Manned Up Mannequins - [Saxxy Awards 2017 - Extended] - General

[video=youtube;cpT0WRDh14I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpT0WRDh14I[/video] Excellent submission, hope it gets a nomination at least.

60fps :vomit: [editline]7th March 2018[/editline] Also, those camera movements are waaaaay too wild and unpolished. The character animations are fine overall though. [editline]9th March 2018[/editline] Dumb me all you want - 24fps is the cinematic standard. This is a short film, not a video game. This 60fps trend needs to die, and it needs to die fast.

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;53184116]60fps :vomit:.[/QUOTE] I have no issue with this at all. Remarkable job with the soundtrack in any case!

Guess this doesn't need its own thread, but it's absolutely phenomenal. [video=youtube;yPk1VjGbSYU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPk1VjGbSYU[/video]

Didn't a facepuncher work on that one?

[QUOTE=Kartoffel;53188631]Didn't a facepuncher work on that one?[/QUOTE] Sedisocks, Nonamesleft, Donhonk, Void, and Harry all have fp accounts I believe, Sedisocks and Blade x64 worked on the 2016 Best Overall, Timeless Thief as well.

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;53184116]60fps :vomit: [editline]7th March 2018[/editline] Also, those camera movements are waaaaay too wild and unpolished. The character animations are fine overall though. [editline]9th March 2018[/editline] Dumb me all you want - 24fps is the cinematic standard. This is a short film, not a video game. This 60fps trend needs to die, and it needs to die fast.[/QUOTE] The standard doesn't mean it's better. It just means that there's a reason it's a standard. In this case, it's a cost, efficiency, and tradition-based reason, not an aesthetic or technical reason.

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;53184116]60fps :vomit: [editline]7th March 2018[/editline] Also, those camera movements are waaaaay too wild and unpolished. The character animations are fine overall though. [editline]9th March 2018[/editline] Dumb me all you want - 24fps is the cinematic standard. This is a short film, not a video game. This 60fps trend needs to die, and it needs to die fast.[/QUOTE] Saying "dumb me all you want" doesn't make you any less dumb. Why does 60 FPS need to die?

60fps is so much better than 24fps. It takes like an hour to get used to it, and then you realise how god-awful 24fps is in comparison. People are just unwilling to take that first step because it "feels weird" and because of the soap opera effect.

[QUOTE=Reds;53191129]60fps is so much better than 24fps. It takes like an hour to get used to it, and then you realise how god-awful 24fps is in comparison. People are just unwilling to take that first step because it "feels weird" and because of the soap opera effect.[/QUOTE] I think it's harder with YouTube due to the most consistent frame-rate from video to video is 30fps, since not all channels upload in 60fps, and there's also the rare video that's 50fps. Frame-rates aside, it was a pretty cool short. I know the models were based on mannequins, but it reminded me of the old Stikfas toys my friends used to collect (also based on mannequins, but poseable as action figures).

[QUOTE=Mr_Awesome;53190911]The standard doesn't mean it's better. It just means that there's a reason it's a standard. In this case, it's a cost, efficiency, and tradition-based reason, not an aesthetic or technical reason.[/QUOTE] The standard is definetely an aesthetic reason. Why do you think the 48fps Hobbit-film was such a flop? Why do you think no movie has done it successfully? Why do you think THAT fad died out very quickly? Shit, the only reason you see SFM-videos do this thing so often is because it's fast to render and it's one of the pre-available options in the render settings. You don't see this practice done anywhere else[I] for a reason.[/I] [QUOTE=LegndNikko;53191108]Saying "dumb me all you want" doesn't make you any less dumb. Why does 60 FPS need to die?[/QUOTE] Because it's a dumb trend that adds absolutely nothing to the movie except make it feel less immersive. Arguably, the 24fps adds to the fantasy. You go to 48 or more, it feels like you're watching a documentary or bad soap opera (hence the name of the effect). In the case of in-engine cinematics (such as this) it looks like a cutscene from a video game. [QUOTE=Reds;53191129]60fps is so much better than 24fps.[/QUOTE] It really isn't.

