60 frames a second....holy shit Frank!

[SexSlave1972]

Normal frame rate is 24fps. Human eye can't see 'pictures'.. it's film but high speed movement can be seen bit stepping or blurring.

If U' got 60fps videocamera it's the most natural framrate for film.
Quote is linked... so go and read more about that.

"Doug has done extensive research into the effects of higher frame rates and discovered that 60 fps is truly the sweet spot for creating highly realistic content with minimal stepping and blurring. In his research, test subjects were connected to biometric monitoring systems that took physiological readings as the subjects watched content at a variety of frame rates. At 60 frames per second, the subjects elicited the strongest readings, indicating that they were more stimulated and impacted by content produced at this rate. This research is a fundamental reason that Peter Jackson is shooting The Hobbit films at 48 fps and James Cameron is producing Avatar 2 at 60 fps. The industry is definitely moving in the direction of frames rates higher than 24 fps."

[Jamie French]

60 and 30fps bite ass. It's that stupid soap opera/video look. A high def version of that soap opera, daytime TV, Telemundo looking bullshit. High frame rate = more frames, less motion blur, not more quantifiable quality. I'll only ever shoot in 24p. 60+ should only be used when you intend to slow down footage for slo-mo shots, that way you can cut back on cheap looking frame blending in post. If you can't see the difference between 24 and 60, your brain is broken and you are unaware of how much less you are enjoying moving visual media than correct brained people.

[LilyRox]

Normal frame rate is 24fps. Human eye can't see 'pictures'.. it's film but high speed movement can be seen bit stepping or blurring.

Each frame is like a picture, but it's happening with dozens a sec. Less motion blur = more quantifiable quality.

https://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

This is an app that mimics the effects of motion blur with frames per sec. I wouldn't worry about the background. I just turned the velocity of that off because it's pretty annoying. If you set one ball to 60 fps at 500px/s and the other one to 24 fps at 500 px/s you can easily see the effect fps has. If you turn the 24 fps ball up to 48 you can definitely see a difference. There's still a tiny bit of motion blur, but it's not nearly as noticeable as the 24. Edison thought that 48 fps would be the standard of the future. I honestly think he is right because a little bit of motion blur isn't necessarily a bad thing, but being able to make out objects clearly is a must.

[SuzySnappz]

Each frame is like a picture, but it's happening with dozens a sec. Less motion blur = more quantifiable quality.

https://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

This is an app that mimics the effects of motion blur with frames per sec. I wouldn't worry about the background. I just turned the velocity of that off because it's pretty annoying. If you set one ball to 60 fps at 500px/s and the other one to 24 fps at 500 px/s you can easily see the effect fps has. If you turn the 24 fps ball up to 48 you can definitely see a difference. There's still a tiny bit of motion blur, but it's not nearly as noticeable as the 24. Edison thought that 48 fps would be the standard of the future. I honestly think he is right because a little bit of motion blur isn't necessarily a bad thing, but being able to make out objects clearly is a must.

Rally and Jamie have a point, though... You would think that a higher frame rate would simply look smoother and better, but the effect can be kind of strange looking, at least if you're used to 24 fps. I haven't seen the porn clips Rally is talking about (do I need a subscription?) but I've seen movie clips with the higher frame rates and they almost look a bit too "real", like you're watching a movie set instead of watching a movie. Or a soap opera.

There was a lot of controversy when the Hobbit came out with the higher frame rate, you can read about it here: http://www.studiodaily.com/2012/04/t...ure-of-movies/

[LilyRox]

I've seen movie clips with the higher frame rates and they almost look a bit too "real", like you're watching a movie set instead of watching a movie. Or a soap opera.

That's because real life isn't limited by motion blur, only the human eye is. The lower the fps the more limited the film is and the more motion blur you'll see when you normally wouldn't in real life.

[scroller]

"48 FPS and Beyond: How High Frame Rate Films Affect Perception... Film cognition can help us understand why higher framerates look so weird, and what filmmakers will have to do to challenge 90 years of convention..."

http://www.tested.com/art/movies/452...ct-perception/

[TempestTS]

I still say just blink more often - that should sort your right out...

or I could poke you in the eye - that would be just like cutting 60fps in half, right?

[Odelay]

I still say just blink more often - that should sort your right out...

or I could poke you in the eye - that would be just like cutting 60fps in half, right?

You'd poke me in the eye with your penis? That might be interesting, though still painful.

[Jamie French]

Motion blur looks natural to the human eye. Look around really quickly... shit got blurry for a second didn't it? Nuff said. 24 looks better. anything higher looks like a fever dream and should not be tolerated. 24 fps wasn't an arbitrary number pulled out of someone's ass a hundred years ago. It looks fucking pleasant. Dickwads that try for more are nothing but techno masturbators, only doing wacky shit merely because the tech exists. More of something doesn't mean better anything, whether your talking about frame rates or kitchen spices - more only means more and in the case of frame rates, more comes as a detriment to the craft of film making.

[TempestTS]

I was an optician at one point so here we go at the technical explanation.

We live in constant blur - the human eye has a field of focus (visual angle) of about 2 degrees - basically hold a nickle at arms length and that's the size your eye is actually able to focus sharply on. Our brain is a marvelous thing even though our actual focus area is tiny it fills in the fuzzy spots for our mind and we think we see the world in a great deal more detail than we actually do.

Visual angle "V" can be calculated using the formula




where S is the object's size, D is the distance to the object.


When you see super sharp HD or Ultra HD shot at 60fps close up (ie you are frapping like crazy to your computer monitor) you are feeding your brain much more detail than its expecting at that distance so the result can be a bit jarring to the senses.


This is the long winded technical way of saying - Jamie's right

Motion blur looks natural to the human eye. Look around really quickly... shit got blurry for a second didn't it? Nuff said. 24 looks better. anything higher looks like a fever dream and should not be tolerated. 24 fps wasn't an arbitrary number pulled out of someone's ass a hundred years ago. It looks fucking pleasant. Dickwads that try for more are nothing but techno masturbators, only doing wacky shit merely because the tech exists. More of something doesn't mean better anything, whether your talking about frame rates or kitchen spices - more only means more and in the case of frame rates, more comes as a detriment to the craft of film making.