3 ms·

Why wouldn’t an editor want to view the final deliverable in 120fps, if that was an option? I understand there’s no need for it, but have you seen the size of

by RONROC 5y ago

Why wouldn’t an editor want to view the final deliverable in 120fps, if that was an option? I understand there’s no need for it, but have you seen the size of the latest F-150? To quote Jack Nicholson playing Frank Costello in the Departed: “I haven't needed the money since I took Archie's milk money in the third grade. Tell you the truth, I don't need pussy any more either...but I like it.”

formerly_proven 5y ago
Because increasing the display's frame rate makes zero difference on a S&H display for movie playback unless one of the combinations has jank: If you go from viewing 24 fps content on a 60 fps display it's janky, going to a 120 fps or 144 fps display fixes that jank because frames divide evenly. If you watch 30 fps content, it looks almost exactly the same on a 60 fps and a 120 fps display (but going to 144 fps would introduce jank).
- RONROC 5y ago
  Interesting. So if everything is all the same and it doesn’t matter at all, then why have fps in excess of 60? Just because? > it looks almost exactly the same What is “exactly the same” to you? And does it mean the same to me? And can we measure it?
  - formerly_proven 5y ago
    > So if everything is all the same and it doesn’t matter at all, then why have fps in excess of 60? Just because? That is not at all what I said. > What is “exactly the same” to you? The different scanout speeds can probably be used to produce slightly differently looking images for 30 fps content on 30/60/120 fps displays. In practice I don't think you'd be able to notice the difference between 60 and 120 fps scanout for 30 fps content.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    >Just because? With regards to display, for gamers, smoother scrolling and UI, and (for video) as an additional marketing specs-box checkmark for suckers. With regards to capture, for dropping in a lower fps timeline to get slow motion.
  - NathanielK 5y ago
    The GP comment is specifically refering to monitors used for working with video that's presumably already recorded at <=60FPS. That might be an edge case for general users, but for the people forking big bucks for monitors, it's all they care about.
- theandrewbailey 5y ago
  Every high refresh rate LCD that I've seen advertised also has variable refresh rate support. As long as a multiple of the framerate is within the monitor's range, there shouldn't be jank.
  - formerly_proven 5y ago
    Browsers don't use VRR even in fullscreen. But yes - that's the correct and by far best solution on S&H displays and would make it a complete non-issue for all common frame rates (24, 25, 30, 50, 60); alas, software.
coldtea 5y ago
>Why wouldn’t an editor want to view the final deliverable in 120fps, if that was an option? I understand there’s no need for it Well, because "no need, but let's add it in case some outlier is interested" is hardly the way to design mass market products (or even high-end, professional products for that matter). It's more for designing custom rigs, than anything that needs to make money...

by RONROC 5y ago

formerly_proven 5y ago

Because increasing the display's frame rate makes zero difference on a S&H display for movie playback unless one of the combinations has jank: If you go from viewing 24 fps content on a 60 fps display it's janky, going to a 120 fps or 144 fps display fixes that jank because frames divide evenly. If you watch 30 fps content, it looks almost exactly the same on a 60 fps and a 120 fps display (but going to 144 fps would introduce jank).

RONROC 5y ago
Interesting. So if everything is all the same and it doesn’t matter at all, then why have fps in excess of 60? Just because? > it looks almost exactly the same What is “exactly the same” to you? And does it mean the same to me? And can we measure it?
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  > So if everything is all the same and it doesn’t matter at all, then why have fps in excess of 60? Just because? That is not at all what I said. > What is “exactly the same” to you? The different scanout speeds can probably be used to produce slightly differently looking images for 30 fps content on 30/60/120 fps displays. In practice I don't think you'd be able to notice the difference between 60 and 120 fps scanout for 30 fps content.
- coldtea 5y ago
  >Just because? With regards to display, for gamers, smoother scrolling and UI, and (for video) as an additional marketing specs-box checkmark for suckers. With regards to capture, for dropping in a lower fps timeline to get slow motion.
- NathanielK 5y ago
  The GP comment is specifically refering to monitors used for working with video that's presumably already recorded at <=60FPS. That might be an edge case for general users, but for the people forking big bucks for monitors, it's all they care about.
theandrewbailey 5y ago
Every high refresh rate LCD that I've seen advertised also has variable refresh rate support. As long as a multiple of the framerate is within the monitor's range, there shouldn't be jank.
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  Browsers don't use VRR even in fullscreen. But yes - that's the correct and by far best solution on S&H displays and would make it a complete non-issue for all common frame rates (24, 25, 30, 50, 60); alas, software.

coldtea 5y ago

>Why wouldn’t an editor want to view the final deliverable in 120fps, if that was an option? I understand there’s no need for it Well, because "no need, but let's add it in case some outlier is interested" is hardly the way to design mass market products (or even high-end, professional products for that matter). It's more for designing custom rigs, than anything that needs to make money...