# [TorrentFreak] 60FPS Films & Tv Shows - Pirates Debut Super-Smooth Video Torrents



## hrockh

Quote:


> In TV and cinema there are three broad standards - 24p, 25p, and 30p - producing 24, 25 and 30 FPS respectively, but last year there was a step up when Peter Jackson's Hobbit was shot in 48FPS.
> 
> However, for quite a while now video has been turning up on BitTorrent networks marked as 60FPS, so are these coming from official sources or is there some other explanation?


Quote:


> So, we had a trawl around the BitTorrent scene looking for 60FPS torrents to see what we could find. Movies do indeed seem rare to non-existent, but the same cannot be said about TV shows. TorrentFreak found dozens of releases, mainly for sporting events (combat sports, NBA, NHL) that boast this superior frame rate.
> 
> One Pirate Bay focused releaser, known as Secludedly, is dedicated to releasing UFC/MMA, boxing events and other TV shows. He has dozens to his name and many of them are uploaded at 60FPS. Starting to feel a little out of our depth with some of the technical wizardry involved, TorrentFreak caught up with Secludedly for the lowdown on his sources and processes.


Quote:


> "Change it to 60fps and your eye basically has double the visual capacity to capture that motion being performed as the punch is thrown, and it comes to look more realistic because you're getting every bit of movement in the original capture of the video, making it seem more life-like."


Please do not post links to torrent websites and/or whether you will download it or not.
Let's keep the discussion to whether 60+fps is better than 24fps. thanks

This is very interesting. The article mentioned that Avatar is available, and a quick research proved it right.
I went to see the hobbit to a IMAX 3D to make sure I'd see it in 48fps. Good film, though it still was a blurry feast, 48fps is not enough.

I read an article about highfps vs lowfps in film and the writer brought up a very good point. As it makes the film "fell" different, it will be down to the director to use one or the other to give the film a particular atmosphere.

Source

EDIT: forgot to add the source


----------



## succesfulvoid

Article link?


----------



## Lombax

Theres something about 24p....it just seems natural. But I agree for sports and action movies it can be a benefit.

The majority of torrents aim for lower file sizes, squeezing DVD onto CD, and Blu-Ray onto DVD. Going up to 60fps makes the file twice as large!


----------



## cdoublejj

I've never seen true 60fps. I have seen the fake 60fps that looks like it's in fast forward. My uncle has one of the newer TVs and when we watch older movies some scenes look fast forwarded, I was told it's the TV station adding extra frames or something like that.


----------



## Eagle1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cdoublejj*
> 
> I've never seen true 60fps. I have seen the fake 60fps that looks like it's in fast forward. My uncle has one of the newer TVs and when we watch older movies some scenes look fast forwarded, I was told it's the TV station adding extra frames or something like that.


Man 60 fps video confuses me.. honestly. Fast, slow, fast,slow,fast,slow.


----------



## zinfinion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cdoublejj*
> 
> I've never seen true 60fps. I have seen the fake 60fps that looks like it's in fast forward. My uncle has one of the newer TVs and when we watch older movies some scenes look fast forwarded, I was told it's the TV station adding extra frames or something like that.


It's an interpolated frame calculated by the TV. Presuming 60Hz, and 30fps content for simplicity, rather than show A A B B C C etc it shows A AB* B BC* C CD* etc with starred frames being interpolated between the two frames.

It's actually way more complex than that, but I'm not about to do a seminar on it.









As far as whether 24, 25, 30, or 48+ is better, as long as I have a precise refresh multiple of the framerate and can avoid pulldown, I don't care.


----------



## Bit_reaper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cdoublejj*
> 
> I've never seen true 60fps. I have seen the fake 60fps that looks like it's in fast forward. My uncle has one of the newer TVs and when we watch older movies some scenes look fast forwarded, I was told it's the TV station adding extra frames or something like that.


Take a look at this (donwload) http://hfrmovies.com/avatar_60.mkv its a 1 min clip of avatar running at true 60FPS and it looks gorgeous.

IMO for most movies the old 24p is better suited but if done right with high enough production values it can work and enhance the move experience. IMO its much less a gimmick then 3D.


