thing making 24fps even remotely watchable.
what are the implications of the standard being 24 fps (and not 30) when most have 60hz screens and thus not an integer multiple of the content's framerate
how hard would it be to change the standard to 30fps? as in the associated costs and such, is it only a matter of will?
I get not wanting 48/60 due to costs of CGI and uncanny valley or whatever, but 30 fps is just a strictly better than 24fps considering the later look like dogshit on most consumer hardware
>how hard would it be to change the standard to 30fps? as in the associated costs and such, is it only a matter of will?
All you have to do is to convince directors and cinematographers to change the setting on their digital cameras. Good luck with that.
You have to realize that, with most films nowadays using CGI for every fricking little detail, the cost of a 60 fps blockbuster would be too high for those israelitey little goblins. You're living in 2022 where profits are more important than quality and innovation.
>If they shoot in 48 or 60 fps they can release it in a 24 fps version as well and you dumbasses will probably pay for it
This. I don't get the point of resisting HFR when you can always watch the low-fps version.
Why can't 60fps cucks just accept that it's great for some things but bad for others? Nature shows, technical documentaries, videogame footage, etc. But it makes movies look like cheap soap operas because the enhanced visual information makes the sets, make-up, and effects more obvious?
It isn't storage cost that makes 60fps unviable, it's editing/processing when VFX artists are working frame-by-frame. Maybe if more money went to VFX than it does to fricking useless overpaid actors we might see more, and less outsourcing visual to India
True. Seems like almost everything that's being put out nowadays is full of CGI in some form. The biggest issue would be that you'd have to more than double the render times.
I'm not even baiting. I created the thread after being frustrated with how fricking stuttery and headache-inducing the constant handheld shots in Prey were. 60fps would also make handheld footage much more watchable.
The VFX argument against HFR is the only one making any sense so far.
Don't expect the israelites to do anything new that might cost them a few pennies more unless forced to. Just stay brainwashed to accept inferior cinema.
Ever go to someone's house who just bought a new TV and its playing everything in 60fps and you try tell them it looks like everything is in fast forward and they have no clue what you're talking about?? I dont want to watch shit at 1.5x speed you homosexual
bloats filesizes and looks robotic. modern filmmakers don't know how to account for this, so now all modern junk hits the uncanny valley and looks like a cheap soap opera
All this talk abou soap operas. Two options:
Either you gays parrot this argument or
you actually have experience watching soap operas.
I don't know which is more embarrassing
>camera slightly pans to the side >my eyes begin to hurt >some homosexual always jumps to the immediate defense that 24fps is fine and if you don't like it you're a zoomer
i hate all of you so much its unreal, i hope your eye & brain cancer spreads to your colon
>How is it not an objective improvement?
It is. >the absolute levels of moron cope in this thread trying to defend a dying and outdated medium
lol, i bet "talkies" were taking it too far and ruining the kino too right?, lmao
Seeing a big portion of this thread support 60 and shit on 24 restored my faith in this board. Some of you homosexuals are alright. At least we aren't as bad as Cinemaphile
it's a conspiracy. it's more than 2 and a half times more frames. that means files are 2 and a half times bigger. Hollywood doesn't want to pay for the storage.
actually it's just slightly less than 2.5x but whatever
it's exactly 2.5x you mathlet
23.98 x 2.5 = 59.95
Films are shot in 24fps. 23.98fps is a meme TV framerate.
all my films are showing 23.98
24fps films get converted to 23.98fps for Blu-Ray releases. They are shown in actual 24fps in theaters. 35mm film cameras can't even shoot 23.98fps. Televisions are the reason why 23.98fps exists in the first place.
I find that hard to believe considering how dirt cheap storage is nowadays. But I guess israelites pinch pennies anywhere they can.
one hour of 8k is like 7tb and they shoot like hundreds of hours
And I can get 8tb for a couple of hundred. Film budgets are in the millions. It's nothing to them.
+ backups + paying for higher fps cgi
>And I can get 8tb for a couple of hundred
Shit drives. They are making original content and spending millions to produce it. That means they can't risk shit equipment. Also means raided drives and backups.
Still cheap as shit when working on multi-million budgets.
>and they shoot like hundreds of hours
Not really, unless you're someone like Michael Bay who shoots insane amounts of footage.
The vast majority of films are still shot in 4K. ARRI is the most popular manufacturer of cinema cameras in Hollywood and they don't even make 8K cameras.
