4 ms·

> HFR stands for "High Framerate", which means up to 60 FPS, whereas non-HFR is limited to 30 FPS Personally I find most ((almost?) all?) >30fps generally unne

> HFR stands for "High Framerate", which means up to 60 FPS, whereas non-HFR is limited to 30 FPS Personally I find most ((almost?) all?) >30fps generally unnecessary and just chews through bandwidth, monthly (mobile) data caps, and processing/batteries. Are there specific cases where "HFR" videos are really improving the viewing experience of particular (types of) content? (Note: in the table it's about support for HFR content, and does not necessarily mean that content is HFR.)

noir_lord 1mo ago
Gaming footage/videos, some games are so fast they are noticeably better to play at (and watch at) 60fps over 30fps.
- throw0101d 1mo ago
  I don't watch too many of those, and those few that I do are more 4X (Civ, Stellaris, etc), so that maybe that's why I don't notice it as an advantage for most of the content I see.
  - HPsquared 1mo ago
    If there isn't much movement, it's probably a modest increase in bitrate anyway as the codec will see that most frames aren't changing.
    - ErroneousBosh 1mo ago
      At that, captured video of these things can be a total pain in the hoop to edit because OBS, Gamebar et al will write them as variable framerate files, only writing a frame with a suitably distant presentation timestamp when something changes. And this will make most NLE software shit its legs off.
      - deepsun 1mo ago
        Improve software? It's job is to serve video editors, not the other way around. And it's a fun task, I bet there might be a dev or two who's working on that right now. And if someone is ready to pay for them, even better.
        ErroneousBosh 1mo ago
        There is absolutely no reason for any sane video editing software to be able to read VFR files. It should, however, reject them gracefully but positively.
        nosrepa 1mo ago
        I read that last bit in Hank Hill's voice.
        ErroneousBosh 1mo ago
        We sell codecs and codec accessories.
        account42 1mo ago
        Of course there is. A lot of older TV shows are effectively variable frame rates when properly detelecined/deinterlaced. And mixing two fixed frame rate sources with different framerates would naturally produce a VFR video and with current editing software you need to destroy some of the source information or interpolate some slop to make it work. There is no good reason for editing software to have these limitations either when most players and all modern video containers have caught up and are VFR-first with a fixed frame rate hint in the headers if you're lucky.
        ErroneousBosh 1mo ago
        > A lot of older TV shows are effectively variable frame rates when properly detelecined/deinterlaced. How do you figure that? Broadcast TV is very very very very firmly locked to 25 interlaced frames per second (or 29.97ish in the US where they have to do everything with funny numbers), interlaced to 50 (59.94 US) fields per second. How could that in any way be VFR?
- quirino 1mo ago
  I think many people would consider 60fps to be a minimum and 30fps to be almost disorienting, even for casual games. Gamers often go for 120-240Hz monitors even.
  - dietr1ch 1mo ago
    Last time I went to the movies I didn't have a good time watching "motion" at 24Hz on a large screen while used to watch motion at 240Hz on a small screen. I felt I was looking at a powerpoint presentation or an animation made at the edge of a (paper) notebook.
    - sebmellen 1mo ago
      The cinematic obsession with 24 FPS is so stupid…
      - hulitu 1mo ago
        But those are 24 real frames. Not predicted ones like in your favourite Youtube video.
  - pxoe 1mo ago
    40 fps could be a much more workable minimum, it looks quite smooth, wish it was more commonplace of a target instead of 30.
    - maccard 1mo ago
      40fps is probably 30fps with poor frame pacing. Most displays are 60Hz so there’s no benefit to being any non fraction of that, and you are likely to have issues with pacing if you are at a non standard frame rate.
      - gucci-on-fleek 1mo ago
