2019

>2019
>movies are still produced

Attached: 1515479660246.png (803x677, 100K)

>movies

movies are shit OP, hollywood ran out of fresh ideas years ago

>produce 48FPS film
>everyone hates it
>zoomers call it a soap opera

actually it would be a new cool buzzword to sell TV and shit

48 fps movies aren't bad because of 48 fps
they are bad just because they are bad

Considering a higher framerate looks like shit, I'm okay with this. Remember the hobbit movies? Remember how cheap and awful they looked? 24fps seems to be in some sort of sweet spot for the human eye and proves that bigger isn't always better.
Besides if I wanted all my movies to look like low budget soap operas I could just enable frame smoothing on my TV.

>zoomers call it a soap opera
You misspelled boomers

It doesn't matter. The actual interactive part (my own dick) is in 9999999fps

I tried to find a 60 fps movie to prove that it looks fucking dumb and found this.
Was the hobbit really made in 60fps or is this interpolated? It looks fake as hell.
youtube.com/watch?v=MzU_NB1-Wsk

Watching any movie gives me eye cancer these days from the low fps. 144fps should be the minimum for any motion picture.

>interpolated

Attached: 1525037257580.png (1273x1024, 1.25M)

>looks like shit
>cheap
>awful
These aren't arguments. Back them up with specific details and reasoning.

A jew scheme.

>Remember the hobbit movies? Remember how cheap and awful they looked?
see And the hobbit was diffused in 24fps in most cinema because not every cinema have 48fps projectors

No, Peter Jackson was pushing for 48fps.

No it was like 48fps or some shit.
Now this is a super framerate.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Lynn's_Long_Halftime_Walk_(film)
>It had high production costs associated with being the first ever feature film using an extra-high frame rate of 120 frames per second, further complicated by the 3D format, at 4K HD resolution.

If you seriously think the human eye can even notice differences to that extent you are a moron.
The smoothing of the frames makes the movement of the actors look unnatural to the human eye. Not only that but it makes the production quality of the movie jarringly jump out at you. It looks cheap because traditionally cheap shitty TV shows were filmed like this.
I saw it at imax, so I know it was displaying it at the correct rate. Movie looked fucking gawd awful.

movie with FX and shit, okay, it's cheaper to do at a lower framerate.
But WHY isn't most TV, documentaries, live concert, boring movies and youtube videos at 50 or 60 FPS?

Because it looks like shit.

no
I envy korean videos for their framerate

It looks okay to them because of their reduced field of view due to having slanty eyes.
Seriously though unless your doing something specific with high FPS, where it looks good (sports look good with a higher refresh) it tends to make things look like a cheaply made Mexican soap opera.

Peter Jackson tried.
Everyone threw a fit about 48fps Hobbit.
I only got to see it once, it was great fuck the 'film feel' faggots.

I just wish they'd finally release it on BD or even as an option on NetFlix.
Also I guess you can watch Big Buck Bunny is whatever framerate you render it in.

It was 48fps.
But only in the cinemas
And only certain cinemas (with the ones having it also playing 24fps versions)

The 48fps version has never been released outside cinemas.

you can even re-render the projet at 600fps if you want

24p > 60fps
kys gaymers

I mean, it looked terrible.
'As The Middle Earth Turns' I guess.
I mean if you like watching crappy soap operas just say so.

Boomers (actual baby boomers) and Zoomers were the ones having a cry about it.
30yo Boomers (like myself) loved it.

Baby Boomers are too attached to 24fps
Zoomers were tricked by Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo into thinking 24/30fps is somehow more 'cinematic' and therefore better for film...

>Zoomers were tricked by Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo into thinking 24/30fps is somehow more 'cinematic' and therefore better for film...

Yep.

24 = film/cinema
29.97/30 = broadcast

>1920 tier technology

60fps for live video is disgusting and completely unrealistic

>Remember the hobbit movies? Remember how cheap and awful they looked?

I remember.

But some scenes looked great while others looked crap.
I got the feeling some of the animations were only rendered out at 24fps or something.
Something didn't quite match up.

Also 3D is utter cancer that ruins every movie.

Yes. (well acckshually it's 23.976 for fillums or rather x*1000/1001)
But what does that have to do with my post or the price of eggs in China

Dude not a zoomer, just a film buff.
They made a movie in your guy's format. In fact they made several. They were universally despised for looking like shut and the none adoption of this format is due to basically having no market or demand for it. It's proven people prefer certain FPS ranges that look 'natural'. Everything outside this range looks very apparently 'unnatural'

>Implying anything below that is fucking acceptable in sporting events.
stfu nerd.

>It's proven people prefer certain FPS ranges that look 'natural'. Everything outside this range looks very apparently 'unnatural'
This is what the zoomer actually believes.

The high action/motion scenes looked great while anything other than those action scenes looked awful. Same reason that while your GPU processes at 60 frames per second, most games don't actually push that many frames unless it's a high action sequence.

>60fps for live video is disgusting and completely unrealistic

Attached: teen-girl-laughing-and-having-fun_hlpal_zmg_thumbnail-full01.png (1920x1080, 3.2M)

>implying anyone broadcasts that

>Streaming

>Implying anyone streams that.

All Australian television is broadcast at 50hz.
Generally only content from US where they have some unnatural love of 30*1000/1001 is less than 50hz.

svp-team.com/wiki/Main_Page
svp-team.com/wiki/Main_Page
svp-team.com/wiki/Main_Page

If you aren't interpolating everything you watch you can't post in this thread.

>i want everything to loop like a soap opera

50hz broadcast = PAL = 25fps

I remember the scene with the Dwarfs throwing dishes looked like shit.
Also the scene with the rabbits pulling the sled while attacked by "dogs" was terrible.