Daily reminder that all cgi is only capable of rendering in 2k quality so cgi porn movies look objectively ass in 4k and 8k
You are genuinely moronic. Most blockbusters in the last few years have moved on to 4K intermediates. It's not 2015 anymore, grandpa.
what? you can render cgi in any resolution you want
I saw The Hobbit in 48fps, and it took some getting used to, but I actually really liked it.
The opposite for me, it was distracting constantly. It might look good for a sleek sci-fi movie set in the future perhaps. I like the idea of variable frame rate, so it the higher fps is only used in action or scenes where there is a lot of camera movement
>better is actually worse because I am used to it.
I know technically there is a difference but I'm unable to see a difference between 23.98fps & 48 or 60.
Film is a regressive and nostalgia-obsessed art. 24fps is used because gays are used to it, that's all there really is to it.
The human eye only captures images up to 30 fps. Anything beyond this is the placebo effect
30fps x 2 human eyes = 60fps
checkmate.
you got him anon
thats utter nonsense you just made up
The human eye doesn’t capture “frames per second” it perceives constant fluid motion
I think it would work great on any film with minimal or no special effects. Dramas would be better.
It feels shitty and cheap, like a telenovela.
Literally more expensive.
I can't see the diference between 30 fps and 60 fps.
It's impossible to see. Human eyes do not see difference beyond 24 fps.
people don't like the soap opera effect
People dislike simply because they're not used to it.
If every movie/tv show from now on were 60fps then people would get used to it and may prefer it.
>People dislike simply because they're not used to it.
>If every movie/tv show from now on were 60fps then people would get used to it and may prefer it.
Imagine how much faster Hollywood would collapse if they made a bad gimmick like 60fps mandatory. I'm almost in favor of the idea.
>Hollywood switches to meme format
>Garage studios take over the industry
i get very ang lee when I see high frame rate movies
How are 3D movies not an objective improvement? Why won't these idiots just put on the damn glasses and stop holding back progress.
>makes the image way too dim
>have to wear uncomfortable glasses
>extra shitty for anyone who has to wear normal glasses underneath
>limited viewing angles, 3D looks shittier if you're not sitting directly in front of the middle of the screen
It becomes an objective improvement only when they manage to create flawless glasses-free 3D that works from a large variety of viewing angles.
they can
they just don't because chuds like you wouldn't buy a ticket to see it
Objectively incorrect.
It's sarcasm, anon.
Sure it was.
Always nice to fall back on muh sarcasm after getting btfo.
I'm not the anon that posted the sarcasm. It's just funny watching your autism. You clearly can't follow a conversation. Don't @ me no more.
>i-it was sarcasm!!!!
You are genuinely moronic if that's what you think.
CGI in 60fps looks like utter shit. This is objective btw.
The only Hollywood CGI I've seen in 60fps was Gemini Man but that looked like shit in 24fps as well, so I'm still waiting.
It depends https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qLmp78nZWg&t
Making shots for a higher frame count is way harder because you need to fill more room for all the extra frames and there is less room for error 24FPS content in contrast looks fine because your brain can't fill the blanks and
just accepts the judder
For HFR content that looks good you need good content creators that aren't cheap and lazy and can present the motion picture that doesn't look off putting to your brain
That's interpolated shit. Post real HFR or not at all.
It's interpolated but still looks better than the original. The comparison at the end makes the original look like a slideshow.
Frick 24fps.
The 18fps of the silent era is truly cinematic.
it's too expensive they won't allow it
if cameron weren't gay for 3d maybe he could drum up something
he has the competence and autism to film a quality action in high frames per second but alas
also there's so much cgi in everything and this would triple its cost
Avatar 2 is in HFR. Although I don't think they have yet confirmed what framerate exactly.
>NATO (National Association of Theatre Owners) chief John Fithian in press session with CinemaCon media just said that James Cameron's sequel "will have more versions" than any movie in history: IMAX, 3D, PLF, high-res, high frames-per-second rate, variable sound systems, in 160 languages, etc.
>Imagine wanting all media you consume to be soap opera tier
>imagine leaving frame interpolation "on"
Not gonna make it. People like you should be lined up against a wall and shot.
High frame rates are good for gaming and computer usage. Not for media. Frick you.
>Imagine wanting all media you consume to be soap opera tier
If soap opera tier means natively 60fps, then yes fricking please.
>imagine leaving frame interpolation "on"
I don't. Interpolation is shit and different issue entirely.
>Not for media.
Why not?
The Hobbit's frame rate caused many people to have nausea during its theatrical release.
It also just looks like shite. But I guess I can't fix shit taste in some people. They are just lost.
Natural selection and shitty genes. Not my fricking problem.
how did 60fps movies cause people to vomit when 60fps games are the industry standard?
Boomers not used to higher framerates.
