You're ruined now, motherfucker. Have fun never being able to enjoy digital media again.

Wait 'til you try 120FPS.

IIRC all "Digital format" films in cinema are run at 60FPS.
No idea how long before this becomes standard.

The Hobbit's being released at 48 FPS

>>23175059
No. They are ~23 FPS.

>>23175060
Indeed. To support 3D.

>>23174970
No, because 60/24 doesn't give you an integer number. So there's random framedrops and jittering when you try to play back at a lower framerate, and people cling to bad formats for decades.

120fps might catch on someday, though. Since you can display every 2nd frame to get 60fps, every 4th to get 30, and every 5th to get 24.

>>23175059
Digital format is 24 fps.
Don't kid yourself.

>>23174970

>I just watched a clip at 60 fps and it was buttery smooth.

Where? What I watched some time ago just looked like a soap opera.

>>23175087
>just looked like a soap opera.
That's what the OP wants movies to look like.

Too smooth and it looks like shitty sitcom/reality show.

>>23175097
>>23175087
What do you even mean?

I wish I had the /v/-image with "The ground is too soft".
It accurately displays how most of /g/ feels about 60FPS media.

>>23174970
Wait till storage size increases and it might be feasible.

>>23175081
To be more exact, you blend the extra frames in to create that retarded blur people convince themselves is good. People who like it can display at blurry 24fps, people with taste can display at 60 or 120. Everybody wins.

Why would you want it to be so smooth? Especially a movie.
When it runs at 24fps your mind fills in the blanks and gets you more immersed. 60fps would be to real, and possibly unwatchable for the length of a feature film.

And digital cinema is also 24fps, unless it is a 3d film, then its 48fps(24 left eye, 24 right eye)

Currently sitting next to a 35mm projector playing a film. When we go digital, im sure gonna miss that sound.

>>23175143
Not him but stop talking. You don't know the difference between 120hz interpolated and true 120hz. Yes true 120hz does exist and yes it isn't extremely expensive.

If its filmed at 60fps, I have no problem with it.

>>23175146
>When it runs at 24fps your mind fills in the blanks and gets you more immersed.
Just because some quack said that once doesn't mean it's true. There was never anything to show that it was true and there never will be anything saying it is.
Please stop saying this /g/.

>>23175134

the Hobbit that is coming out is being filmed in 48 fps

Avatar 2 is being shot at 60 FPS

60 fps
http://www.nostro.fr/AMV/Nostromo_-_Binary_Overdrive_720p@60.avi
30 fps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwMSemZX81U

>>23175019
I'm actually worried this might be the case.

>>23175057
Am I being trolled? Is there a visible difference between 60 and 120?

>>23175087
Not like soaps.

http://www.firstshowing.net/2011/peter-jackson-talks-at-length-about-using-48fps-for-the-hobbit/

We only use 24fps because that's the best you could do in like 1930.

>>23175204
>48fps
Saged and reported

If it was 60 fps, I wouldn't really enjoy it

We already have cameras that look like they ran in 60fps but it's not. What they do is increase the number of fields in the frames from 30 to 60. So it's still 30 frames per second, but it's a lot smoother.

>>23175215

>Am I being trolled? Is there a visible difference between 60 and 120?

Not really, but 240fps is such an experience.

>>23175221
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150222902311558&set=a.10150222901501558.349121.14188448
1557&ref=nf

>>23175215
>60 fps
>http://www.nostro.fr/AMV/Nostromo_-_Binary_Overdrive_720p@60.avi
>30 fps
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwMSemZX81U
>AMV
>24fps sources
>60fps result
COME ON. That's a horrible example. In fact, most 60fps shit on the internet is sourced from lower fps material. Its disgusting, and people who think it looks better are disgusting.

This is kind of like wide gamut monitors. Technically it is superior but we have an ingrained affinity for what we have previously been exposed to, which is why stuff looks odd on them. Same deal with framerates, do you really need to be watching all of your fucking shit at the flicker fusion rate? Do you really need 90% of the gamut when you are content with 70%?