        > Most displays are 60Hz This was true even a couple years ago, but these days, most mid-range and above TVs [0], phones [1], and monitors [2] support 120Hz, which is a nice integer multiple of 40Hz. But lots of these devices default to 60Hz (or slower), so you can't really rely on most people having this enabled. [0]: https://www.rtings.com/tv/tools/table/196699 https://www.rtings.com/tv/tools/table/196699 [1]: https://www.gsmarena.com/results.php3?nDisplayFramesMin=120 https://www.gsmarena.com/results.php3?nDisplayFramesMin=120 [2]: https://blurbusters.com/faq/120hz-monitors/ https://blurbusters.com/faq/120hz-monitors/
- basilikum 1mo ago
  Playing at low framrates is a lot worse than just watching though.
- zahlman 1mo ago
  Especially retro console games, where sprites might flicker at 60Hz (either to create an illusion of translucency or because of hardware limits on simultaneous sprites displayed); viewing footage at 30fps can end up catching all the "off" frames and make screen elements disappear completely.
  - account42 1mo ago
    Yes, or in general everything that was originally 30 FPS interlaced should be de-interlaced to 60 FPS progressive video and not 30 FPS.
    - zahlman 1mo ago
      Oh, I somehow completely forgot about interlacing having been a thing.
- account42 1mo ago
  The main limitation on YouTube for fast movement is actually bitrate. Perhaps they allow higher bitrates for 60FPS videos though.
dylan604 1mo ago
Sports is a good use of HFR. Sadly, when HD broadcast came out, most broadcasters choose 1080i59.4 to remain compatible with the interlaced HD CRTs that were around. One of them chose 720p60 for sports. As cool as HD was, it still had interlacing as a boat anchor chained to it. 4K finally saw the elimination of interlacing, but that's veering way off topic. For talking head/creator type of stuff, 24fps is probably wasted and could be just fine at 12/15fps.
- Balooga 1mo ago
  Fox Sports was 720p. Back then, all broadcasters had to conform to ATSC 1.0 MPEG2 transport and MPEG2 encoding due to terrestrial broadcasts. The choices were 480i/p, 720p, or 1080i/p.
- LocalH 1mo ago
  12/15fps is way too low even for talking heads. 20fps would be the minimum for me, and 24fps fits better with the standards (30fps fits better with most displays).
  - dylan604 1mo ago
    yeah, it was more of a way of showing my disdain for said content and wasting of electrons pushing bandwidth
    - pxoe 1mo ago
      There's this thing called video compression, and it's gonna work pretty well for something that's mostly a still image with just a mouth moving. If anything, it'll compress that kind of thing the best compared to other kinds of content, like sports or games. Like, gameplay recordings are probably the worst type of content in that regard, needing the most bitrate and bandwidth to reach any kind of fidelity, and always looking bitrate starved with h264 (and likely even with newer codecs if it's at lower streaming bitrates). And due to how video compression works, lowering fps is not actually gonna yield any substantial space savings for talking head type of videos, if all that's gonna do is just cutting off inter frames that are already gonna be pretty small. It's quite literally the case with the least amount of any possible benefit from doing that.
dopa42365 1mo ago
>Are there specific cases where "HFR" videos are really improving the viewing experience of particular (types of) content? Yes. Every single one. It's that simple.
- throw0101d 1mo ago
  > Yes. Every single one. It's that simple. I've found that zero of the videos that I've ever seen that were 60fps improved things: certainly if I went full screen I could notice the resolution of 1080@60 versus 720@30, but in a standard browser window it was none.
  - echoangle 1mo ago
    If you don’t even see the difference between 1080p and 720p, there’s something else going on.
    - recursive 1mo ago
      Something else going on? Mysterious. I think people just care about and pay attention to different things. I don't think I've ever cared about this resolution difference in video. I prefer greater frame rates though. Yes, my vision tests are fine. On the other hand, when I see a video where someone's talking is recording from across the room with a camera mic in an untreated room, I'll just turn it off. I guess I'm a big snob for certain audio things. Video resolution though? Never cared.
