They profit more from still pictures than videos when they do propaganda to kids.
After all, if they market videos, they can always cheat and render elsewhere.
I also blame the movie industry. "Cinematic low FPS" is literally the same as the lunacy of "Vinyl sounds better than digital" that still exists.
Luckily that started dying a few years ago.
If movie makers weren't hipster pieces of shit they'd strive for 240FPS at 16K.
Other urls found in this thread:
wiki.hydrogenaud.io
twitter.com
dumb retard
Freshly pressed Vinyl sealed in a vacuum and played on a highly specialized turntable sounds infinitely better than digital. Even 1bit SACD. It's objectively true due to analog quality's superior resolution in comparison, and subjectively shown by many series of double blind studies that consistently showed a natural preference for a vacuum sealed vinyl over any digital format.
This being said, the human eye can pick up a single different frame from a series of frames at up to 200fps. Just as the human ear has no limiting factors that make it unable to pick out the difference between vinyl and digital music, there is no limiting factor to the eye to make it unable to see at 240fps
> Freshly pressed Vinyl sealed in a vacuum and
Fuck off retard. Hipsters like you is what keeps technology back.
The intermediate source is digital you brainlet.
nope, the only reason vinyl sounds more pleasing than CD is due to the LACK of quality the vinyl imposes, the analogue warmness that creates imperfections and texture that we all love, the turntable output can be digitized into 16bit PCM and it's absolutely impossible for a human to tell the difference
wiki.hydrogenaud.io
idk about games, but I don't see why cinema should use anything higher than 24fps, 24fps have been the industry standard since ever and it wasn't because Hollywood wanted to save money on film
Film makers commonly use 35mm film instead of a digital camera. This is because film, being an analog substance, can record as resolutions that exceed most 4k and even 8k digital pictures. IMAX commonly shot their films, before it was just a buzzword, in 65mm film, which has a resolution exceeding 16k, and could be scanned at 16k and produce an image sharper and more clear than one shot in 16k native digital.
The same is true for vinyl, and is why vinyl remains king of quality standards, while in a perfect vacuum and played by a specialized turntable to prevent dust pops. Magnetic tape is just about the same, with some providing audio quality equal to a computer outputting at 384khz 64-bit resolutions.
> I don't see why cinema should use anything higher than 24fps, 24fps have been the industry standard
Who the fuck gives a shit what is a standard?
Vinyl was the standard for decades. That's exactly why you have morons still believing it's better when they are ludicrously stupid when the intermediate source that pressed them was digital to begin with (nowadays).
For modern vinyl sure, but for decades it was based on a magnetic master, that was superior on all fronts to any form of audio technology that we have today. There just isn't any evidence that shows people can pick up on the difference besides some doubleblind studies done by "golden ears."
> Film makers commonly use 35mm film
grandpa, that hasn't been true since the early 2000s because it's more expensive in most cases.
Also if you weren't clueless you'd know of 70mm. It's why 2001: A space Odyssey looks like it's from the mid-1980s (it's from the fucking 60s).
Generally, hipsters like you should shut the fuck up. Vinyl and low FPS are relics that have ONLY disadvantages over high resolution and rate.
Fuck off and let the world progress.