[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]
That's because they don't, if they're encoded properly.
Grab almost any blu-ray and watch a panning scene. There will be absolutely no jitter.
at 23.976 fps
[editline]24th August 2012[/editline]
Movies are actually shot at a 23.976 framerate. You'll get the stutter when you convert a video shot at 60fps down to 23.976. Hence why all the comparison videos have stutter. But shoot a film at 23.976 fps and you won't see any.
Speaking of this, I'm filming later today and was wondering if I should shoot at 24 or 60 FPS.
Shoot at 24. Absolutely.
why was this not posted already
[url]http://www.svp-team.com/[/url]
works with youtube too (it opens it in your mediaplayer)
The reason it looks weird to people is because the higher stuff, like 48-60 fps, is so smooth it's almost completely blur-less. Without that bit of added motion, it can look surreal and off-putting. Is it really that difficult to understand why there are people that don't like it?
[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]
That's just the motion blur you are seeing.
With digital 60 FPS and post we can recreate that effect easily while retaining high quality.
[QUOTE=Techbot;37387118]why was this not posted already
[url]http://www.svp-team.com/[/url]
works with youtube too (it opens it in your mediaplayer)[/QUOTE]
Except this is adding in non existent frames that it's created itself from the ones before and after. That's pretty horrible and I don't recommend it.
That motorbike scene in 60 fps was amazing.
[QUOTE=Killuah;37387192]That's just the motion blur you are seeing.
With digital 60 FPS and post we can recreate that effect easily while retaining high quality.[/QUOTE]
Post motion blur, are you kidding me...
More like they'll just stick to the 180 shutter rule, so 1/120th for 60 fps will look pretty damn nice but still retain a ton of detail if there's slow moving stuff the same way 30 fps does which is 1/60th shutter.
[i]"The goal of motion pictures is not to recreate reality, it's not even to show reality. I want to create a little psychic link between you and my pictures. I want to suck you into the world of the story, suspend your disbelief and make you forget about yourself and your life and just be in the moment of the film.
By not showing enough visual information, we force the brain into filling in the gaps... it draws you in even more. It's part of how you let go to the point where you can laugh or cry or feel tense or afraid or elated.
Naim Sutherland"[/i]
[url]http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Legend286;37387307]Post motion blur, are you kidding me...
More like they'll just stick to the 180 shutter rule, so 1/120th for 60 fps will look pretty damn nice but still retain a ton of detail if there's slow moving stuff the same way 30 fps does which is 1/60th shutter.[/QUOTE]
It will still have less motion blur.
[QUOTE=Garik;37387379][i]"The goal of motion pictures is not to recreate reality, it's not even to show reality. I want to create a little psychic link between you and my pictures. I want to suck you into the world of the story, suspend your disbelief and make you forget about yourself and your life and just be in the moment of the film.
By not showing enough visual information, we force the brain into filling in the gaps... it draws you in even more. It's part of how you let go to the point where you can laugh or cry or feel tense or afraid or elated.
Naim Sutherland"[/i]
[url]http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html[/url][/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure that is content-related.
[QUOTE=Garik;37387379][i]"The goal of motion pictures is not to recreate reality, it's not even to show reality. I want to create a little psychic link between you and my pictures. I want to suck you into the world of the story, suspend your disbelief and make you forget about yourself and your life and just be in the moment of the film.
By not showing enough visual information, we force the brain into filling in the gaps... it draws you in even more. It's part of how you let go to the point where you can laugh or cry or feel tense or afraid or elated.
Naim Sutherland"[/i]
[url]http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html[/url][/QUOTE]
artists can be really annoying sometimes
it's a new way to shoot movies, they aren't digging up douglas fairbanks and cutting his head off.
[QUOTE=Killuah;37387380]It will still have less motion blur.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but it'll look the same because motion blur pretty much makes us think there's more motion than there is, so 60 fps will have compensated for less blur anyway.
I don't get why people bitch about the cinemas having to upgrade, it's a good thing that they're being forced into the 21st century sooner than later.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;37387195]Except this is adding in non existent frames that it's created itself from the ones before and after. That's pretty horrible and I don't recommend it.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, maybe in [I]extreme[/I] laymans terms.
It undoubtedly makes video look so much smoother and you're talking bullshit if you say otherwise.
At the moment SVP works better for animation than for captured footage, but there are configurations available that remedy this.
[QUOTE=Legend286;37388318]I don't get why people bitch about the cinemas having to upgrade, it's a good thing that they're being forced into the 21st century sooner than later.[/QUOTE]
This would have more impact if 60fps films were becoming commonplace and the theaters were just lagging behind. There is a ton of uncertainty regarding the higher FPS films, with many (myself included) disliking how smooth it looks and how it now looks like a bunch of actors on a set rather than an "alternate reality."