    - throw0101d 1mo ago
      > If you don’t even see the difference between 1080p and 720p, there’s something else going on. If I open a browser window and click on a YT video suggested on the main page, it plays on small portion of the screen of my 14" MacBook: there is little practical visual difference between 720 and 1080 at that 'video box' size. If I open the same video on my 27" 5K iMac and full screen it there, then yes, there is a difference between 720 and 1080 (and 4K) there. But I find 60fps does not improve the content / experience in any situation.
mrob 1mo ago
I'd personally rather watch 480p60 than 1080p30. There's a lot of material in which spatial resolution is mostly irrelevant (e.g. presentations, which involve people talking and slides designed to be legible from a distance), but low framerate always looks unnatural and distracting, even after speeding it up by 1.75x or 2x. 60fps should be considered a bare minimum, not "high framerate".
- kccqzy 1mo ago
  I’m the opposite. I take videos with 24fps, the standard for film. Lower frame rate gives me that film-like look which suggests sophistication, but 60fps feels like unedited screen grab or raw footage from a camcorder. I can’t explain it: it could be a case of acquired taste.
  - HPsquared 1mo ago
    Same vibe as preferring black-and-white cinema, or analogue (and/or mono) audio.
  - mrob 1mo ago
    24fps is the worst part of film for me. I've watched a lot of films, and I made an effort to watch important and critically acclaimed ones. While I enjoyed a lot of it at the time, I don't really have any desire to watch any more, or to re-watch things I've already seen. The low framerate always drags me out of the story. Perhaps the only exceptions are the films of Yasujirō Ozu, which use so little motion that it's hard to see the low framerate. I have a similar reaction to music from the early 70s and earlier. But if the sound quality is good, I still enjoy listening to new music and re-listening to things I've already heard. I think I'd still be interested in film if they'd actually taken advantage of improved technology like the musicians did. The most enjoyable film-watching experience in my life was watching 60fps Showscan shorts at Futuroscope in France. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futuroscope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futuroscope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan
  - OGWhales 1mo ago
    Movies are made by professional videographers that take care to limit the downsides of low fps, such as stuttering (still, sometimes movies will pan too fast and the stuttering makes it painful for me to watch). YouTube is very different, there are lots of amateurs and many of the videos don't need to make people feel like it's a movie. It doesn't seem the soap opera effect really applies when it's just a guy showing actual real life (and there's no interlacing like with old soap operas). For this reason, I've always found 60fps better on YouTube. Lower fps doesn't look more sophisticated imo, it usually looks worse unless it happens to be done by a good videographer that wants it to look like a movie. It's especially terrible for things like action content (mountain biking, karting) or things like fps games, where the higher frame rate helps a ton with all the fast motion. This happens to be a lot of what I watch on YouTube. The way I see it, unless you are specifically going for the "movie" look and take care to work around low fps like videographers do for movies, then higher fps is probably better.
randomblock1 1mo ago
Anything with motion. Sports, games, vlogs, and so on experience immense improvements. And it's not like it takes 2x the bandwidth, because inter-frame compression can be smarter about it. It's like 30-50% more bandwidth.
echoangle 1mo ago
How much extra bandwidth does it even take to double the framerate? The frames should be highly correlated and as long as you only add p-frames, the data needed should be pretty small, no?
- hulitu 1mo ago
