that video pretty much shows exactly why higher fps is not a good thing, though...
so i'm confused why you'd consider bringing it up considering that you
[QUOTE=nVidia;37403461]can't wait for 60/48 fps full HD movies![/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Rusty100;37402306]Another hurdle is that more frames equal way bigger filesize. I don't see how you can fit a feature length film at 60fps even on a blu-ray disc. Not only does it look horrible but it's also impractical
[editline]26th August 2012[/editline]
I'd argue that a good camera makes things look much more lifelike than a higher fps.
If anyone's watched The Dark Knight on Blu-ray for example, the IMAX scenes look superb and feel lifelike without the jarring quality of having an absurdly high fps.[/QUOTE]
I found the IMAX scenes in The Dark Knight incredibly jarring - in the IMAX cinema anyway. That's because most of the scenes weren't in IMAX.
I don't think the file size thing is a concern - new formats will come along to accommodate. I don't think physical media has much of a future anyway.
[QUOTE=Satane;37404364]1000 fps what has this guy been smoking
i've seen some 600hz tvs but that's probably just some marketing bullshit and they're actually 120 or less.[/QUOTE]
OLED tv's can do like 100,000hz iirc but there are virtually no OLED tvs.
actually 60 fps hurts my eyes. i can't imagine watching a whole movie on 60 fps. it looks very unnatural too, it's just way too smooth and that's not how things are in real life. it's terrible, i'd much prefer we stick to 24.
[QUOTE=MenteR;37404424]actually 60 fps hurts my eyes[/QUOTE]
how is that even possible?
Do you not play video games then?
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;37404064]that video pretty much shows exactly why higher fps is not a good thing, though...
so i'm confused why you'd consider bringing it up considering that you[/QUOTE]
Didn't they say something that the problem is if the frame rate is high enough then you need to add in motion blur? Even if that's a problem i still like the look of the higher fps videos.
[QUOTE=Warship;37404583]how is that even possible?
Do you not play video games then?[/QUOTE]
You get blur in video games, either artificially through post processing or because the framerate isn't stable and you start filling in the gaps. 60 shouldn't really be a problem, but I guess some people could be more sensitive to it than others (much like motion sickness).
Extremely high frame rate footage is just pointless, there is a certain point when the frames aren't processed fully by our brains, as that video mentions it is entire possible at higher frame rates for footage to look unreal and be incredibly jarring just because cameras are perfect and our bodies aren't. I have yet to actually see a 60fps video, so I don't know how well that would play out, but I have a feeling that without artificial blur, the footage would just look really weird.
You guys seem to be forgetting that NONE of us have seen a HFR movie. Until then we can't jump to any conclusions.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;37406024]You get blur in video games, either artificially through post processing or because the framerate isn't stable and you start filling in the gaps[/QUOTE]
Well, motion blur in games is mostly not very good. But the blur LCDs produce might count as motion blur I guess.
Ever tried playing 60fps games on a CRT or plasma? Looks pretty nice, but not exactly realistic if there's no motion blur at all.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;37406024]I have yet to actually see a 60fps video, so I don't know how well that would play out, but I have a feeling that without artificial blur, the footage would just look really weird.[/quote]
What do you mean artificial blur? All you'd need to do would use a 180 degree shutter angle (That's 1/120 in the case of 60fps) and there's your motion blur.
[QUOTE=nVidia;37403612][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buSaywCF6E8&hd=1[/media]
Also, this is a quite informative video about how the human eye perceives fps.[/QUOTE]
Vsauce needs to stick to what he knows.
[editline]25th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=nVidia;37405092]Didn't they say something that the problem is if the frame rate is high enough then you need to add in motion blur? Even if that's a problem i still like the look of the higher fps videos.[/QUOTE]
He's confusing framerates and exposure time. He's saying people are adding back in motion blur to very sharp images taken with very short exposure times.
[QUOTE=Warship;37406284]What do you mean artificial blur? All you'd need to do would use a 180 degree shutter angle (That's 1/120 in the case of 60fps) and there's your motion blur.[/QUOTE]
Well I'm mostly thinking of like home cameras right now where people haven't adjusted shutter speeds (keep forgetting that's a thing too), and decide to just interpolate whatever they had to make up frames for 60FPS. Any techniques that add motion blur where there was none basically.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;37404064]that video pretty much shows exactly why higher fps is not a good thing, though...[/QUOTE]
Don't refer to the video. He's replacing exposure times with framerates. With fast shutter speeds, the camera takes a much shorter snapshot of time, and thus less blur from motion. You can always shoot 360 shutter on 60fps video if you wanted, although it would feel really creamy.
TV shows/news shot at 50/60 often shoot with a 360 shutter angle though, and it looks fine. 25/30 with a 360 shutter angle, however, doesn't.
[QUOTE=DrogenViech;37403580]i don't know how you can defend 24 fps at all, i can't wait for everything to be atleast 60 fps[/QUOTE]
It's pretty simple, actually. To the eyes of many, myself included, 24fps simply appears to have more natural movement and clarity than 60fps in most situations.
I'm still waiting to see a true, high-budget 48/60fps film before I really pass judgment on the format though.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;37387106]Shoot at 24. Absolutely.[/QUOTE]
I like how you said that with full confidence without even knowing what he's filming or what kind of camera he's using. Pretty sure the fps should really be about how much movement/action is going on. You can always lower the fps later.
I'd always shoot at the maximum amount of fps you can while knowing how much space your camera has. If you need to conserve space because you're not dumping footage on-site or don't have extra memory (Whatever kind you're using) then you should definitely consider lowering the fps.