But, we'll have to see.
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;37388677]This would have more impact if 60fps films were becoming commonplace and the theaters were just lagging behind. There is a ton of uncertainty regarding the higher FPS films, with many (myself included) disliking how smooth it looks and how it now looks like a bunch of actors on a set rather than an "alternate reality."
But, we'll have to see.[/QUOTE]
But real life isn't 24 fps.
[QUOTE=Legend286;37388814]But real life isn't 24 fps.[/QUOTE]
Real life isn't measured in frames per second :v:
I know what you're saying though. I just have yet to see 60fps film/tv that looks anything other than unnatural and/or "cheap" (aka the Soap Opera Effect).
Holy shit that bike. High framerates never seem weird in games but when it comes to video, I don't know if it's because I'm short-sighted, but I'm like "Holy fuck"
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;37389044]Real life isn't measured in frames per second :v:
I know what you're saying though. I just have yet to see 60fps film/tv that looks anything other than unnatural and/or "cheap" (aka the Soap Opera Effect).[/QUOTE]
Soap Opera's dont have fucking awesome music and big budget sets.
[editline]24th August 2012[/editline]
They also have shit lighting
[QUOTE=Satane;37389446]i say we should embrace the new technology and stop blindly defending 24 fps just because we got used to it.
if you don't like it, TVs can still include a downsampling mode for stubborn old geezers who don't even want do give it a chance.[/QUOTE]
Hey man, I'm not saying it can't work, I've just yet to be shown an example that proves 60fps is truly better. The moment I see a high-budget film and/or TV show filmed at 48fps or higher AND it ends up looking good is the moment that I become less skeptical.
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;37390807]Hey man, I'm not saying it can't work, I've just yet to be shown an example that proves 60fps is truly better. The moment I see a high-budget film and/or TV show filmed at 48fps or higher AND it ends up looking good is the moment that I become less skeptical.[/QUOTE]
Watch the hobbit in 48fps.
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;37389044]Real life isn't measured in frames per second :v:
I know what you're saying though. I just have yet to see 60fps film/tv that looks anything other than unnatural and/or "cheap" (aka the Soap Opera Effect).[/QUOTE]
Obviously I know that. 60 fps is still more real than 24 though. And maybe that's just because you're watching shit films / television. I have full confidence in Peter Jackson, the 48 fps in The Hobbit is going to make the film way more immersive especially in 3d.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;37376030]aren't youtube videos at 24fps? Or was it 30?[/QUOTE]
The max is 30fps. 24/25fps videos show in their native framerate.
[QUOTE=Legend286;37391678]Obviously I know that. 60 fps is still more real than 24 though. And maybe that's just because you're watching shit films / television. I have full confidence in Peter Jackson, the 48 fps in The Hobbit is going to make the film way more immersive especially in 3d.[/QUOTE]
Hey man, if you know any good high-fps films or tv shows, please point me to them. To date, I've only seen it on low-budget soap operas, which is not appealing.
I'm 100% supportive of switching films to 60fps. It's fine if directors want to stick with 24fps, but using traditional methods just for the sake of tradition is detrimental to the advancement of an art form or anything else.
[QUOTE=Legend286;37388814]But real life isn't 24 fps.[/QUOTE]
Real life isn't any fps so that argument's already void
[editline]25th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=gamefreek76;37392505]I'm 100% supportive of switching films to 60fps. It's fine if directors want to stick with 24fps, but using traditional methods just for the sake of tradition is detrimental to the advancement of an art form or anything else.[/QUOTE]
Except that 60fps looks like shit
[QUOTE=Rusty100;37398831] Except that 60fps looks like shit[/QUOTE]
Except that's your (arguably wrong) opinion and not fact.
I'm still yet to see the Hobbit in 48fps.
I'll see if I like it, if it looks like shit, I'll try it another 3 times, and if it still doesn't look good, 48fps is terrible for me.
I don't really see how 60fps is any more [I]advanced[/I] than 24. We're talking psychology and familiarity. 24 looks fine to us, it always has, so we have ingrained notions surrounding it. Switching to 60 isn't going to make it look any better, only different. I'm not arguing against an increase in framerate, I just think film resources could be focused elsewhere.
[QUOTE=Legend286;37388814]But real life isn't 24 fps.[/QUOTE]
Real life isn't anything, but the moment at which the light appears to be in motion is at 24fps. It's a very complicated argument, with no definitive right or wrong. I see no reason to debate this topic until a good example of film with a higher framerate is available.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