Just another fucking numbers pissing match.

>>23175221
Go to, oh also you are a fucking retard.
>>23175219

>>23175252
NOT GOING TO READ.

No, there is no visible difference between constant 30fps and 60fps. It's all people convincing themselves they have supervision.

imagine this
http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/25/nhk-super-hi-vision-120fps-cmos/

people actually get motion sick because of the amount of detail at 8k4k.

>>23175215

>Am I being trolled? Is there a visible difference between 60 and 120?

No. 1 trillion FPS is where its at.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snSIRJ2brEk

>>23175278
Get a load of this nerd.

>>23175286
That's an effective 1 trillion FPS. It's literally a series of photo graphs.

Guys, since more FPS = better picture, what if you could see infinite FPS movies?
You know, like movies but in person.

>>23175087

When I bought my first flat screen tv I had the same impression. Every movie looked like soap opera. Then I adapted to it and now I like it.

>>23175350
You're disgusting. They only looked that way because you didn't turn off your shit "SMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTH PLAYBACK" features on your TV.

>>23175350
>Doesn't know what he is doing

>>23175278
thiss nigga has never played a pc game ever.

>>23175318
>infinite fps
>real life

the universe only has a refresh rate of about 1.9x10^43 Hz.

the blurring on pans/action is what makes movies look like movies, it imitates the effect of a human eye following the same sort of movement

watch a television show in 60fps and you'll see how strange it looks without this - it's like watching a video game or soap opera

thank you hollywood for making everyone think that glorious 60fps is only for home movies

>>23175259
>http://www.nostro.fr/AMV/Nostromo_-_Binary_Overdrive_720p@60.avi
I don't watch anime or listen to this music but I'm cumming so hard watching this, holy shit can't wait for the 60FPS revolution

>>23175409
Sauce on the FPS of the universe.

>>23175409
>not mentioning the FPS limit of human vision (without adrenaline) as well

>>23175427

u feelin it too baby?

>>23175372
I don't think I can turn it off, I looked everywhere though the settings. philips 32PFL9705H

>>23175427
The fuck?

>>23175462
I know because I live in the universe.

>>23175427
Protip: Anime is 24fps. So unless he sped up each scene it won't be 60fps.

>>23175462
He's lying the human eye can only see around 24 FPS and a refresh rate of 120Hz

>>23175489
dohoho

>>23175474
Research the TV you're getting before you buy one next time. What you got used to is still shit no matter how "normal" it looks to you know.

>>23175219
Also film requires WAY more fucking light to shoot at 48 more more fps.

>>23175462
I think that is c (the speed of light)

>>23175489
This. The limits of human perception are 1920x1080p24 and FLAC.

>>23175514

This.

You're fucking your eyes mang.

>>23175462
it's the planck frequency, which is 1/planck time

>>23175489
>Doesn't realise Hz and FPS are basically the same principle.
>RAF fighters could differenciate images at 200FPS
Your a faget.

>>23175482
>Anime is 24fps
Unless it's 29.97 fps.

>>23175462
(G*h-bar*c^-5)^-1/2

You must not into physics.

>>23175545
Which usually means you didn't ITVC that shit properly.

>>23175482
I thought it was the music video, I don't know what hte shit but it's smooth as all goddamn hells.

Wonder if it's placebo, no idea how to check for the FPS, don't even care at this point got my 'wow' moment

>>23175521
wtf are you guys talking about? there are plenty of movies running at 59.97fps is that not fucking close enough?

>>23175545

>people using anime as an example for fps when they don't even use movement for every frame

amazing

I see the world in PAL which means everything appears slightly faster than they really are.

>>23175417

Film at 48/60/120fps. = Looks like daytime TV and not like film we all know and love.
Solution = add motion blur post processing and sell new TV tech to the masses.

>>23175583
There wasn't a joke though. Anime is sourced at 24fps.