  > How much extra bandwidth does it even take to double the framerate? For <insert your favourite streaming provider here> ? No extra bandwidth. They just increase the number of predicted frames.
ErroneousBosh 1mo ago
> monthly (mobile) data caps Are we back in the early 2000s or something?
- shric 1mo ago
  There are only 5-10 countries in the world that I know of that don’t have mobile data caps. The vast majority of the HN demographic do not live in those countries. The remainder either have an explicit hard cap or some kind of fair use clause that throttles when you reach some undisclosed amount.
  - ErroneousBosh 1mo ago
    Right, but in most countries the data cap is so high you'd never hit it. I'm not on even a particularly expensive or specialised deal on my phone here in the UK and the cap is something like 1TB.
eviks 1mo ago
Any cases are like that because it looks more natural and fluid, but it's just not for you, though in that case how would cases help change your stylistic preferences? I mean, even for the obvious highly dynamic videos like some sports and video games it's not like you can't enjoy the bad old 24fps people have been enjoying for decades
pxoe 1mo ago
Oftentimes it's not that big of a difference in size, especially with modern video encoding like av1. There are many cases where higher frame rate improves viewing experience, like smooth motion (smooth movements of something, like people or things, panning, etc), heavy motion (when it's just more intense), giving the eye a little bit more to hang onto. One particular great use case is dance choreography, so that's music, music videos, dancing videos, quite a chunk of videos and viewership. Most of music videos are gonna be released in 24 fps (a few 30 fps here and there), but there's a lot of "extra content" (tv shows, performances, live recordings, etc.) released in 60 fps, and there's some demand for higher frame rate like 60 fps (seeing from uploads of interpolated videos). 30 fps can be enough to have some smoothness to it, but at 24 fps it can become more jarring if not just noticeably choppy, sometimes 24 fps video is just not particularly great to look at in terms of literally just seeing and discerning what's going on. Sometimes things can end up looking choppy (like in daylight, at faster shutter speed, etc), or have more pronounced motion blur (which is good and better for motion continuity, but at 24 fps it can be a bit much). Motion continuity is quite important, and sometimes even made up frames from interpolation can improve viewing experience, even at a cost of some interpolation artifacts, when the end result of smoother motion is more pleasant to look at. Of course, it can be a case of experiencing something better and then seeing things as choppy looking back (and 24 fps can really look choppy in immediate comparison), and it may not make that much of a difference if you've just been mostly seeing 24 fps video and not thinking much of it, or seeing 30 fps which is smooth enough. But in my opinion, even starting at 40-48 fps, that's already gonna feel much easier for the eyes compared to 24 fps. Sometimes there's just a bit much going on in the frame and 24 fps is not enough. Our eyes don't see in 24 fps after all. (also, higher frame rate doesn't preclude from using cinematic techniques, including motion blur and all)
Telaneo 1mo ago
I'll take 60 over 30 any day of the week, assuming the original was mastered that way (interpolation is fake and bad). Even for just talking head videos, 60 looks better to my eyes. The lower frame rate of films and most other content looking better seems to be nothing but a (sub)conscious 'that's the way it should look' attitude to me.
everdrive 1mo ago
People have what you might call a comparison disease. Once something can be compared with something that is "better" in some metric, most people are unable to think about whether or not the "lesser" version is sufficient. All they can think about is that the "better" one exists. There are people who would be unable to sit through a movie at DVD quality, or at 1080p, but what do they think people in the past did? Was everyone who watched movies on VHS or DVD just enduring pure suffering? No movie has ever been enjoyed at resolutions lower than [current standard]?

