> Yes 60fps does look more real but real is not why we go see movies

Part is a historical reason. > 24fps was extremely expensive in the film (literal film) era.

For the same reason those hipsters kept using 35mm film. When Kubrick used 70mm film for 2001:A Space Odyssey he made a movie that looks like it's from the 80s (it's from the 60s).

PS. He was a photographer first so he knew the score.

>makes it more real
It makes it more fluid. Really necessary when you're watching events from a 3rd person perspective. Could be interesting for 1st person content though.

It's no issue really.

Video is really different to photography.

In photography being locked to a 1/60 shutterspeed would be a huge hindrance, and you'd need to adjust use of your aperture setting accordingly.

Films are however entirely staged, and functionally being locked to 1/24 is no different to being locked to 1/60. Your limitations are set, so set your lights and change your lenses according to the shot you want to achieve.

The cinematic effect is really just a result of people never seeing shit in 60fps at a cinema. Bunch of boomers went to see The Hobbit and balked at shots being smooth and motion blur being absent.

Really I don't care which they choose

because you're a filthy weeb

someone link me the original reddit post

you need to go back

People railed against colored TV vs "black and white" TV for fuck sake. There will ALWAYS be Luddites that don't like newer tech. ALWAYS.

>implying colored TV wasn't a mistake

>Viewers don't need the additional information and it would only cost more money.
The same can be reasoned for color. Should we go back to black and white movies?

Was this what BET called itself in the 70s or something?

Attached: archer-confused.jpg (600x600, 67K)

Yes.

ha!

Nothing better than an actual film (not digital trash) at 24 fps. Anything above that looks cheap as fuck.

>For escapism
No, I just go for entertainment.

The only problem with 48/60/etc fps is that studios can't hide their shitty CGI and effects behind insane amounts of motion blur.

>That's EXACTLY why we go to see movies. For escapism.
I remember when escapism was considered a bad thing. Guess this really is the end of times.
Also who the fuck actually goes to see movies anymore?

60fps looks like shit. the only reason for it is dumbfuck teenage gaymurs were shilled 60fps is REQUIRED for gaymes by GPU shills who need them to waste their parents money upgrading their rig each year. And the only reason anybody is even talking about it is dumbfuck teenage gaymurs with nothing better to do with their free time than whinge on the internet that their capeshit doesn't view like a mexican soap opera.

Attached: 1522995135997.jpg (716x516, 236K)

you mean plastic?

Why doesn't 3D get more hate?

Compared to 48/60 fps that's a much bigger deviation from "cinematic" and actually fucks up your eyes.

lurk moar

framerate has an emotional effect, like with color palette or blurriness or grain

>60fps looks like shit
maybe when you interpolate it
48fps looks fantastic compared to 24

>You are stupid. It makes it more real. Even interpolation is better (even if it has artifacts in certain scene types).
Cool, so where are all the 60fps movies to confirm this is true?

60 fps in actual things like professionally done videos just makes them look like amateur home movies

Probably why they started using it more in porn if you think about it

Attached: 07.gif (245x184, 984K)

Stuff "film buffs" don't care about:
>poor story lines
>bad acting
>unoriginal plots
Stuff "film buffs" care about:
>24fps

In 2070 movies will be VR and you'll feel as if you were inside them

you're right, when Juanita regained her lost memories and remember she used to be married to Carlos, Jorge's evil twin brother, if that scene wasn't exactly 48 fps i would have lost my shit.

FPS is about balance. Too few frames and it doesn't look like motion. Too many and the motions and actions don't have any visual impact. It's also nauseating.

>Implying i dont care about all of them.
who the fuck ever made that point?

Attached: 1522201298120.jpg (950x533, 35K)

Attached: VRB.png (724x459, 50K)

24fps looks like ass whenever the camera moves. I fucking does.

>24fps is historical

Well, HISTORICALLY, movies were people standing around talking in front of a camera that was locked down.

They didn't have fucking The Matrix or the Marvel movies back in fucking 1924. Today half of all movies are action movies where half the time a virtual camera is zooming around at 600 miles per hour and it's a blurry fucking slideshow that looks and feels like feces.

HFR naysayers are just dragging their feet because CHANGE BAD. No aspect of 24fps is technically or aesthetically superior. People's preference for it is wholly based on the fact that they are accustomed to it.

/thread

>movies should cater to mindless normie capeshit
ALL CHANGE GOOD

Attached: soy-grup.jpg (474x331, 16K)

>technology shouldn't improve with time
>resolution, sound quality, and color accuracy should improve, but not refresh rate because then some teenager might be able to see how shitty the cgi in disney's latest propaganda really is

60 fps gives me motion sickness. Not gonna watch that.

Attached: mmm hot coffee.jpg (480x360, 11K)

These two:

>watching movies
Hello, boomer.

>arbitrary number chosen in 1920s not for aesthetic reasons but for practicality
>arguments against changing it all cite aesthetics

*beep* *boop*

24fps is all I have ever known. *beep* Must stick to programming *boop*

You're watching 60fps right fucking now you fucking nocebo retard.

