Why isn't television and film shot at 60fps?

Why isn't television and film shot at 60fps?

The hobbit movies looked like shit at 48fps, but 60fps video looks fine, and they don't use it. I don't get it.

Attached: Hobbit-title-v3.jpg (800x633, 116.5K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=7zCywLzJJs8
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>live to see the end of the Lord of the Rings trilogy
>cry in tears as Hollywood has achieved the peak of art, even knowing to use CGI as touchup and not as vomit
>await in eagerness the wonders that Hollywood will release now that it has reached this level of professionalism
>still waiting in 2020

Because it would cost jews more money. They want their shitty tech so they don't have to shell out more.

Which is why places like Youtube and streaming will overtake them eventually.

Soul vs soulless

Attached: peter jackson.jpg (630x420, 71.14K)

The human eye can't see more than 24 fps. The reason they did 48 fps is because you have 2 eyes. 24 * 2 = 48. Go read a Wikipedia article and educate yourself.

60fps is just as uncanny as the 48fps.

Movies should stay 24

aren't really shitty BBC dramas shot at 60 fps?

Movies are usually 24 fps
Hobbit looked like shit because it had too many fps

movie cameras are expensive, they wont just throw them out.
60FPS CGI is twice as expensive to produce.
theaters would need to buy in new projectors, they cant cope with 60FPS.

Shitty console hardware can't handle it LMAO

Cameras produce 60, clear,un-blurred photo frames per second.

What does waving my hand in-front of my own face have to do with anything? Digital cameras don't have moving film and don't produce image blur in-frame or between frames.

Stop being old and let the future steamroll your fat ass.

boomers BTFO

Attached: 24FPS versus 48FPS.jpg (1024x374, 139.44K)

its to do with how 60FPS movement doesnt look realistic you simpleton. they'd have to add motion blur to a 60FPS movie to stop it looking weird.

But that's wrong. Each eye has three different receptors; one each for picking up light in three different colors on the spectrum, one for red, one for yellow, and one for blue. Since they're the primary colors your brain perceives all the colors on the spectrum from them, but more relevant is that each one sees at 4 frames per second. 3 times 4 makes 12, 12 plus 12 makes 24, so 24 frames per second.

Looks like a videogame

Hey retards you know you can film at higher frames then lower the fps while still keeping some of the original quality that comes with a greater number of sample frames.

60fps is a computer graphics meme, it doesn't make much difference for video between 48-60. is right. Young gamers in 2020 are used to seeing >24, older people and children arent. Especially in 2011 when most games still ran 30 with drops on consoles

and thats why action scenes shot with digital cameras running at 24FPS look like shit. its a fucking slideshow.

As if modern movies don't look enough like video games. 15, 18, 24 and 25 are the only kino framerates.

But that's wrong, you just have old worn out eyeballs.

>it looks weird

so did the first colour movies. owned.

>thinking studios will spend more money on editing frames out of a movie.
5 star simp post.

>muh 60fps
>muh 4k tv
Nobody cares about these meme numbers.

>implying today's consoles don't run at 30 with drops

because you get the soap opera effect where all of the props/costumes look too resolved at all times and it becomes easy to spot how fake everything is.

Even 30fps movies look like home videos, think about tiktok clips. Anything above is increasingly worse. Ruins the cinematic feeling of a movie. High FPS only belongs in Vidyia

the brain can notice up to 144hz

you've just spent your entire life staring at video games instead of being outside seeing the real world. reality isnt 60FPS, zoomer.

Nice bit of pseudo science you spouted right there, but do you have any facts?

Once again retard, its an automatic function of a computer editor to do that. it requires zero effort.
How old and dead are you?

Make like a spring, tranny

Attached: make_like_a_spring_and.jpg (4056x482, 452.68K)

Because most of the population continue to be smoothbrained mongs who are used to the taste of shit that is 24fps. Save for the few genetic trashbins that get motion sickness, it's purely convention

Ive seen Gemini ma and the bike chase was stunning. Best action in the decade

are people in this industry so languid they can't handle watching a 60 fps video

Observe this mans post.
You are old and worn out ,accept it, faggot.