noir_lord 1mo ago

Gaming footage/videos, some games are so fast they are noticeably better to play at (and watch at) 60fps over 30fps.

throw0101d 1mo ago
I don't watch too many of those, and those few that I do are more 4X (Civ, Stellaris, etc), so that maybe that's why I don't notice it as an advantage for most of the content I see.
- HPsquared 1mo ago
  If there isn't much movement, it's probably a modest increase in bitrate anyway as the codec will see that most frames aren't changing.
  - ErroneousBosh 1mo ago
    At that, captured video of these things can be a total pain in the hoop to edit because OBS, Gamebar et al will write them as variable framerate files, only writing a frame with a suitably distant presentation timestamp when something changes. And this will make most NLE software shit its legs off.
    - deepsun 1mo ago
      Improve software? It's job is to serve video editors, not the other way around. And it's a fun task, I bet there might be a dev or two who's working on that right now. And if someone is ready to pay for them, even better.
      - ErroneousBosh 1mo ago
        There is absolutely no reason for any sane video editing software to be able to read VFR files. It should, however, reject them gracefully but positively.
        nosrepa 1mo ago
        I read that last bit in Hank Hill's voice.
        ErroneousBosh 1mo ago
        We sell codecs and codec accessories.
        account42 1mo ago
        Of course there is. A lot of older TV shows are effectively variable frame rates when properly detelecined/deinterlaced. And mixing two fixed frame rate sources with different framerates would naturally produce a VFR video and with current editing software you need to destroy some of the source information or interpolate some slop to make it work. There is no good reason for editing software to have these limitations either when most players and all modern video containers have caught up and are VFR-first with a fixed frame rate hint in the headers if you're lucky.
        ErroneousBosh 1mo ago
        > A lot of older TV shows are effectively variable frame rates when properly detelecined/deinterlaced. How do you figure that? Broadcast TV is very very very very firmly locked to 25 interlaced frames per second (or 29.97ish in the US where they have to do everything with funny numbers), interlaced to 50 (59.94 US) fields per second. How could that in any way be VFR?
quirino 1mo ago
I think many people would consider 60fps to be a minimum and 30fps to be almost disorienting, even for casual games. Gamers often go for 120-240Hz monitors even.
- dietr1ch 1mo ago
  Last time I went to the movies I didn't have a good time watching "motion" at 24Hz on a large screen while used to watch motion at 240Hz on a small screen. I felt I was looking at a powerpoint presentation or an animation made at the edge of a (paper) notebook.
  - sebmellen 1mo ago
    The cinematic obsession with 24 FPS is so stupid…
    - hulitu 1mo ago
      But those are 24 real frames. Not predicted ones like in your favourite Youtube video.
- pxoe 1mo ago
  40 fps could be a much more workable minimum, it looks quite smooth, wish it was more commonplace of a target instead of 30.
  - maccard 1mo ago
    40fps is probably 30fps with poor frame pacing. Most displays are 60Hz so there’s no benefit to being any non fraction of that, and you are likely to have issues with pacing if you are at a non standard frame rate.
    - gucci-on-fleek 1mo ago
      > Most displays are 60Hz This was true even a couple years ago, but these days, most mid-range and above TVs [0], phones [1], and monitors [2] support 120Hz, which is a nice integer multiple of 40Hz. But lots of these devices default to 60Hz (or slower), so you can't really rely on most people having this enabled. [0]: https://www.rtings.com/tv/tools/table/196699 https://www.rtings.com/tv/tools/table/196699 [1]: https://www.gsmarena.com/results.php3?nDisplayFramesMin=120 https://www.gsmarena.com/results.php3?nDisplayFramesMin=120 [2]: https://blurbusters.com/faq/120hz-monitors/ https://blurbusters.com/faq/120hz-monitors/
basilikum 1mo ago
Playing at low framrates is a lot worse than just watching though.
zahlman 1mo ago
Especially retro console games, where sprites might flicker at 60Hz (either to create an illusion of translucency or because of hardware limits on simultaneous sprites displayed); viewing footage at 30fps can end up catching all the "off" frames and make screen elements disappear completely.
- account42 1mo ago
  Yes, or in general everything that was originally 30 FPS interlaced should be de-interlaced to 60 FPS progressive video and not 30 FPS.
  - zahlman 1mo ago
    Oh, I somehow completely forgot about interlacing having been a thing.
account42 1mo ago
The main limitation on YouTube for fast movement is actually bitrate. Perhaps they allow higher bitrates for 60FPS videos though.

dylan604 1mo ago

Sports is a good use of HFR. Sadly, when HD broadcast came out, most broadcasters choose 1080i59.4 to remain compatible with the interlaced HD CRTs that were around. One of them chose 720p60 for sports. As cool as HD was, it still had interlacing as a boat anchor chained to it. 4K finally saw the elimination of interlacing, but that's veering way off topic. For talking head/creator type of stuff, 24fps is probably wasted and could be just fine at 12/15fps.

Balooga 1mo ago
Fox Sports was 720p. Back then, all broadcasters had to conform to ATSC 1.0 MPEG2 transport and MPEG2 encoding due to terrestrial broadcasts. The choices were 480i/p, 720p, or 1080i/p.
LocalH 1mo ago
12/15fps is way too low even for talking heads. 20fps would be the minimum for me, and 24fps fits better with the standards (30fps fits better with most displays).
- dylan604 1mo ago
  yeah, it was more of a way of showing my disdain for said content and wasting of electrons pushing bandwidth
  - pxoe 1mo ago
    There's this thing called video compression, and it's gonna work pretty well for something that's mostly a still image with just a mouth moving. If anything, it'll compress that kind of thing the best compared to other kinds of content, like sports or games. Like, gameplay recordings are probably the worst type of content in that regard, needing the most bitrate and bandwidth to reach any kind of fidelity, and always looking bitrate starved with h264 (and likely even with newer codecs if it's at lower streaming bitrates). And due to how video compression works, lowering fps is not actually gonna yield any substantial space savings for talking head type of videos, if all that's gonna do is just cutting off inter frames that are already gonna be pretty small. It's quite literally the case with the least amount of any possible benefit from doing that.