----------



## Outcasst

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bit_reaper*
> 
> Take a look at this (donwload) http://hfrmovies.com/avatar_60.mkv its a 1 min clip of avatar running at true 60FPS and it looks gorgeous.
> 
> IMO for most movies the old 24p is better suited but if done right with high enough production values it can work and enhance the move experience. IMO its much less a gimmick then 3D.


That's not true 60FPS. You can clearly see the interpolation.

Also, Avatar wasn't filmed at 60fps.


----------



## Bit_reaper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Outcasst*
> 
> That's not true 60FPS. You can clearly see the interpolation.
> 
> Also, Avatar wasn't filmed at 60fps.


My mistake. Didn't read the description carefully enough.


----------



## Nenkitsune

Some broadcasts are done in 60FPS, I noticed this when I had my LG tv with whatever interpolation software it has. Some things like sporting events and some TV shows don't do anything when you try to use the "120hz" mode that the TV has, as all 60 frames are already filled by the source. And they do indeed look very nice.


----------



## Crazy9000

As far as I know, no major movies were filmed in 60fps. The next avatar might be though. In order for 60fps to look really good, I think you need a true 60fps source.


----------



## antonio8

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bit_reaper*
> 
> Take a look at this (donwload) http://hfrmovies.com/avatar_60.mkv its a 1 min clip of avatar running at true 60FPS and it looks gorgeous.
> 
> IMO for most movies the old 24p is better suited but if done right with high enough production values it can work and enhance the move experience. IMO its much less a gimmick then 3D.


60fps or not that looks amazing on the computer. I wish all of them look this clear and good.

Is this scene from a bluray or another special edition of Avatar?


----------



## cdoublejj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zinfinion*
> 
> It's an interpolated frame calculated by the TV. Presuming 60Hz, and 30fps content for simplicity, rather than show A A B B C C etc it shows A AB* B BC* C CD* etc with starred frames being interpolated between the two frames.
> 
> It's actually way more complex than that, but I'm not about to do a seminar on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as whether 24, 25, 30, or 48+ is better, as long as I have a precise refresh multiple of the framerate and can avoid pulldown, I don't care.


I knew something funny was up. I wish there was a way to trun it off. Maybe there is some where on OCN i can make post for that?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bit_reaper*
> 
> Take a look at this (donwload) http://hfrmovies.com/avatar_60.mkv its a 1 min clip of avatar running at true 60FPS and it looks gorgeous.
> 
> IMO for most movies the old 24p is better suited but if done right with high enough production values it can work and enhance the move experience. IMO its much less a gimmick then 3D.


Will do, I would love to see 60fps that doesn't melt my eyes ans brain.

EDIT: It feels/looks a bit fast forwardy.


----------



## zinfinion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cdoublejj*
> 
> I wish there was a way to trun it off. Maybe there is some where on OCN i can make post for that?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_interpolation#Names_of_motion_enhancement_technologies

It will be named one of these and be buried a few submenus deep on your TV. AFAIK all TVs permit turning it off, so you should be good once you find it.


----------



## cdoublejj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cdoublejj*
> 
> EDIT: It feels/looks a bit fast forwardy.


Ultimately it is fast forward. You are fitting more frames and or movement per second in to the frame vs 24.5 fps. IN order to make it no fast forward you would need slower movement and or frames that are VERY nearly identical to frames that are identical, based on the that is is. ie slow movement would have a lot of identical frames, where as fast movement would be true 60 fps.


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cdoublejj*
> 
> Ultimately it is fast forward. You are fitting more frames and or movement per second in to the frame vs 24.5 fps. IN order to make it no fast forward you would need slower movement and or frames that are VERY nearly identical to frames that are identical, based on the that is is. ie slow movement would have a lot of identical frames, where as fast movement would be true 60 fps.


You just replied to yourself? Lol


----------



## cdoublejj

Of course!







Just teaching my self something new.


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cdoublejj*
> 
> Of course!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just teaching my self something new.


----------



## starships

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lombax*
> 
> Theres something about 24p....it just seems natural. But I agree for sports and action movies it can be a benefit.
> 
> The majority of torrents aim for lower file sizes, squeezing DVD onto CD, and Blu-Ray onto DVD. Going up to 60fps makes the file twice as large!