>octuple the spacial resolution
>can't increase temporal resolution, that's bad

refresh rate can't improve. that's like saying the rocks need to improve.
>More edges!
>Smaller pebbles!
>Bigger boulders!
>Grey!
it's a fucking rock you imbecile. it is what it is.

>ALL CHANGE GOOD

>trying this hard to fit in

>refresh rate can't improve
Yes it can. Literally.

...

excellent imitation of a retard, sir

This is a boomer board, I'm being contrarian if anything. Doesn't change my point by the way.

try reading something sometime. wikipedia should be good enough for you
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate

those aren't arguments so keep >>ing all you want

Yes, the integer value can be higher, but the quality does not go higher. Just like a rock can be bigger but it's still just a rock in the end. How's your remedial english class going? And remedial logic?

>FPS is about balance.
24fps is literally the fewest frames you can use to still constantly look like motion and not a series of still images, it's the standard because it got the most out of a single roll of film and studios didn't want to pay for more. That's it.
Anything else is just an excuse to justify not spending more to maximize profits.
>It's also nauseating.
As far as I know there is exactly zero evidence to back up the idea that high framerates are nauseating. There is, on the other hand, a huge body of evidence suggesting low framerates cause nausea.

>refresh rate can't improve. that's like saying the rocks need to improve.
>refresh rate at 24
>not directly scalable to NTSC or PAL
> stutters/frame jumps/reencoding
why not 30fps, why not 60 fps, why not 50 fps?
does Jow Forums get motion sick when they watch the weather channel, too?

>but the quality does not go higher
Yes it does. You're literally seeing more detail per second.

I don't like interpolation but you're right, 24fps is retarded and needs to be culled.

What did he mean by this

Attached: 920430169.gif (300x300, 892K)

are you trying to make a fucking point about something or are you just linking random fucking wikipedia articles?

Your own screen.

You're wrong and you shouldn't comment on things you don't know about.

Cinematography is a superset of photography, and thus shutter speed (limited by frame rate) is an *artistic* choice not a technical one. Cameras have been able to shoot higher framerates for at least 50years, mostly for slow motion sequences or artistic effect of action scenes.
And photo cameras have a range of shutter speeds, from seconds until 1/12000th of a second.
Your autistic screeching is equivalent to "waaah why was this photo shot at 1/100 shutter speed, newer cameras go up to 1/12000".
So strip any artistic choice and use the highest number for everything, cause big numbers good, right?

/v/ermin should stick to their video games and not mess with things they are clueless about.

Jow Forums updates at the speed of light

24fps needs to go the way of 44.1khz.

Refresh rate? That's not fps.

Attached: 1547856165445.png (710x577, 161K)

>Cinematography is a superset of photography
No, it's a superset of chemistry.

30fps gaming or gtfo

>/v/ermin should stick to their video games and not mess with things they are clueless about.
We are, that's why cinema is going down the tubes - no one cares about it, since all the 'cinemaphiles' get off being pretentious as possible, making sure movies are only made with certain stories and only made a certain way to fit their weird requirements.

Normies watch netflix and play videogames now, they only go to the cinema to fug.

>those aren't arguments so keep >>ing all you want
There is a question if you haven't noticed.

No him.

What's your fucking argument? Are you trying to say that increased temporal resolution somehow doesn't translate to higher quality motion? And yet higher spatial resolution does? Or maybe I'm putting words in your mouth. Maybe you think a 480i VHS looks just as good as a 4K bluray or a 35mm print.

Who the fuck knows. You retards don't even keep your logic self consistent.

>movies with any semblance of integrity and artistry bad
>popular Netflix movies bad
Uhh, what are you saying here?

Netflix does TV shows now, no one watches movies on it.
Also I was not saying Netflix is bad, I was saying pretentious cinemaphiles are.

>be watching 60fps videos most of your life, just not movies
>suddenly a 48fps movie comes out
>oh no it's so nauseating bring 24fps back
Normie is why we can't ever have nice things.

no, it's a superset of mathematics

Name a good movie from the last 12 months...

*years

film good
video bad
analog good
digital bad
24fps good
60fps bad

oh my god

>As far as I know there is exactly zero evidence to back up the idea that high framerates are nauseating. There is, on the other hand, a huge body of evidence suggesting low framerates cause nausea.
baseless. provide a source.

The detail of the scene is the same in each shot. You are not perceiving the details of all 60 shots in a second—the whole damn reason behind film is flipping through images fast enough that they blur together and _appear_ to move.

>he 'cinemaphiles' get off being pretentious as possible, making sure movies are only made with certain stories and only made a certain way to fit their weird requirements.
these are not cinemaphiles, these are dumb cunts. don't confuse the two.

yes. see above. There is 'literally' more information conveyed, but that's irrelevant to perception. My stance is that framerate is not a bigger=better variable, despite what GPU vendors would have you believe. Making 60fps the new golden standard just because 24

Attached: 1525096823510.jpg (704x703, 69K)

>insert name of movie to set up inevitable my opinion is objective truth and also different from yours response

south korean aesthetic is a tumor in asia and should be eliminated

this:

>I actually can't name a movie that wasn't either capeshit that will railed on or pretentious cinemaphile shit, which will also be railed on, because it simply doesn't exist.
fix'd

You just reworded your post.
Well, what's there to say when:
>movies with any semblance of integrity and artistry bad
>popular Netflix movies bad
And:

Realism is the opposite of escapism.