dopa42365 1mo ago

>Are there specific cases where "HFR" videos are really improving the viewing experience of particular (types of) content? Yes. Every single one. It's that simple.

throw0101d 1mo ago
> Yes. Every single one. It's that simple. I've found that zero of the videos that I've ever seen that were 60fps improved things: certainly if I went full screen I could notice the resolution of 1080@60 versus 720@30, but in a standard browser window it was none.
- echoangle 1mo ago
  If you don’t even see the difference between 1080p and 720p, there’s something else going on.
  - recursive 1mo ago
    Something else going on? Mysterious. I think people just care about and pay attention to different things. I don't think I've ever cared about this resolution difference in video. I prefer greater frame rates though. Yes, my vision tests are fine. On the other hand, when I see a video where someone's talking is recording from across the room with a camera mic in an untreated room, I'll just turn it off. I guess I'm a big snob for certain audio things. Video resolution though? Never cared.
  - throw0101d 1mo ago
    > If you don’t even see the difference between 1080p and 720p, there’s something else going on. If I open a browser window and click on a YT video suggested on the main page, it plays on small portion of the screen of my 14" MacBook: there is little practical visual difference between 720 and 1080 at that 'video box' size. If I open the same video on my 27" 5K iMac and full screen it there, then yes, there is a difference between 720 and 1080 (and 4K) there. But I find 60fps does not improve the content / experience in any situation.

mrob 1mo ago

I'd personally rather watch 480p60 than 1080p30. There's a lot of material in which spatial resolution is mostly irrelevant (e.g. presentations, which involve people talking and slides designed to be legible from a distance), but low framerate always looks unnatural and distracting, even after speeding it up by 1.75x or 2x. 60fps should be considered a bare minimum, not "high framerate".

kccqzy 1mo ago
I’m the opposite. I take videos with 24fps, the standard for film. Lower frame rate gives me that film-like look which suggests sophistication, but 60fps feels like unedited screen grab or raw footage from a camcorder. I can’t explain it: it could be a case of acquired taste.
- HPsquared 1mo ago
  Same vibe as preferring black-and-white cinema, or analogue (and/or mono) audio.
- mrob 1mo ago
  24fps is the worst part of film for me. I've watched a lot of films, and I made an effort to watch important and critically acclaimed ones. While I enjoyed a lot of it at the time, I don't really have any desire to watch any more, or to re-watch things I've already seen. The low framerate always drags me out of the story. Perhaps the only exceptions are the films of Yasujirō Ozu, which use so little motion that it's hard to see the low framerate. I have a similar reaction to music from the early 70s and earlier. But if the sound quality is good, I still enjoy listening to new music and re-listening to things I've already heard. I think I'd still be interested in film if they'd actually taken advantage of improved technology like the musicians did. The most enjoyable film-watching experience in my life was watching 60fps Showscan shorts at Futuroscope in France. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futuroscope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futuroscope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan
- OGWhales 1mo ago
  Movies are made by professional videographers that take care to limit the downsides of low fps, such as stuttering (still, sometimes movies will pan too fast and the stuttering makes it painful for me to watch). YouTube is very different, there are lots of amateurs and many of the videos don't need to make people feel like it's a movie. It doesn't seem the soap opera effect really applies when it's just a guy showing actual real life (and there's no interlacing like with old soap operas). For this reason, I've always found 60fps better on YouTube. Lower fps doesn't look more sophisticated imo, it usually looks worse unless it happens to be done by a good videographer that wants it to look like a movie. It's especially terrible for things like action content (mountain biking, karting) or things like fps games, where the higher frame rate helps a ton with all the fast motion. This happens to be a lot of what I watch on YouTube. The way I see it, unless you are specifically going for the "movie" look and take care to work around low fps like videographers do for movies, then higher fps is probably better.

