6 ms·
The problem is the refusal of hollywood to release true 60fps content. I'd take a 60fps version of a movie any day over 24 or 30 fps.
by rowanG077 7y ago
The problem is the refusal of hollywood to release true 60fps content. I'd take a 60fps version of a movie any day over 24 or 30 fps.
- bitL 7y ago60fps changes your perception of a movie. For some reason ~24fps you get the cinematic feeling, with 60fps you get "amateurish" videographer feeling. Not sure what's the science behind that.
- JKCalhoun 7y agoFaster shutter = less motion blur?
- psychometry 7y agoIt's just conditioning. If it had been the opposite, you'd find 24 jarring and 60 natural.
- cma 7y ago24fps lets you focus attention with motion blur (tracking shot on two characters walking, they will be in sharp focus, while everything else will be blurred but still convey movement, etc.). It's a similar tool beyond depth of field. However, a 60hz movie could just have 30hz portions. Stuff like panning cameras over a landscape looks terrible at 24hz. I don't know how you could combine the two without making things feel too much like changing between technology all the time during the movie though.
- AdamHede 7y agoYou could easily add high quality motion blur in 60 FPS if that was the desired look. More FPS is really no different that increased resolution. There is nothing sacred about 24, 480 or 1080. It's all conditioning ;)
- cma 7y agoHow would you add lush blur to a tracked shot in 60fps? The exposure wouldn't last as long so you'd have to do it digitally wouldn't you? Then it can be hard to keep the tracked subjects unblurred or can make things look interpolated.
- brokenmachine 7y agoThe lenses would still have a limited depth of field though, like a photo from an SLR. Wouldn't that make the background be blurred? Or is that kind of blur somehow different to motion blur?
- cma 7y agoMotion blur indicates direction, you could maybe use a weird aperture shape to simulate it, but things at different depths wouldn't blur right due to not picking up different parallax movements the same way, and other moving objects that weren't in focus wouldn't have their motion blur picked up correctly.
- brokenmachine 7y agoOh yeah, that makes sense.
- psychometry 7y agoAgreed. It might seem weird at first, but I think that in the end it'll be like transitioning from B&W to color. Our brains will adjust and we'll realize that we were missing out on all that fidelity.
- sneak 7y agoI, for one, don’t want to watch movies that aren’t in 24fps.
- rowanG077 7y agoWhy? Seriously. This sounds as crazy to me as someone saying: "I, for one, don't want to watch movies that aren't 320p."
- lrem 7y agoYet, black and white photography is alive and well
- rowanG077 7y agoWhat's your point? Outhouses are still alive and well as well. Doesn't mean modern sanitation is vastly superior. Not sure what that has to do with this discussion.
- lrem 7y agoYou seemed to have doubted that rational people might be choosing limited tech in the very post I replied to. So I provided an example of well respected class of art, where much of the image information is discarded, ignoring decades of progress.
- rowanG077 7y agoI don't doubt rational people choose limited tech in specific circumstances. I doubt rational people choose limited tech in all circumstances. What would you think about someone that only wants to see black and white photography and won't even take a look at full color photographs?
- plorkyeran 7y agoThere's a big difference between appreciating black and white photography and thinking that color photography should not exist.