>30
>60
>24
NOPE. NOPE. NOPE.

lrn2videoframerates

24000/1001
30000/1001
60000/1001

>>23175318
to be honest thats not neccessary

a 480Hz tv that is LED IPS can keep its pixels from fading enough that it creates a constant image effect, now use a 24fps source and use a good frame rate doubling algorithm, and it will look pretty damn real, considering there will still be 10 refreshes from each frame (fake or real)

I use yadif on my laptop for watching vids and it does a decent enough job, I know there is better, but this will do.

>>23175583
Whoops, meant for:
>>23175542

>>23175603
Pretty sure you're trying to quote me.

>>23175602
>a 480Hz tv that is LED IPS
Stopped reading there since the rest is just going to be marketing bullshit you heard from the guy at Best Buy.

>>23175625
I never buy from best buy

>>23175215
>60 fps
>http://www.nostro.fr/AMV/Nostromo_-_Binary_Overdrive_720p@60.avi
Well, now I'm ruined as well. That was better than I had anticipated.

>>23175602
yadif produces dot crawl and shimmer

qtgmc > *

Douglas Trumbull, the guy who did FX for 2001, already did 60fps tests in the 80s called Showscan. It apparently improved the theater experience for most but the costs were too great to adapt the format for all theaters. Now that today's digital projectors support higher framerates for 3D we'll probably get it soon enough.

>>23175625
Nobody who is even able to search google to find /g/ would buy from bestbuy.

>>23175617
At this point I could be quoting half of the posts here and I wouldn't be wrong. Oh well.

>>23175625
I never said that the image was actually constant, just good enough.

>>23175658
yeah I know it has problems, but what d you suggest using?

>>23175693
Can't you read? It says qtgmc fucking idiot retard moron whore asshole dumbass fuck you nigger die from aids i hope you get raped so bad that you die from bleeding your anus so bad that you need commit suicide

>>23175767

>>23175658
comparison of non interlaced, yadif, and qtgmc?

Is anyone using motion interpolation with their media player?

>>23175896
Never.

>>23175081
Then don't play it at a lower framerate numbnuts.

>>23175110
TV shows are recorded with 60FPS in mind and have a much better FPS. Movies are stuck at 24FPS for 9000 years because everybody gets a raging erection from old formats.

>>23175146
>>When it runs at 24fps your mind fills in the blanks and gets you more immersed.

If I wanted my mind to fill in the blanks I'd read a book.

The stupidest thing the film industry ever did was to use widescreen yet keep the shutter and film moving vertically across a shutter instead of horizontally. This is where you get shearing artifacts in films.

Most action goes left to right, right to left, not up and down.

>>23176098
widescreen is so that the screen doesn't have to be ridiculously tall, and because motion is usually left to right

verticle feeding was to keep film reels from being ~16/9x as big.

It wasn't stupid.

>>23175278
There is a visible difference between constant 30fps and 60fps. It's all people convincing themselves that everyone has crap vision.

>>23176148
"Widescreen" is also how humans see the world.

>>23176200
depends on the video being viewed.

if there's inherent motion blur you'll have a much harder time. if it's instantaneous shutter speed (vidya) then it's much easier.

>>23176248
>"Widescreen" is also how humans see the world.
but human vision is 9:5 (according to my eye doctor) A lot of movies have aspect ratios >2:1

>>23175896
I do, as I just mentioned, and I just looked up qtgmc, gonna install it first chance I get

>>23176058
this, its a medium that was flawed do lack of of technology, you are supposed to imagine with books, but video is supposed to be a telling of the story with as much realism as possible. Besides there isnt much blank to fill in between frames, its all about visual sensation, and accuracy, not some hipsterized excuse as to why we should never change the satus quo. You've been indoctrinated by the media to think these things so that they never have to invest in improving things for their customers, and in general keep us stupid and easy to mold.

Was that a deep enough answer for you?