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;53191586]Because it's a dumb trend that adds absolutely nothing to the movie except make it feel less immersive. Arguably, the 24fps adds to the fantasy. You go to 48 or more, it feels like you're watching a documentary or bad soap opera (hence the name of the effect). In the case of in-engine cinematics (such as this) it looks like a cutscene from a video game.[/QUOTE] "It needs to die because it's dumb." Wow, that's a terrible response. Even with "that adds absolutely nothing to the movie except make it feel less immersive," which, again, how? Why? How does 24 FPS add to the fantasy? Without using the word "feels," because you've given no actual debate other than "I don't know, man, it just doesn't [I]feel[/I] right!" [quote][B]Shit, the only reason you see SFM-videos do this thing so often is because it's fast to render[/B] and it's one of the pre-available options in the render settings. You don't see this practice done anywhere else [I]for a reason.[/I][/quote] Right here you gave the only solid argument, and gave that "[I]reason[/I]" why you don't see it elsewhere: 60 FPS takes longer to render than 24 FPS. Obviously. The render time makes [I]such[/I] a difference, obviously the creator is going to go with the lower frame rate because it's less work to process and worry about. That said, we aren't discussing from a creator's point of a view, but from a viewer's point of view. And for that point, higher frame rate is superior. It's smoother, and looks better.

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;53191586]Why do you think the 48fps Hobbit-film was such a flop?[/QUOTE] Uh, The Hobbit movies grossed almost a billion dollars each. Yeah, they weren't great movies, and as such they didn't get great reviews, but that's nowhere near a "flop".

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;53193212]"It needs to die because it's dumb." Wow, that's a terrible response. Even with "that adds absolutely nothing to the movie except make it feel less immersive," which, again, how? Why? How does 24 FPS add to the fantasy? Without using the word "feels," because you've given no actual debate other than "I don't know, man, it just doesn't [I]feel[/I] right!"[/QUOTE] You answered your own question there. And also, you should read better. [quote]You go to 48 or more, it feels like you're watching a documentary or bad soap opera (hence the name of the effect). In the case of in-engine cinematics (such as this) it looks like a cutscene from a video game.[/quote] [QUOTE=LegndNikko;53193212]Right here you gave the only solid argument, and gave that "[I]reason[/I]" why you don't see it elsewhere: 60 FPS takes longer to render than 24 FPS. Obviously. The render time makes [I]such[/I] a difference, obviously the creator is going to go with the lower frame rate because it's less work to process and worry about.[/QUOTE] You think multi-trillion dollar industries such as Hollywood that churn out cinema experiences like it's nobodys business has problem acquiring the resources necessary to render a movie at a higher framerate? Bruh. No. Again, it's a visual, aesthetic reason. It's not a technical limitation, it's not a budget constraint. The reason you don't see anybody attempting 48fps or higher since The Hobbit is because the majority of people detested it, and it ruined peoples viewing experience, ergo it was never tried again (although apparently James Cameron is going to try it for the Avatar sequels). Not to shittalk the SFM community, but it's the only place in cinematics & filmmaking where 48/60fps is actually prominent and I feel like that says a lot. [QUOTE=LegndNikko;53193212]That said, we aren't discussing from a creator's point of a view, but from a viewer's point of view. And for that point, higher frame rate is superior. It's smoother, and looks better.[/QUOTE] Smoother, yes. Looks better? Hell no. Unless you want your film to look like a bad soap opera, or a documentary, I guess. [QUOTE=Dr. Ocsid;53193287]Uh, The Hobbit movies grossed almost a billion dollars each. Yeah, they weren't great movies, and as such they didn't get great reviews, but that's nowhere near a "flop".[/QUOTE] I thought it was pretty damn obvious I was talking about the viewer experience being a flop, not the economic aspect. If you classify something as a flop purely by net profit then I guess Pixels and The Emoji Movie were just stellar blockbusters?

More movies should adopt the 60fps standard, I'm tired of the screen turning to mush whenever it pans across a detailed landscape.

[QUOTE=Mmrnmhrm;53193636]More movies should adopt the 60fps standard, I'm tired of the screen turning to mush whenever it pans across a detailed landscape.[/QUOTE] That has nothing to do with the framerate of the final movie, and has all to do with the shutter-speed/frequency of the camera and post-processing. A scene filmed in 1/50 will be clearer than one filmed in 1/25, regardless if the final framerate is 24, 48, 60 or beyond (although 24fps generally uses 1/48, but you get my point) A degree of motion-blur is also "cinematic" (hence why so many games aim to replicate it well) but it's easy to avoid and lessen.