I feel the same about it seeming more natural. but I think this is the case because we've been watching that kind of content our entire lives.


----------



## un-midas touch

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bit_reaper*
> 
> Take a look at this (donwload) http://hfrmovies.com/avatar_60.mkv its a 1 min clip of avatar running at true 60FPS and it looks gorgeous.
> 
> IMO for most movies the old 24p is better suited but if done right with high enough production values it can work and enhance the move experience. IMO its much less a gimmick then 3D.


Can anyone explain why this link comes up in code form?


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *un-midas touch*
> 
> Can anyone explain why this link comes up in code form?


Your browser is displaying the binary contents of the file. Web server might not be serving the file as application/octet-stream. In any case, Save target/link as will fix 'er up.


----------



## deepor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *starships*
> 
> I feel the same about it seeming more natural. but I think this is the case because we've been watching that kind of content our entire lives.


Film simply works very well for human eyes the way the camera records something on film. The camera starts exposing a frame of the film and captures all movements while that's going on. The aperture is only closed while the film is pulled to the next frame, otherwise it's mostly open and capturing light. That means it captures a lot more data for the brain to work with than what you might think of when hearing "24 fps". 24 fps in computer graphics are very different. 60p film would still be neat for action scenes. Camera men probably limit themselves to not make 24p look confusing, perhaps not throwing around the camera as much as they'd be able to do with 60p.


----------



## calavera

DICE has been releasing 60fps trailers on their battlelog premium section. And you can definitely tell a difference between that vs. youtube with trailer. I think CG heavy movies would benefit from 60fps but the more "serious" and traditional can keep 24fps. It's really just another option, 60fps won't take over 24fps. There was a documentary or movie about that with famous directors commenting on it and it was pretty interesting. Can't remember what it was though lol


----------



## firagabird

I'm of the firm belief that 60FPS is the future for all forms of cinema. The only question is how far into the future.


----------



## Chris13002

Here are videos I made with fraps that are true 60FPS... Crysis 3
Don't even have to torrent...









Download the file, and do not watch in embedded player and you will see the difference...
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_EOuDeOnDcoV3FfT2hDZzlFcGc/edit?usp=sharing

60 FPS really shines in sports and UFC fights... It is a lot of bandwidth but worth it!


----------



## Crazy9000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chris13002*
> 
> Here are videos I made with fraps that are true 60FPS... Crysis 3
> Don't even have to torrent...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Download the file, and do not watch in embedded player and you will see the difference...
> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_EOuDeOnDcoV3FfT2hDZzlFcGc/edit?usp=sharing
> 
> 60 FPS really shines in sports and UFC fights... It is a lot of bandwidth but worth it!


I think we all know what video games look like in 60fps







.


----------



## Zero4549

I firmly believe that those defending 24fps are either filmmakers who are afraid that higher motion clarity will make their low budget effects look worse, or are consumers misinformed by said filmmakers.

The only "benefit" that 24fps has over 60 (or greater) is motion blur. Motion blur only serves two purposes - to give the illusion of immense speed, or to cover up / distract from poor filming/animations.

Blur can still be added in post-process for the illusion of speed argument. Covering flaws on the other hand is addressing a symptom, when the real issue is the poor filming/effects in the first place.

So what's the actual downside to higher fps film? Nothing! And no, film/data storage size increase doesn't count. Multi-million dollar movie budgets can afford a bigger hard drive or two.


----------



## cdoublejj

maybe you missed some posts but ,things move faster in 60 fps movies than they should. the movements fell rushed and hurried. At first I thought it was me then I realized when I play game It does not have the same effect at 60 fps.

I think 60 fps could work if they iron out the glitches.


----------



## TH3 original

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cdoublejj*
> 
> maybe you missed some posts but ,things move faster in 60 fps movies than they should. the movements fell rushed and hurried. At first I thought it was me then I realized when I play game It does not have the same effect at 60 fps.
> 
> I think 60 fps could work if they iron out the glitches.


The source just needs to be 60fps native (filmed @ 60fps) and all that would be fine.