>>23176271
vidya isnt instantaneous either, it's displated on a screen that still take time to change colrs, so you need that to REALLY see what it would look like in real life.

>>23175215
I really prefer 30 fps.

>>23176402
>You've been indoctrinated by the media to think these things so that they never have to invest in improving things for their customers, and in general keep us stupid and easy to mold.
How would large media companies profit from not having us constantly having to have to change our equipment and rebuy the newer 'better' version of their products?

Your argument is flawed

>>23176445
that's only if using LCD displays. LEDs have switching times far too fast for the eye to see, and the controller switching them does the whole thing in ~1/200 of a second.

>>23176271
According to THX, the outer edges of the video should be in your peripheral vision.

>>23176489
We've had 60FPS TVs since NTSC was introduced and LCDs supported 60FPS out of the box.

>>23176507
thanks for the information, but in case that's against
>human vision is 9:5
I'm talking about if you stare at a point you can see (in your peripheral vision) 45 degrees to either side, and 25 degrees up, or down

>>23176547
NTSC was introduced in 1941, and LCD tvs only became widespread in the late 90s.

NTSC uses 30fps, but 60Hz(one was chroma, one was luma reducing effective frame rate to 30)

And LCDs might support 60Hz, but they have shitty switch times which makes it ineffectual

>>23176507
agreed

>>23176489
the argument already works for companies like apple, mircosoft, bose, beats audio, and many car companies, appliances too

Just make something that works well enough, design it to break and there, you have more customers, people have bought shit speakers, microwaves, cars, and devies for ages, and it wont end any time soon.

Sure the new products are better, but they only improve considerably every once in a while, cars dont change their base parts every year you know. washes and microwves have been the same for decades, and the iphone is hardly different than it was in 2009, the list goes on

>>23176695
NTSC uses 60FPS. It's interlaced, but each field is a unique frame. Just because it's only half the lines doesn't mean it isn't a new frame.

And what do you mean one is Luma and one is chroma? You mean every other frame is Luma or Chroma?
Wouldn;t that mean that one field would be just luma and one be just chroma? Resulting in half the lines being colored and half being greyscale?

>>23176695
I woudlnt call it ineffectual
>major flickering on crts due to pixel fade
>not as much on lcds but real perfromance varies, not to mention color switch time

my laptop screen is a TN panel LED back lit LCD and its worse than most because it has terrible switching times, gray to gray is 8ms, it takes half the time of a refresh just to switch, other changes are even slower, so it barely is 60Hz, while most monitors have 5ms G to G, with other color switching ranging from 2ms to 4ms. I'd say thats pretty good, but LED screens really blow that out of the watcr

>>23176738
they have to have us thinking that the new stuff is better, whether or not it is or isn't.

they never try to say that the old stuff is good enough, which is what it seemed like you were saying in your old post.

>>23176805
Sorry you're right. I was misreading the wiki page on NTSC.

However the effective framerate is all we care about since if we were to view it at actual frame rate on a perfect display we would see all those little jaggies everywhere, and that wouldn't be a good experience.

>>23176843
the problem is that the weakest link is the thing we notice, so if it takes it 5ms to do grey to grey then we're going to notice the switching from grey to grey.

At any rate I wouldn't consider LCDs a good medium to compare 60fps to 30fps video.

>>23176910
you're pretty much right about lcds not being good enough

and I suppose I should be direct, the first anon was talking about anything being higher than 24fps being shit becuase lol nostalgia, fill in the gaps with your mind, etc, and I meant that the public is going to be happy with 24fps in theaters forever because there will always be new movies, its thats my status quo argument, that the new stuff is different in a way that distracts from the fact thats its the same technology.

>>23175417
Wrong. They look that way because that's how they've always looked, how they've traditionally looked.

There's no imitation of anything, rather it's only been a limitation of first technology and second money.

It looks strange to you, only because you are not used to it. Get used to it, and it'll perhaps look far more natural than the old 24 has ever been.