A book is more escapist than a movie since you're generating the entire reality in your head. The book disappears completely.
A 24 fps movie is more escapist than a 60fps one since you have to fill in the gaps with what you believe should be there.
A high frame rate movie shows you the ugly, naked truth.
I don't watch movies to see bags of mostly water walking around on a set.

>yes. see above. There is 'literally' more information conveyed, but that's irrelevant to perception. My stance is that framerate is not a bigger=better variable, despite what GPU vendors would have you believe. Making 60fps the new golden standard just because 24

based and redpiled

>The detail of the scene is the same in each shot
It's literally not, with lower frame rates you're seeing the blurred average of the scene, like in scaled up low-res images, higher frame rates show the true details of the scene.

>I don't watch movies to see bags of mostly water walking around on a set.
OH my god

Are you actually retarded then?
Are you unable to read and understand the English language?

>I don't get why they don't 60fps (or 120 or higher) all the movies, except for obviously extra bandwidth
Because shutter speed is correlated with frame rate. Movie cameras used rotary shutters, one full rotation per frame, and they had a cut out in the shutter disk letting light in. If half the disk was cut out (shutter angle 180º), while it rotated, only for half of the duration of the frame (1/24) would the film/sensor get exposure, so shutter speed was effectively 1/50s. If the cutout was 90º, only a quarter of the time, i.e. effective shutter speed 1/100. If the whole disk was "cutout", i.e. the slowest shutter speed, would be 1/24s.

A framerate doubling, doubles the minimum shutter speed that you can use.
60fps means at minimum, 1/60s shutter speed.
This halves the exposure (cuts one stop of light). So apart from the difference in motion by using 1/24 vs 1/60 shutter speed, you have to deal with exposure as well. So you have 3 options:
1. underexposed, dark scene
2. use a wider aperture (if the lens goes wider) to let more light in, at the expense of shallower depth of field, i.e. if your actors are not aligned, one will be in focus will the other not. Also, the wider you go, the lens performance degrades a bit.
3. use faster ISO (if there exists), getting more noise or grain (digital cinema cameras are really optimised for 1 or 2 base ISOs)

So bandwidth is the least of your concerns. The important one is shutter speed, and how increasing it affects not just the motion, but other aspects of the film too - depth of field, noise and exposure.

>Directors could shoot at 120 and release at 30 if they want
They do something similar: They'll shoot the majority of the movie at 24 fps shutter angle 180º (1/48s shutter speed), and for some scenes that they want to appear more gritty and "choppy" (usually action scenes), they'll up the shutter speed to 1/100s using a shutter angle of 45º.

>yes. see above. There is 'literally' more information conveyed, but that's irrelevant to perception.

How can mirrors be real if our eyes aren’t real?

I just don't know how how to read minds, that's all. And why does it matter if I by some dumb luck guess what movie you and I both like?
The thread is about 60fps movies and these are the only ones which are shot in that frame rate:
youtu.be/rq8LbEyehFs
youtu.be/ODVCgV2KWYk
youtu.be/9Yam5B_iasY
Superhero movies.

60fps kpop mvs? Yes please

>tfw going from a 144fps game to a 24fps movie
It's god awful, the first minute or so before you get used to it again is nearly unwatchable. The fact we've had resolution increases every 5 years or so, but no increase in framerate is just dumb.
And really, 90fps should be the bare minimum for movies and games, not 60, that's when most movement finally stops being choppy.

sorry, maybe call up your manufacturer and ask if there's an upgrade for your software.

>'true details'
stark reality looks like shit, and being able to distinguish the fine details of a Styrofoam cup in the corner of a scene is shitty reason to declare that 60fps is always better than 24. Once again, soap operas are shot in 60fps, and yet they look like complete and utter dogshit—higher framerate is not higher quality media.

There's a reason why a blurred background and in-focus foreground looks pleasing—it's because the job of a creator to cull/emphasize/balance the details of normal reality in order to make clear a specific opinion. Capeshit don't understand this way of watching movies, because more punches, more pixels, more explosions = better is the extent of the nuance of their programming.

Attached: 1525851921787.gif (800x600, 143K)

try making sense. The brain is literally a filter.

You are now conscious that you're breathing. Just because you weren't thinking of that two seconds doesn't mean you weren't breathing right?

Yes indeed, we have to hold ourselves to higher standards, otherwise kinemtatography is just a living lie. We need 60fps 8k HDR 3d VR movies, because otherwise, it's just not possible to get fully I~M~M~E~R~S~E~D. I don't care if this means movies have to come on 4 tb SSDs that you use like NES game cartridges, cost $600, and require at least a GTX 1060 to play, anything less won't let me feel like someone other than the pathetic friendless loser whose paranoia keeps him trapped inside all weekend every weekend.