----------



## cdoublejj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TH3 original*
> 
> The source just needs to be 60fps native (filmed @ 60fps) and all that would be fine.


Perhaps that's why the avatar clip looks all weird too? I believe it isn't 60fps native either? I think your right though if it was native there would be no trickery needed. IN which case I'd like to see some 60 fps native HD content.


----------



## Chris13002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cdoublejj*
> 
> Perhaps that's why the avatar clip looks all weird too? I believe it isn't 60fps native either? I think your right though if it was native there would be no trickery needed. IN which case I'd like to see some 60 fps native HD content.


My video above is native 60FPS.
I agree with this. No engine is processing the frame interpolations with native video.
I also have a Kodak Zi8 that records 720p @ 60FPS that I can show some videos of... Can upload videos...
Also the new GoPro Hero 3 Black does 1080p @ 60 fps and 720p @ 120fps, which I have yet to see on my 120hz monitor...

If you don't already know, most (none that I know of) video sites ex. YouTube and Vimeo do not do 60FPS videos...


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

High frame rates for films is a bad idea as our brains are conditioned to see the jerkiness from 24fps as "cinematic". That's why 240hz tv's look so weird to people at first when they see them. High FPS does make a lot of sense for sports though as you want to be able to follow the action as closely as possible...


----------



## Foolsmasher

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zero4549*
> 
> I firmly believe that those defending 24fps are either filmmakers who are afraid that higher motion clarity will make their low budget effects look worse, or are consumers misinformed by said filmmakers.
> 
> The only "benefit" that 24fps has over 60 (or greater) is motion blur. Motion blur only serves two purposes - to give the illusion of immense speed, or to cover up / distract from poor filming/animations.
> 
> Blur can still be added in post-process for the illusion of speed argument. Covering flaws on the other hand is addressing a symptom, when the real issue is the poor filming/effects in the first place.
> 
> So what's the actual downside to higher fps film? Nothing! And no, film/data storage size increase doesn't count. Multi-million dollar movie budgets can afford a bigger hard drive or two.


I can't speak personally as I've never seen a real film in native 48 or 60 fps, only the interpolated versions, which I find horrid. I can rely on some trusted reviewers who saw the Hobbit in 48 fps however.

I don't want an epic battlefield set in Middle Earth to look like it was shot on video with some guy playing dress-up. The soap opera look is not appealing to me and ruins immersion. Smoother motion be damned. I want to escape and be immersed into the movie, not necessarily have it look like it did while being filmed.


----------



## Nenkitsune

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> High frame rates for films is a bad idea as our brains are conditioned to see the jerkiness from 24fps as "cinematic". That's why 240hz tv's look so weird to people at first when they see them. High FPS does make a lot of sense for sports though as you want to be able to follow the action as closely as possible...


240hz tv's look weird to people because it's not 240hz.

Tv's that advertise 120hz are actually 60hz tv's, making "fake" frames that are sort of a mix between frame A and frame B to make 30fps appear to be 60fps.

Instead of being AA BB CC it's A A/B B B/C C

240hz tv's AT BEST are 120hz displays, interpolating 60FPS sources to 120hz (if it's only 30fps, it does the same as the "120hz" tv's)
Other 240hz tv's (like sony's I think) do interpolating PLUS flickering the backlight LED's to give the impression of 240fps (honestly it doesn't do jack squat IMO)

HOWEVER, 120hz TV's that are TRUELY 120hz are perfect for watching 24fps films. Because 120hz TV's can do a perfect pull down to 24fps by doing a 5:1 pull down (meaning, frame one displays 5 frames, frame 2 displays 5 frames, etc etc, till the entire 120fps is achieved) 60HZ tv's have to do a 3:2 pulldown, meaning every few frames has to be interpolated to fit into 30fps to make it fit into 60hz

I think it's more like AA BB B/C CC type deal.

My old LG tv supported 24fps films in a special mode I can't remember how to enable it exactly, but it basically set the TV into a 24hz mode (which it did support, as when I used it as a computer monitor, 24hz was a selectable option by default) anyways, the difference was noticeable. It wasn't a huge difference, but at 60hz there was a very slight artifact that would occur, that was completely gone in the 24hz mode.


