5 ms·

Ang Lee already tried the 120fps thing, it was a colossal flop. No one likes watching movies in anything other than 24fps dude. Filmmakers filming in 120fps wo

Ang Lee already tried the 120fps thing, it was a colossal flop. No one likes watching movies in anything other than 24fps dude. Filmmakers filming in 120fps would destroy the film industry overnight because NO ONE would watch what they produced.

bovine3dom 7y ago
> No one likes watching movies in anything other than 24fps dude. I know of at least 6 people who prefer higher framerates, myself included. I don't know anyone who has expressed an opinion the other way. As I said, this whole thread is like some kind of alternative universe to me. Motion smoothing apparently hasn't stopped people buying TVs.
- zrobotics 7y ago
  Many people hate motion smoothing though; my mom was complaining that their new TV made everything look like a soap opera until I disabled it. Like many other things, this is all down to personal preferences; similarly I have friends who can't stand to game at anything <120FPS and one who gets motion sick at 60FPS, while I would rather turn up the graphical detail and survive with 60. Neither opinion is more correct, and you have had several people upthread saying they prefer 24 for films (myself included).
lrem 7y ago
You've missed the part where 120 is divisible by 24. You can losslessly go from 120 to the other popular frame rates, including 24. Edit: nope, recreating from higher fps the motion blur that's common in 24 would be way more expensive.
- dperfect 7y ago
  > You can losslessly go from 120 to the other popular frame rates, including 24. Not true. Something filmed natively at 24 fps and a 180° shutter angle is vastly different in terms of perceived motion than 120 fps converted to 24 fps.
  - lrem 7y ago
    Are 1/48s exposures really that common in cinematography?
    - dperfect 7y ago
      Yes. "By far the most common setting for cinema has been a shutter angle near 180°, which equates to a shutter speed near 1/48 of a second at 24 fps." [1] "A 180° shutter angle is considered normal." [2] [1] https://www.red.com/red-101/shutter-angle-tutorial https://www.red.com/red-101/shutter-angle-tutorial [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_disc_shutter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_disc_shutter
      - lrem 7y ago
        Oh. Right, replicating that exactly requires 240fps with fast shutter and discarding half of the frames. Which is a way more expensive proposition.
  - mrob 7y ago
    If you shoot 120fps with 360° shutter angle you can downsample to 24fps with 144° shutter angle, which is close enough to the traditional 180°. And in any case cinematographers often vary the shutter angle, so viewers are already used to changes. Narrow shutter angle is common in modern action movies.
    - dperfect 7y ago
      Yes, cinematographers do vary the shutter angle for artistic purposes, but that just confirms the fact that the amount of motion blur present in a film is a deliberate artistic decision rather than a side effect of using an "antiquated" frame rate. As for downsampling, I believe your math is off. 120 fps at 360° means each frame is exposed at 1/120s. Conforming that to 24 fps gives you the same exposure duration per frame (you're just throwing out 4/5 frames), so you're effectively at a 72° shutter angle - less than half of what's considered "normal".

bovine3dom 7y ago

> No one likes watching movies in anything other than 24fps dude. I know of at least 6 people who prefer higher framerates, myself included. I don't know anyone who has expressed an opinion the other way. As I said, this whole thread is like some kind of alternative universe to me. Motion smoothing apparently hasn't stopped people buying TVs.

zrobotics 7y ago
Many people hate motion smoothing though; my mom was complaining that their new TV made everything look like a soap opera until I disabled it. Like many other things, this is all down to personal preferences; similarly I have friends who can't stand to game at anything <120FPS and one who gets motion sick at 60FPS, while I would rather turn up the graphical detail and survive with 60. Neither opinion is more correct, and you have had several people upthread saying they prefer 24 for films (myself included).

lrem 7y ago

You've missed the part where 120 is divisible by 24. You can losslessly go from 120 to the other popular frame rates, including 24. Edit: nope, recreating from higher fps the motion blur that's common in 24 would be way more expensive.

dperfect 7y ago
> You can losslessly go from 120 to the other popular frame rates, including 24. Not true. Something filmed natively at 24 fps and a 180° shutter angle is vastly different in terms of perceived motion than 120 fps converted to 24 fps.
- lrem 7y ago
  Are 1/48s exposures really that common in cinematography?
  - dperfect 7y ago
    Yes. "By far the most common setting for cinema has been a shutter angle near 180°, which equates to a shutter speed near 1/48 of a second at 24 fps." [1] "A 180° shutter angle is considered normal." [2] [1] https://www.red.com/red-101/shutter-angle-tutorial https://www.red.com/red-101/shutter-angle-tutorial [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_disc_shutter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_disc_shutter
    - lrem 7y ago
      Oh. Right, replicating that exactly requires 240fps with fast shutter and discarding half of the frames. Which is a way more expensive proposition.
- mrob 7y ago
  If you shoot 120fps with 360° shutter angle you can downsample to 24fps with 144° shutter angle, which is close enough to the traditional 180°. And in any case cinematographers often vary the shutter angle, so viewers are already used to changes. Narrow shutter angle is common in modern action movies.
  - dperfect 7y ago
    Yes, cinematographers do vary the shutter angle for artistic purposes, but that just confirms the fact that the amount of motion blur present in a film is a deliberate artistic decision rather than a side effect of using an "antiquated" frame rate. As for downsampling, I believe your math is off. 120 fps at 360° means each frame is exposed at 1/120s. Conforming that to 24 fps gives you the same exposure duration per frame (you're just throwing out 4/5 frames), so you're effectively at a 72° shutter angle - less than half of what's considered "normal".