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;37410252]It's pretty simple, actually. To the eyes of many, myself included, 24fps simply appears to have more natural movement and clarity than 60fps in most situations.[/QUOTE]
I don't really like this "I'm not use to it, so we shouldn't change" argument that I've seen throughout the thread. Yeah, it looks really unnatural, but it's not like you can give it a fair judgement on some three second clips (not accusing you, just point it out)
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;37410252]I'm still waiting to see a true, high-budget 48/60fps film before I really pass judgment on the format though.[/QUOTE]
Completely agree with this though.
I find playing PC games at 60 fps for more than 2 hours straight begins to fuck with my eyes, gives me headaches etc, can't imagine what would happen if someone were to use 120fps screen and lock a game framerate at 120 then play for a few hours straight. That would sorta also flow with the theory posed by vsauce that higher fps without added motion blur cause headaches.
From what I've seen a lot of games don't offer motion blur, but more and more are nowadays, which is great news.
[QUOTE=nVidia;37403461]Oh man, I can't wait for 60/48 fps full HD movies![/QUOTE]
You'll be waiting a long time then because we don't have any discs big enough to store them.
[editline]26th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=TreasoN.avi;37411722]I like how you said that with full confidence without even knowing what he's filming or what kind of camera he's using. Pretty sure the fps should really be about how much movement/action is going on. You can always lower the fps later.
I'd always shoot at the maximum amount of fps you can while knowing how much space your camera has. If you need to conserve space because you're not dumping footage on-site or don't have extra memory (Whatever kind you're using) then you should definitely consider lowering the fps.[/QUOTE]
Except that in my experience when you lower the framerate from a higher one then that's when you jet the jerkiness in movement.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;37412805]You'll be waiting a long time then because we don't have any discs big enough to store them.
[/QUOTE]
That must be the biggest bullshit ever.
[QUOTE=nVidia;37405092]Didn't they say something that the problem is if the frame rate is high enough then you need to add in motion blur? Even if that's a problem i still like the look of the higher fps videos.[/QUOTE]
so i'm sorry here then what's the point of upping the framerate if you're going to reduce the effect by including the blurring
it puts it straight back to square one with the only effect being a significantly larger file size
[editline]26th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Brt5470;37406367]Don't refer to the video. He's replacing exposure times with framerates. With fast shutter speeds, the camera takes a much shorter snapshot of time, and thus less blur from motion. You can always shoot 360 shutter on 60fps video if you wanted, although it would feel really creamy.[/QUOTE]
but they're inherently linked to one another...
[QUOTE=Rusty100;37412805]You'll be waiting a long time then because we don't have any discs big enough to store them.[/QUOTE]
isn't the average 1080p film like 12gb or something. a current bluray holds 25-50gb depending on layering. double the framerate in a film, double the file size, you get 24gb... still fits on a bluray?
[QUOTE=Azza;37412443]I find playing PC games at 60 fps for more than 2 hours straight begins to fuck with my eyes, gives me headaches etc, can't imagine what would happen if someone were to use 120fps screen and lock a game framerate at 120 then play for a few hours straight. That would sorta also flow with the theory posed by vsauce that higher fps without added motion blur cause headaches.
From what I've seen a lot of games don't offer motion blur, but more and more are nowadays, which is great news.[/QUOTE]
Vsauce is simply wrong in that video. Please don't listen to it. He's confusing shutter speed. Higher FPS is effectively un-encoded motion information. And as such you don't need as much motion blur to sell the motion. High high shutter speeds you will feel stuttery not smooth.
For you, I'd imagine the issue is that you have issues looking at a screen for a long time, or it's the motion in general. Our eyes don't see in FPS, but a limit of our motion perception is around 250-300fps I believe. That's near the limit where any extra fluidity information isn't noticed. Though as it's a chemical reaction going on, it can vary. This is somewhat why adrenaline lets us see faster or react faster it speeds up these things I believe, as it's fight or flight.
[editline]26th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;37417388]but they're inherently linked to one another...[/QUOTE]
Linked yes, but not entirely connected. Higher FPS video, yes, forces a higher shutter speed because you can't be taking longer exposure times than the fps/1. But you're not losing motion information. If anything else, another way to think about motion blur is "Encoded Motion Information" Our brains in a sense understand the blur we see and can decode it to understand the motion inside of it. With higher FPS, the need for blur goes down as our brains are physically seeing the motion in action.
[editline]26th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;37417501]isn't the average 1080p film like 12gb or something. a current bluray holds 25-50gb depending on layering. double the framerate in a film, double the file size, you get 24gb... still fits on a bluray?[/QUOTE]
1080p on BluRay is about 45-50mbps Which is 6.25MB/s. A 2 hour film would be about 43GB... ish. Which allows for some room for extras and other media. But BD can go to 100-128GB with multiple layers.
Resolution and Framerates don't scale linearly with increase, so a movie at 30fps won't be half the size of the same film at 60fps. As the codecs are interframe and use relative information. The file might only be 50% larger for double FPS. Same with resolution. 1080p is 3x bigger than 720p, but doesn't always require 3x the bitrate.
So for example, a 1080p film might be 80-90GB at 48-60fps. Not entirely out of reach for BluRay. The only thing that needs updating is the drives to pull the extra bandwidth. Right now a BD at 12x is a max of 54Mbps. Which wouldn't be fast enough I believe.
I don't think it's the FPS for him that is the issue. Probably the fact he has issues looking at monitors for a long time. The Higher the FPS in the game usually the less eyestrain you feel, atleast based off my experience and general shallow research of the years of checking out health studies of PC use.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