Size of screen, motion of camera independent of user input. Not exactly rocket science.
>motion of camera independent of user input.
What kind of a genetic failure feels sick when they watch 60fps footage they're not in control of
A lot of people apparently. Enough to impact ticket sales on the latest capeshit.
Personally I'm glad this happens to people because high frame rates look like actual dogshit in cinema. This isn't even a controversial opinion.
>A lot of people apparently.
According to...? Genuinely never met anyone who'd get sick from watching others play video-games for example.
You're a big guy. Scroll up a little to my post regarding the Hobbit. Probably one of the largest scale tests for audience reception of a film shown at 48fps (double standard frame rate)
>Scroll up a little to my post regarding the Hobbit.
So? Where are the numbers?
https://theweek.com/articles/469863/why-isthe-hobbit-making-some-moviegoers-sick
I don't think there have been any formal studies done, even if there was I don't think I'd want to engage in your blatant and annoying sea lioning.
Enjoy.
Oh wow, a whole two anonymous people in a random article from a israelite publication.
The fact you wanted me to have to pull up an article (of many) speaks volumes about your cognition level.
>israelite
Fallacious cheery on top, too!
The zionists will win if this is the best the white race has to offer. Pathetic.
>is defeated
>starts to blabber meaningless bullshit nervously
as opposed to what?
60fps for films looks like shit, simple as
No.
>random YouTube video looks better than 99% of new releases
As far as digital cameras go, that does look pretty fricking good.
Why is it that 24-30 fps looks closer to real life than 60fps? Does there need to be an ultra high framerate in the hundreds/thousands to remote the soap opera look of 60
>Why is it that 24-30 fps looks closer to real life than 60fps?
Hard disagree. I personally don't see low-fps stutter with my own eyes.
>Does there need to be an ultra high framerate in the hundreds/thousands to remote the soap opera look of 60
Gemini Man was shot in 120fps and shown in that framerate in certain theaters. It did look more natural than 60fps.
24fps is in a goldilocks zone where there are just enough frames to blur together and show motion but not enough to see every detail of the motion. It gives films a dream-like appearance that can enhance immersion
I'm not getting anything dreamlike out of it but okay.
well you sure as shit aren’t getting anything realistic out of it because the human eyes don’t see the real world in blurry, stuttering frames
True, I'm not getting that either. Looks like shit to me.
I don't low fps in movies as long as they get rid of that super shitty motion blur.
Getting rid of motion blur would only make low fps films look even more stuttery. The excessive Motion blur is the only thing making 24fps even remotely watchable.
what are the implications of the standard being 24 fps (and not 30) when most have 60hz screens and thus not an integer multiple of the content's framerate
The 24fps standard was decided before televisions even existed, and they haven't bothered to update despite 24fps looking like shit on 60hz screens.
most TVs are 120hz now thankfully so 24fps fits evenly
Not most, not even close, but there are plenty and it's getting better each year.
how hard would it be to change the standard to 30fps? as in the associated costs and such, is it only a matter of will?
I get not wanting 48/60 due to costs of CGI and uncanny valley or whatever, but 30 fps is just a strictly better than 24fps considering the later look like dogshit on most consumer hardware
>how hard would it be to change the standard to 30fps? as in the associated costs and such, is it only a matter of will?
All you have to do is to convince directors and cinematographers to change the setting on their digital cameras. Good luck with that.
You have to realize that, with most films nowadays using CGI for every fricking little detail, the cost of a 60 fps blockbuster would be too high for those israelitey little goblins. You're living in 2022 where profits are more important than quality and innovation.
Looks like a soap opera. I wont watch any movie higher than 24fps.
People always mention the soap opera meme but those aren't even shot in true 60p, but instead in 60i.
Do they even shoot modern soap operas in 60? I have a hard time finding any current day examples.
Well, it seems like 24fps is nowadays BAD because they use it to shoot some soap operas. That's how the argument goes.
Video games run at 60fps progressive, they look like soap operas (even if 60 always works better for action games)
>video-games look like soap-operas
wut
This is just a proxy argument for consolecucks vs. PCchads
Same as pro-MGM vs. anti-MGM
If they shoot in 48 or 60 fps they can release it in a 24 fps version as well and you dumbasses will probably pay for it
>Same as pro-MGM vs. anti-MGM
the what
>If they shoot in 48 or 60 fps they can release it in a 24 fps version as well and you dumbasses will probably pay for it
This. I don't get the point of resisting HFR when you can always watch the low-fps version.
circumcision
You can't reverse a circumcision, but you can allow the person to make their own decision
Same as you can't reliably interpolate a 24 fps master to make it 48+ fps, but you can shoot in 60 and downshift from there
Why can't 60fps cucks just accept that it's great for some things but bad for others? Nature shows, technical documentaries, videogame footage, etc. But it makes movies look like cheap soap operas because the enhanced visual information makes the sets, make-up, and effects more obvious?
