Why 24 frames per second?

Why 24 frames per second?

Attached: 1486753705408.jpg (124x113, 2K)

Because your eyes don't see more for passively watching something

Lower is too jarring. Higher is too realistic.

shut the fuck up you dumb frogposting nigger and go back to your video game board

How rude!

Up to reasonable ranges yes, but the "realistic" look is mostly determined by Shutter Speed (180 degree rule) rather than framerate being the only metric

This is Jow Forums, what do you expect?
Anyway developers are lazy and expect people to fall for their "24 cinematic fps" meme so that they can shit out lesser optimized games that work on all platforms. Consoles have been and will always be degrading pieces of shit that screw up games because they obviously can't run what a PC can.

I'm talking about film you dumb antifrogposterposter

Then why are you here and not on .

Attached: gD3N1XUG.jpg (400x299, 15K)

Biological limitation.

Similar to how most humans can only hear music up to 40kbps, the refresh rate for our eyes is about 5ms. They gave it some cushion to account for different people's eyes, lag, etc.

Not OP
Imagine if technology was more than just AMD vs Intel threads
Besides both /p/ and /tv/ outside of containment threads discourage discussions of this nature.
The technical aspect behind film should imho be covered on the technology board

Tradition. That's literally it. 24fps was cheaper when films were filmed on actual film because you needed less film. And now no one wants to change it because people think it "looks weird". If Hollywood started releasing every film at 60fps people would quickly get used to it and eventually realize how much better it is. But no one wants to take that risk and have people bitch about the change like The Hobbit. Not only that, but Hollywood is so far up their own ass they actually believe 24fps is superior for no reason other than "it's always been done that way". Literally boomer conservative traditionalist logic.

It's literally because it's cheaper (even with digital, because you don't need such bright lighting for low frame-rate). Film industry propaganda convinces the brainlets that it's "artistic" or some bullshit like that. We should have standardized on 120fps minimum years ago.

>realize how much better it is
How would that be better exactly?
>nb4 muh quick camera movements only used in garbage genres

Smoother and more immersive/realistic. Arguing that lower framerate is better than higher framerate is as stupid as arguing that lower resolution is better than higher resolution. The only arguments against increasing resolution and framerate are cost. It's literally never gonna make it look worse.

Nobody says that lower framerate is better.
However, I have yet to see an actual argument as to why we should move to higher framerates for movies. Each time higher framerate has been tried, it failed miserably.

Because for the fucking price of going to the cinema/buying a blu-ray, we should be getting the best technical quality available. Paying 30 bucks for a blu-ray and having it filmed in the same janky framerate from 1930 because "there's no reason to change it" is a dick slap to the face

>buying a blu-ray
But user, you can't fit a 4k movie at 60 frames per second on a bluray

>>/v/
OP, higher framerates in film give them that soap opera uncanny valley feeling. It might be good for action movies, but for most a lowish rate is ideal. As for why 24 in particular, pretty much just because it was an early standard

not even a 4k blueray

>falling for the soap opera meme
Can't you see you're being scammed?

Make bigger blurays then, if we just gave up when we couldn't fit any more information on the disk then we'd still be watching movies at 480p

720p120 > 1080p60 > 4Kp24

movies should be 25fps like almost everything in superior pal region

US framerates are super gay. I know the historical reasons why those exist, but just like interlacing is finally dumped with 4k resolutions, there is absolutely no reason to keep using those shitty x/1001 framerates today.

This. We've just come to expect that TV is 30 FPS, Anime is 15 FPS, and Games are 60 FPS. Humans are fickle organisms, we don't like trying new things.

"Historical reasons"

TV: was the standard and higher framerates look awkward
Vidya: console users are retarded and don't know any better
>comes into a completely on topic thread to make an off topic shitpost in some desperate attempt to fit in
Kill yourself

>60
Is it 2005? 144hz is the standard for anyone who gives a shit these days, but even getting 72 out of a 144hz monitor is an extreme upgrade from 60

A lot of TV programs are 60 fps.

Maybe for PC games, phones and consoles are still stuck at 60.

Slow start was 60 fps and it was great.

>This is Jow Forums, what do you expect?
You're saying that like you're supposed to be rude

Because even people with very trained eyes can only see about 10fps with each eye. Make it 12 for some buffer, 2 eyes so 24 fps.

This is what I always assumed it was. Film was super expensive

Did you watch The Hobbit at 48fps at the cinema? Most awkward shit ever, gave me a headache.