randomblock1 1mo ago

Anything with motion. Sports, games, vlogs, and so on experience immense improvements. And it's not like it takes 2x the bandwidth, because inter-frame compression can be smarter about it. It's like 30-50% more bandwidth.

echoangle 1mo ago

How much extra bandwidth does it even take to double the framerate? The frames should be highly correlated and as long as you only add p-frames, the data needed should be pretty small, no?

hulitu 1mo ago
> How much extra bandwidth does it even take to double the framerate? For <insert your favourite streaming provider here> ? No extra bandwidth. They just increase the number of predicted frames.

ErroneousBosh 1mo ago

> monthly (mobile) data caps Are we back in the early 2000s or something?

shric 1mo ago
There are only 5-10 countries in the world that I know of that don’t have mobile data caps. The vast majority of the HN demographic do not live in those countries. The remainder either have an explicit hard cap or some kind of fair use clause that throttles when you reach some undisclosed amount.
- ErroneousBosh 1mo ago
  Right, but in most countries the data cap is so high you'd never hit it. I'm not on even a particularly expensive or specialised deal on my phone here in the UK and the cap is something like 1TB.

eviks 1mo ago

Any cases are like that because it looks more natural and fluid, but it's just not for you, though in that case how would cases help change your stylistic preferences? I mean, even for the obvious highly dynamic videos like some sports and video games it's not like you can't enjoy the bad old 24fps people have been enjoying for decades

pxoe 1mo ago

Oftentimes it's not that big of a difference in size, especially with modern video encoding like av1. There are many cases where higher frame rate improves viewing experience, like smooth motion (smooth movements of something, like people or things, panning, etc), heavy motion (when it's just more intense), giving the eye a little bit more to hang onto. One particular great use case is dance choreography, so that's music, music videos, dancing videos, quite a chunk of videos and viewership. Most of music videos are gonna be released in 24 fps (a few 30 fps here and there), but there's a lot of "extra content" (tv shows, performances, live recordings, etc.) released in 60 fps, and there's some demand for higher frame rate like 60 fps (seeing from uploads of interpolated videos). 30 fps can be enough to have some smoothness to it, but at 24 fps it can become more jarring if not just noticeably choppy, sometimes 24 fps video is just not particularly great to look at in terms of literally just seeing and discerning what's going on. Sometimes things can end up looking choppy (like in daylight, at faster shutter speed, etc), or have more pronounced motion blur (which is good and better for motion continuity, but at 24 fps it can be a bit much). Motion continuity is quite important, and sometimes even made up frames from interpolation can improve viewing experience, even at a cost of some interpolation artifacts, when the end result of smoother motion is more pleasant to look at. Of course, it can be a case of experiencing something better and then seeing things as choppy looking back (and 24 fps can really look choppy in immediate comparison), and it may not make that much of a difference if you've just been mostly seeing 24 fps video and not thinking much of it, or seeing 30 fps which is smooth enough. But in my opinion, even starting at 40-48 fps, that's already gonna feel much easier for the eyes compared to 24 fps. Sometimes there's just a bit much going on in the frame and 24 fps is not enough. Our eyes don't see in 24 fps after all. (also, higher frame rate doesn't preclude from using cinematic techniques, including motion blur and all)

Telaneo 1mo ago

I'll take 60 over 30 any day of the week, assuming the original was mastered that way (interpolation is fake and bad). Even for just talking head videos, 60 looks better to my eyes. The lower frame rate of films and most other content looking better seems to be nothing but a (sub)conscious 'that's the way it should look' attitude to me.

everdrive 1mo ago

People have what you might call a comparison disease. Once something can be compared with something that is "better" in some metric, most people are unable to think about whether or not the "lesser" version is sufficient. All they can think about is that the "better" one exists. There are people who would be unable to sit through a movie at DVD quality, or at 1080p, but what do they think people in the past did? Was everyone who watched movies on VHS or DVD just enduring pure suffering? No movie has ever been enjoyed at resolutions lower than [current standard]?