Looks better to me.
Soap operas use higher frame rate and it looks so soulless.
Plenty of soap operas are also in 24fps, so what the hell. What am I supposed to do when even 24 gives me the soap opera effect now?
Obviously shoot in 18 like a silent cinema Chad.
It isn't storage cost that makes 60fps unviable, it's editing/processing when VFX artists are working frame-by-frame. Maybe if more money went to VFX than it does to fricking useless overpaid actors we might see more, and less outsourcing visual to India
True. Seems like almost everything that's being put out nowadays is full of CGI in some form. The biggest issue would be that you'd have to more than double the render times.
Why is this thread getting replies? I'm disappointed in you Cinemaphile. On Cinemaphile this bait is just brushed off.
I'm not even baiting. I created the thread after being frustrated with how fricking stuttery and headache-inducing the constant handheld shots in Prey were. 60fps would also make handheld footage much more watchable.
The VFX argument against HFR is the only one making any sense so far.
I can't wait until all the moronic boomers die off so all films can be in beautiful crisp 60fps.
Don't expect the israelites to do anything new that might cost them a few pennies more unless forced to. Just stay brainwashed to accept inferior cinema.
It is. Don't let the visually-impaired to tell you otherwise.
It only works well for documentaries and video games. Pure shit with anything else.
And if you disagree I've got 2 words for you.
>it's bad with anything else because... IT JUST IS OKAY!!
It's not cinematic and it cheapens movies and shows.
>muh cinematic
Meaningless buzzword.
>cheapens
You mean makes more expensive.
>cinematic
>it's not like everything else so it's bad!!
Yawn.
the human eye can't even tell the difference
baka
It is obvious that the 60 fps image is much more smoother than the 30.
It's simple mathematics!!!
>baka
wtf?
I know I didn't type that
Yes you did.
No I typed
>S
>M
>H
I will eternally hate the jannie that did this to me
I know you typed that, I was fricking with you.
You're a newbie who doesn't know about word filters, it's okay.
It's always nice to make newfrens.
comparing frames when there is no movement, what is this image suppose to prove? The human eye can tell you've been lied to
Ever go to someone's house who just bought a new TV and its playing everything in 60fps and you try tell them it looks like everything is in fast forward and they have no clue what you're talking about?? I dont want to watch shit at 1.5x speed you homosexual
I dislike motion interpolation and don't use it myself, but I won't fault others if they do. 24fps stutter is genuinely awful to watch.
It is. The high frame rate is the only reason I'm looking forward to Avatar 2.
The “cinematic movement” option on my LG C1 looks pretty great. No soap opera effect white still smoothing out the bad stutter in 24p camera pans
bloats filesizes and looks robotic. modern filmmakers don't know how to account for this, so now all modern junk hits the uncanny valley and looks like a cheap soap opera
All this talk abou soap operas. Two options:
Either you gays parrot this argument or
you actually have experience watching soap operas.
I don't know which is more embarrassing
Zoomers and gamers deserve death.
Sirs this is a board about an artistic medium, get your “objectivity” out of here
>camera slightly pans to the side
>my eyes begin to hurt
>some homosexual always jumps to the immediate defense that 24fps is fine and if you don't like it you're a zoomer
i hate all of you so much its unreal, i hope your eye & brain cancer spreads to your colon
24fps is not a good fit for modern sample-and-hold displays, the stutter and motion blur is off the charts
>60 fps is le bad
24 fps movies look like shit, the "soap opera affect" is a israelite psyop to make movies cheaper. Kys goylem scum.
>Jews don't want you to enjoy their kinos
They clearly don't, considering what trash they're putting out nowadays.
They make demoralization propaganda on a low budget
>How is it not an objective improvement?
It is.
>the absolute levels of moron cope in this thread trying to defend a dying and outdated medium
lol, i bet "talkies" were taking it too far and ruining the kino too right?, lmao
Seeing a big portion of this thread support 60 and shit on 24 restored my faith in this board. Some of you homosexuals are alright. At least we aren't as bad as Cinemaphile
Younger generations are increasingly more and more used to 60fps. It's bound to happen once zoomers are old enough to become filmmakers.
What do you all think of this? A new thing called "motion grading", which is soon going to be available to filmmakers.
man, shit like this simply POPS on OLED TVs.
fr