|
| ▲ | mrob 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| 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/Showscan |
|
| ▲ | OGWhales 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | kccqzy an hour ago | parent [-] | | Right. And if a person knows they are shooting at 24fps they will take greater care to ensure they won’t pan too quickly. Panning too quickly is just bad video, whichever fps you choose. |
|
|
| ▲ | HPsquared 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Same vibe as preferring black-and-white cinema, or analogue (and/or mono) audio. |
|
| ▲ | r_lee an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| yeah strangely 50-60fps feels "unnatural" In a way? like uncanny valley sometimes? |
|
| ▲ | ErroneousBosh 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The neat thing is that 25fps content played out at 50fps doesn't use a lot more bandwidth than 25fps played out at 25fps because it only has to update every second frame, assuming identical noise between frames. And then you can go to field-per-frame 50fps footage when you need to say "camcorder". |
| |
| ▲ | edgineer an hour ago | parent [-] | | It takes twice the file size to double the framerate without reducing visual quality of the original frames, whenever I try, with HEVC, AV1, etc. I can take a lower framerate video, run some software of constant size to interpolate the frames, and play back at a higher rate, but in practice I can't save that higher framerate video to a new mp4 file with small or constant size increase. It's got to be about linear. |
|