In those scenes I really got the feeling the CGI elements didn't match the shot footage.

I actually like the slow moving scenes at higher fps.
Yeah, it's not that the movie buffs think is "proper cinema" but it makes the dialogues more intense IMO.

Medium speed action is actually the most problematic at 24fps, high speed becomes enough of a blur for you not to notice the slideshow.

>the soap opera argument.
I want my videos to be smooth like a baby ass, not a fucking 1920 tier diaporama.

Zoomers who grew up around expensive TVs, not brainwashed by 24fps meme, never complain about "soap opera". Yeah, it's you, boomer.

>Zoomers growing around TVs with motion interpolation prefer 24/30fps
Sounds legit

No.
You clearly have no idea how broadcast television works.

This is why adaptations are the way to go

>blah blah 48 fps looks unrealistic
Sorry but 24 fps feels EVEN MORE unrealistic
fast traveling and actions sequences in movies are terrible, and when I go to the cinema I only wish higher framerate were the norm when I watch those sequences

I can understand movies being produced in 24 fps because of cgi costs.

>in movie theater
>watching previews before the film
>it's an ad for some video game
>ad plays at 24 fps
Now this is actually infuriating, it looks ugly as shit

48 fps movies look like fucking documentaries

It's like an euroshit frame rate.

you've clearly never worked with source media in NTSC and PAL formats. In order to broadcast 60fps native material you would need a refresh rate much higher than 50hz

Fairly sure rendering costs are pretty low compared to all the 3D modeling and even editing.

IMO it's a shame to spend thousands and thousands of hours modeling and then end up with a choppy, blurry mess.

twitter.com/TomCruise/status/1070071781757616128
>the absolute state of filmmaking

No, you wouldn't.
You'll lose exactly half the lines for each 'whole frame'.
How do you think the 'soap opera' effect even happens?

And I want my movies to look like a work of art, not like a fucking X-games show. High frames look great for some special case uses, but for general movies it looks terrible.
>Not enjoying the skillful cinematography involved in filming an action scene. What to blur, what to focus on, depth of field...
Saying every movie should be high FPS is like saying every photo should have an unlimited depth of field and full focus. It loses the artistry.

>it's art because bokeh
ok, kill yourself now

anime is still recorded in 2s by a lot of studios. (2 shots of the same image), so if a show/movie/whatever is at 24fps, the animation frame rate is 12fps.

>If it's not exactly perfect high fidelity 4k ultra cock magic I'll throw a temper tantrum...
Fucking entitled zoomers.

Low FPS is artistic. Nice, I've never heard that one before, I'm writing it down.

fucking kill yourself, adaptations are worse than the yearly military dog movie. And if they're live action adaptations of anime, they're about one thousands times worse yet. Literally every single live-action adaptation of any animated or drawn has been complete and utter, unwatchable shit. I still have GITS flashbacks, and haven't been able to watch the originals since it came out, because it puts such a bad taste in my mouth.

Attached: 1509172952461.jpg (626x354, 20K)

No, it's like saying all movies should be high resolution.
Which they should.

People aren't whining about "muh HD looks like a soap opera! SD is the real art!"
Because that would be retarded, just like wanting low spatial resolution is retarded.

high fps in a movie is honestly nauseating and leaves a weak impression. Actions in 60fps carries less weight to them.

Attached: 1524172095556.png (447x442, 351K)

I'm convinced these fags don't even watch movies outside of capeshit.
Serious movies are 24fps, anything more is a joke.

Are you implying autistic weebs don't watch anything besides anime?

>high fps in a movie is honestly nauseating and leaves a weak impression.
it's quite the opposite for me

At the end of the day, movies will continue to be produced in 24fps because that is what the public demands, and nobody sees anything changing soon. So continue to be buttmad while I enjoy some popcorn you entitled autists.

I'll bet you enjoy smelling your own farts.

I liked the 48fps, because my cinema isn't for niggers and actually projected what he advertised.
It was noticable as fuck and absolutely way better.

>because that is what the public demands

No it isn't.
It's what movie snobs demand, and they write the reviews.

Noticeably worse as fuck maybe.
Just say you enjoy mexinigger soap operas, you've basically already proclaimed your love for them by dry humping the format.

Just when I thought I couldn't give less shit about Tom Cruise he surprises me with his ancient opinions.

Yeah, that's why people walked out of the Hobbit, because they were film snobs, not because it made them sick to look at.
And don't say it was because of the projectors, I saw it at Imax and I watched people gag/walk out.

> High frames look great for some special case uses, but for general movies it looks terrible.
it looks amazing. you've spent forever watching stuff at 24fps or 30fps.

>seeing what is actually happening on screen carries less weight

This is too funny, keep going

>When your format is so bad people literally vomit while watching it.

Post some more.
I'm loving these crappy excuses.

No one below 25 gives a shit. They're all watching in with motion interpolation and enjoying it just fine. Would be better if there was no blur, but what you gonna do.

The hot new west coast trend in modern headwear.

Hey, keep making commercial flops, they say insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.

So you need to run it through a filter to make it watchable? Nice.

>I saw it at Imax and I watched people gag
wtf, it was THAT bad?

Are you absolutely insane? Watched that movie twice at 48fps and no one, absolutely no one left before the end. So either you're living in the most sensitive town on Earth or you're lying like you usually do.

It causes extreme motion sickness in some people. I'm sure the gigantic screen didn't help.

Absolutely. You know how juddery 24fps looks at the big screen?

do people vomit after watching 60fps or 50fps video games played on consoles? or videos on youtube? how about 100fps+ computer video cards? what more fucking lame excuses do you have there, you video and computer illiterate faggot?