----------



## dealio

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Foolsmasher*
> 
> [
> 
> I don't want an epic battlefield set in Middle Earth to look like it was shot on video with some guy playing dress-up. The soap opera look is not appealing to me and ruins immersion. Smoother motion be damned. I want to escape and be immersed into the movie, not necessarily have it look like it did while being filmed.


just apply a little bit of vaseline to your eyeballs









i think 48hz will be the norm soon, and soon after 96hz


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nenkitsune*
> 
> 240hz tv's look weird to people because it's not 240hz.


Not true. I mean, yeah, they aren't really 240Hz but that's besides the point. The point is that anything above 24fps looks less cinematic to the average person because that's what we are conditioned to see after a lifetime of 24fps films. The proof is in the disastrous reception that the 48fps Hobbit movie received. Almost everybody hated the higher frame rate because it makes everything look TOO realistic (ie props look like props and costumes look like costumes).


----------



## Nenkitsune

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Nenkitsune*
> 
> 240hz tv's look weird to people because it's not 240hz.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. I mean, yeah, they aren't really 240Hz but that's besides the point. The point is that anything above 24fps looks less cinematic to the average person because that's what we are conditioned to see after a lifetime of 24fps films. The proof is in the disastrous reception that the 48fps Hobbit movie received. Almost everybody hated the higher frame rate because it makes everything look TOO realistic (ie props look like props and costumes look like costumes).
Click to expand...

Oh I wasn't talking about the film, I was just stating that 120hz and 240hz tv's look weird because not only are they not actually running at those frames, they're interpolating in fake frames to give the illusion of smoothness, which is weird feeling.

24fps makes films have just a slow enough shutter time to capture the motion blur, and I think give a better cinematic experience than higher frames do (because of the higher frame rates killing motion blur off)

I read one article where the reviewer watched each version of the film. 3d HFR, regular 3d, and 2D, and out of them all he liked the 2d (at 24fps) the best. And I would agree.

Unfortunately, higher frame rates with film just kill the entire experience. Now, for sports, high frame rates are awesome because of all the fast moving objects. But it sucks for any other type of cinematography.

imo, motion blur makes things feel more "real" than higher frames do. When a camera pans fast, do you want to be able to see everything wizzing by with ultra clearity, or blur to the point all you see is a smear of colors. I like the blur. It gives a better sense of action. Without it it just feels fake. (Hell, I even like motion blur in some games because the actions just look better)


----------



## Foolsmasher

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dealio*
> 
> just apply a little bit of vaseline to your eyeballs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i think 48hz will be the norm soon, and soon after 96hz


Hopefully for animated films only. If people like Peter Jackson want to try to force it into their movies (such as the overlong and overstuffed crap-fest that was the Hobbit) I'll just find something else to watch.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I actually enjoyed the Hobbit. Just not the 48fps...


----------



## Rickles

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I actually enjoyed the Hobbit. Just not the 48fps...


I would have barfed if I saw the hobbit in 3d at 24 fps.. camera pans are like 10 billion times better with higher frame rates. For me.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

True, but I don't personally like 3D in the first place...


----------



## Bobotheklown

Having seen both the 48fps version of the hobbit and the 24fps 3d version, I preferred the 48 fps.

Just me though..apparently.


----------



## Foolsmasher

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I actually enjoyed the Hobbit. Just not the 48fps...


The fact that MGM was on the verge of bankruptcy, and stretched one decent Hobbit film into 3 for the cash is very apparent to me.

This is evidenced by the fact the first third of the movie took place at Bilbo's dinner table...excruciating.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Eh, I always enjoy more content rather than less. I never complain about a 3-4 hour movie but that's just me...


----------



## iEATu

I'm all for 60 FPS movies. The motion blur makes it hard for me to be immersed in the movie. It makes me feel like I'm trying harder to see what is happening in a movie than just watching it.


----------



## un-midas touch

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> True, but I don't personally like 3D in the first place...


You can wear an eyepatch to get rid of it


----------



## Zero4549

"24 looks more cinematic" is another way of saying "I like things to look blurry because that's how I grew up with them and I'm resistant to progressive changes". Just saying.