Attached: 1551674715615.jpg (640x718, 81.77K)

high frame rate looks great in movies that have been designed to accommodate it
youtube.com/watch?v=7zCywLzJJs8
any 24fpsnigger pushing itll-never-catch-on is living in the past. like holy shit you can have movies in BOTH formats.

That not evidence of your claims, you just called me a tranny, as if your little retard brain can hide behind homophobia as a distraction from the fact that you are a retard who knows nothing about cameras.

nice reading comprehension you have there, brainlet.
he's saying he CAN see 144hz

>Call of Duty faggot wants his war movies to match his shitty games
low IQ simp is low IQ

lol that looks like shit. Looks like a load of guys larping in the desert.

Without that layer of seperation between you and the film it is harder to trick your brain that its real.

i dont get the whole hz thing
been a CAD developer for 2 decades, always used 75+hz displays
you only notice a difference for about 10 mins unless you have brain damage

>costs more
>actors dont like it (it's harder to hide their defects)
>people doesnt like it (OMG LOOKS LIKE A SOAP OPERA)

because as far as film makers are concerned, it's more expensive and much harder to work with
that is all
don't let faggots tell you otherwise

Attached: uncle_pope.gif (240x200, 673.65K)

>Digital cameras don't have moving film and don't produce image blur in-frame or between frames.
Retard. You don't know what shutter speed is?

its just autistic gaymers and their MOAR FPS obsession. they think studios just have to buy a new video card and thats it.

That looks fucking awful

this, sony is even producing movies that sometimes miss the 24fps mark

>needs twice the light
>produces a different motion blur
>Just spend more and then lose all the benefits while getting an aesthetic the audience doesnt like bro
Your idea is literally the worst of all compromises between tech/final result

because it would basically double filming costs, require special (more expensive) cameras, all to make a movie slightly more fluid which really isn't necessary to enhance most people's filmgoing experience anyway

thats the point, if you were stood there for real watching that battle it wouldnt look like that. you should leave your basement once a decade and check out real life.

The problem with high framerate in movies is that all the extra information your eyes receive reveals to you that what you’re watching is fake. High framerate is only good for nature docs.

Watched this in 1080p 60fps and then in 480p 30fps.

And its amazing how much better the 30fps watch looked.

All of the obvious acting, the CGI , the props, the practical effects is naked to see in the 60fps version. It just looks... fake and low budget. But then when you half the frame rate it looks like a movie again.

I cant explain it.

60fps does not fit movies.

holy fucking yikes. This is a textbook example of why movies should NEVER be shot in anything but 24fps.

this, I actually get headaches from quick cut combat scenes shot in 24 FPS.
It just looks like a blurry mess and you can literally see the frames missing, it begins to look like a slideshow.

All fight scenes should be at a minimum of 60 FPS.
4k is a meme, increasing FPS should be the next leap forwards for television and film.

This.
Increase in production costs doesn't really match improvement in quality.

The only reason why anything more than 24 FPS looks unnatural to us is because we're used to it, anything else is just broscience.
If movies were always shot in 48 FPS or whatever 24 FPS would be considered unwatchable.

High FPS isn't as much of a deal in movies because they're not interactive

Notice or perceive (something) and register it as being significant.

"Young people observe the difference between higher frame-rates all the way up to 175 fps."

People like you have poor eyesight from bad diet and a lack of physical fitness.

The future is 120 fps or higher, it looks better ,even when you lower it back to 24 fps.

it was pretty good looking besides the odd camera movements at times

this looks great
clearly not made not very proficiently or with large budget tho, filmmakers need to learn how to use it

Match the shutter speed to the frame rate, how stupid are you?
Plus most digital camera don't even need shutters anymore.
Stop living in 1975.

HFR looks like shit in movies because actors are trained to move in such a way as 24 FPS won’t lose any of their movements. The ideal lighting for HFR is also very different from the ideal lighting for 24fps, and finding it is finicky as fuck and almost impossible if everyone on the set thinks “good” lighting is the ideal lighting for 24fps. Not to mention literally every “action” sequence is built around how 24 FPS makes slow, measured movements seem fast and impactful, and if more visual impact is needed, only one frame needs to be dropped.

Which is all to say, jumping to HFR isn’t just a matter of more film or bytes, it requires reinvention of the wheel level work, and makes everything more difficult.