Pretty interesting article, though that 24fps of the motorbike felt a bit off to me; I have never seen a 24fps film that stuttered as much as that video.
aren't youtube videos at 24fps? Or was it 30?
[QUOTE=Protocol7;37376030]aren't youtube videos at 24fps? Or was it 30?[/QUOTE]
25. Pretty much the same thing.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;37376030]aren't youtube videos at 24fps? Or was it 30?[/QUOTE]
30. You can see the playback speed by right-clicking a video and choosing debug info.
It really sucks because YouTube shoves video playback down to 30fps even if the video you upload is a 60fps video.
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;37375984]Pretty interesting article, though that 24fps of the motorbike felt a bit off to me; I have never seen a 24fps film that stuttered as much as that video.[/QUOTE]
it stuttered for me the first time i watched it, second time was smooth, might be that?
60fps looks nice and immersive for certain things, but for film, just no. Always go 24 or 25.
The 60fps video of that logo looked silly, like a home movie. Actually, watching enough of 60fps can hurt your eyes.
yeah the 60fps felt way unnatural to me
I put an apostrophe in the title by mistake and now it's annoying me.
It all depends on the type of scene pictured and the shutter speed.
This is marketing so people think they need to buy the more powerful RED image processors.
I'm sure anyone willing to splash the cash for RED stuff wouldn't be swayed that easily. They also never mention any of their equipment.
[QUOTE=RubberFruit;37376129]60fps looks nice and immersive for certain things, but for film, just no. Always go 24 or 25.
The 60fps video of that logo looked silly, like a home movie. Actually, [B]watching enough of 60fps can hurt your eyes.[/B][/QUOTE]
Good one.
It feels 'weird' because you are used to 24 fps movies/videos and we only know 60 fps film clips from your average video camera so thats why people see it as 'cheap'
Honestly i think we gotta move away from 24 fps and move on to 60 fps
[QUOTE=darth-veger;37376336]Good one.
[/QUOTE]
I read it somewhere :(
[QUOTE=RubberFruit;37376356]I read it somewhere :([/QUOTE]
It does the exact opposite.
[QUOTE=Scot;37376325]I'm sure anyone willing to splash the cash for RED stuff wouldn't be swayed that easily. They also never mention any of their equipment.[/QUOTE]
I think it's more or less to show how movies will be looking soon, since i heard somewhere that they will start filming newer productions (The Hobbit, for example) in 60fps
Also, my TV plays at 60 FPS and it looks so much smoother when watching 60 fps videos, but to few movies and shows utilize such technology.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;37376495]i heard somewhere that they will start filming newer productions (The Hobbit, for example) in 60fps[/QUOTE]
48fps, double the standard. It has already been filmed.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;37376495]I think it's more or less to show how movies will be looking soon, since i heard somewhere that they will start filming newer productions (The Hobbit, for example) in 60fps
Also, my TV plays at 60 FPS and it looks so much smoother when watching 60 fps videos, but to few movies and shows utilize such technology.[/QUOTE]
I feel the The Hobbit will make 60 FPS popular and may kick off a switch over to it.
[QUOTE=RubberFruit;37376129]60fps looks nice and immersive for certain things, but for film, just no. Always go 24 or 25.
The 60fps video of that logo looked silly, like a home movie. [B]Actually, watching enough of 60fps can hurt your eyes.[/B][/QUOTE]
Are we seriously this scared of it
[QUOTE=smurfy;37376683]Are we seriously this scared of it[/QUOTE]
Apparently using your eyes is bad for them
and suddenly theater owners have to buy new projectors and someone makes a lot of money
(again)
I find that somehow 24fps looks more cinematic, but that is from years of watching movies in 24fps. To me, film at 60fps just looks off in some way, although that is entirely opinion based.
I think in a few years, assuming the majority of filmmakers actually switch over to 48 fps, that most people will wonder how they could have ever watched movies at 24 fps.
That motorbike one at 60fps looked so unreal
And so [I]smooth.[/I]
[editline]23rd August 2012[/editline]
I seriously can't stop watching it.
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;37375984]Pretty interesting article, though that 24fps of the motorbike felt a bit off to me; I have never seen a 24fps film that stuttered as much as that video.[/QUOTE]
The reason it stuttered is:
A) you're watching flash based media. Flash is pretty much never smooth for video.
B) You're probably on a 60hz screen and 24fps isn't perfectly smooth on it
C) It's a fast shutter speed. Not much blur.
[editline]24th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Protocol7;37376030]aren't youtube videos at 24fps? Or was it 30?[/QUOTE]
30.0000FPs
And I wish they supported 120fps.
[editline]24th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;37382317]I find that somehow 24fps looks more cinematic, but that is from years of watching movies in 24fps. To me, film at 60fps just looks off in some way, although that is entirely opinion based.[/QUOTE]
24fps looks cinematic because the standard is 24fps.
60fps looks bad/odd because it's usually associated with DV which is 480i60. And it looks cheap. Which is funny because it takes more power to capture that.
We all like 60+ FPS in games but bitch about higher quality cameras for movies?
Seems so odd to me, 60 FPS is pretty awesome looking.
I actually found the 24 fps motorbike vid easier to watch than the 60 fps one.
Don't know why.
I still prefer 24 fps in movies. I just gives it that familiar feeling of the cinema. 60fps movies look like soaps, it's weird.
[QUOTE=bord2tears;37382920]We all like 60+ FPS in games but bitch about higher quality cameras for movies?
Seems so odd to me, 60 FPS is pretty awesome looking.[/QUOTE]
Probably because when directly controlling the action, waiting 16.666ms for an update is much nicer than 24fps's 41.666ms wait time.
There was a [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1204004]conversation[/url] of higher FPS films quite a while back and the general consensus is that while it looks better in general, it seems to have a feel of a sitcom in a way that everything is put off by a small, unnoticeable factor.
I wonder if when all the films start coming out in HFR then will watching old films look shit?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
