60 fps movies make me want to throw up

I would kill for 120fps movies. Tried SVP for a while but the artifacting is too ridiculous.

The human eye can't differentiate anything above 18 fps

Its all in your fucking head

>wanting movies to look like soap operas
>unironically preferring motion interpolation
>having taste this shit

If you understand how cameras work it all makes sense.

Let me give you a basic rundown. For all intents and purposes real life is basically infinite FPS, but when you film with a camera at 24FPS the shutter is open 1/24ths of a second, but during that time real life still moves at infinite FPS so what you get isn't 1 fixed still rendered image (like you do in video games) you get 1 image that's slightly blurred because movement still occurs even during that short time span.

So what happens is film gets an automatic motion blur effect that makes even 24FPS look very smooth and natural. With 3D rendered images this doesn't happen, 24FPS in video games is just 24 perfectly still images placed one next to the other. Without the motion blur effect it will look very choppy.

Now it is possible to sort of mimic real life motion blur in video games so that even low FPS looks smooth but it's expensive and time consuming and no one bothers with it.

LE CINEMATIC EXPERIENCE

You are baiting or a retard, anyway a free (you) for you.

> Now it is possible to sort of mimic real life motion blur in video games so that even low FPS looks smooth but it's expensive and time consuming and no one bothers with it.
Actually a fuckton of games have that option, but it turns out that motion blur doesn't mix well with interactive input.

Most of the time it's very poorly done and looks like shit. To get that accurate subtle motion blur of film is very difficult.

That was a good description user.
>Now it is possible to sort of mimic real life motion blur in video games
I get it it isn't worth it, but nevertheless do you know any good resources explaining how it can be done?

fps movies looks good
Every time a 24/30 fps movie/tv show pans the camera across a scene I want to vomit.

obviously baiting you newfag

24fps looks like a slideshow. No, motion blur doesn't cover it up completely, maybe it's the digital video cameras they use now. But after gaming at 144Hz for so lng I can see the individual frames in movies, making them almost unwatchable. Just look at credits sequences, they look like pure shit.

Just look at panning scenes. Even normies notice it "stuttering".

There aren't really any 60fps movies- I'll assume you saw the Hobbit in 48fps, which is about the closest thing that was released commercially.

Specifically I'll assume you are /not/ talking about interpolation (where your TV or whatever "converts" 24-30fps footage to 60+ by inserting some blurry auto-generated frames). This pretty much universally looks awful.

Real high frame rate footage looks pretty excellent.

As for games, there are two factors that limit playability at low frame rates
>no or crappy motion blur, as other anons have explained
>reduced responsiveness to your inputs

That's not at all how it works.

The problem is action movies use so much CGI now that it looks like shit. Marvel and DC movies are physically painful to watch. What's weird is I didn't really mind practical effects running slower back in the day. For example stop motion monsters in a real movie, the effect might be running at 12fps while the rest of the movie is 24fps, but I don't realy mind, I actually really like stop motion movies. But CGI at 24fps looks horrible

Just stop watching capeshit.

HOLY SHIT user
I JUST REALIZED
THE TYPE OF MEDIA
LIKE, GAMES, VIDEOS, MOVIES, FILMS, WHATEVER
DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEDIA
GET THIS
CAN BE ENJOYED IN DIFFERENT WAYS DEPENDING ON THE MEDIA'S NATURE AND HOW WE WERE EXPOSED TO IT
HOLY FUCKING SHIT
GOD DAMN

Seriously, kill yourself.
Perception of quality in media varies depending upon the media we're looking at.

Do you throw up while sitting on car backseat too?

>unironically watching capeshit

>Youtube video or TV show
>filmed in "cinematic" 2.35 or 21:9
>wasn't even filmed anamorphically, they just slapped black bars in post

It was just an example, all actions pretty much are a basically video games with how much CGI they use.

Action is a pretty shit genre anyway.

Which part of my explanation is wrong? I'm quite confident in it but also happy to accept corrections.

The first crysis did it just fine like a decade ago

24/30fps is cuck-fps
chad watches movies in 60fps

This thread is full of fucking idiots.

Attached: 10150573_447933292018922_6663108845655302900_n.jpg (625x625, 53K)

Motion blur is a hilariously cheap effect pajeet.

Attached: 7PoXt5c.jpg (501x506, 55K)

more fps = better

I cannot stand 24fps movies when the camera pans around too fast. Or even when it pans around slowly on a landscape shot

>I don't know what I'm talking about
Super disgustingly high quality can be a bit expensive to use in console games, but as long as you keep your shit together or just optimize properly it literally doesn't matter

>watching movies where the camera moves.

Attached: 44C316A1-D682-43A6-A7BC-690A565CC4FB.jpg (643x460, 306K)

>The first crysis did it just fine like a decade ago
>Motion blur is a hilariously cheap effect pajeet.
Ultra-low quality, obviously fake motion blur is cheap, yes.
Perfectly accurate motion requires the simulation of single photons. Anything below is fake.
Reasonably accurate motion blur requires at least 600 FPS internally, and depending on the screen resolution and amplitude of motion vectors, even more.
/v/ is just use to incredibly low quality effects and terrible CG films.
>Wow, it looks so real

Attached: me pretending im a real solider.jpg (600x399, 138K)

same