----------



## Crazy9000

Some native 60fps clips here:

http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/high-frame-rate-video


----------



## TheLawIX

Would love to get a copy of the Hobbit in 48 fps but no go yet.


----------



## Foolsmasher

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zero4549*
> 
> "24 looks more cinematic" is another way of saying "I like things to look blurry because that's how I grew up with them and I'm resistant to progressive changes". Just saying.


It's also a way of saying I prefer my movies to look different than an episode of Days of Our lives shot on video. Ruining immersion is far more detrimental than a little motion blur during a pan.


----------



## Crazy9000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Foolsmasher*
> 
> It's also a way of saying I prefer my movies to look different than an episode of Days of Our lives shot on video. Ruining immersion is far more detrimental than a little motion blur during a pan.


Then campaign to keep adding motion blur, don't campaign against HFR videos.


----------



## un-midas touch

This is quite a subjective subject to be flaming about, IMO. I assume anyone with decent skill in producing movies (not me) will just look at this like another tool in their toolbox. Nothing will ever be done the same way every time from now on. That's not how people work.

Quentin Tarantino comes to mind.


----------



## Foolsmasher

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Crazy9000*
> 
> Then campaign to keep adding motion blur, don't campaign against HFR videos.


Typical OCN response, more FPS=better.


----------



## airisom2

Smooth Video Project.

Uses frame motion interpolation in order to "upscale" all videos to 60fps. Works pretty well too. On all the stuff I watch, SVP really makes the stuff look more fluid and less blurry and jerky. It doesn't look all fast forwarded like some HDTVs either. Simply put, it looks like the video is being played at 60fps. With that said, it isn't the perfect motion enhancing thing out there, the software still has some minor problems, and 60fps right out of the gate is still more desirable, but for stuff that is under 60fps like 24, 48, etc. this really gives you better immersion when watching.

I don't want to post a video of this because youtube doesn't really show the difference that well, so some fraps frame-time readings should suffice to show the measurable difference between SVP on and off.





On the 24fps video, it looks like vsync is constantly changing the frametime between 20 and 30 fps, so it basically averages out at 24fps. SVP gives you a constant 60fps (don't mind those spikes) with very low amounts of frame-time variance.

For the guys that use CCCP, K-Lite, etc. SVP uses MadVR, ReClock, FFDShow, MPC-HC, avisynth, and Haali Media Splitter along with the SVP manager. You can configure the SVP manager settings to your preferences and to the type of video being played.

I hope I don't sound like someone trying to advertise a product or something...I just want to let you guys know if you already haven't. I also wanted to point out that frame-time variance isn't only for games, and that video playback suffers from it too, especially if your player is locked into using vsync.


----------



## un-midas touch

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airisom2*
> 
> On all the stuff I watch (yeah, even _that_ stuff), SVP really makes the stuff look more fluid and less blurry and jerky.


Um, yea. I'm just gonna go ahead and let what I wanna say go unsaid.


----------



## Crazy9000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Foolsmasher*
> 
> Typical OCN response, more FPS=better.


More FPS is better for videos. The more data you have, the higher quality the video is. If it looks unnatural, then maybe some blurring would fix that- but there's absolutely no reason to have less frames. Less frames make a video factually worse, that isn't even something that's debatable.


----------



## airisom2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *un-midas touch*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *airisom2*
> 
> On all the stuff I watch (yeah, even _that_ stuff), SVP really makes the stuff look more fluid and less blurry and jerky.
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yea. I'm just gonna go ahead and let what I wanna say go unsaid.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I edited it out so nobody doesn't think that that stuff is illegal stuff...but my point still stands. Don't bite me plz


----------



## un-midas touch

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Crazy9000*
> 
> More FPS is better for videos. The more data you have, the higher quality the video is. If it looks unnatural, then maybe some blurring would fix that- but there's absolutely no reason to have less frames. Less frames make a video factually worse, that isn't even something that's debatable.


Speaking of debate (purely), at what point does adding fps no longer produce a benefit? And isn't it conceivable that some form of artistic filming can benefit from less frames, artistically?

I just had to get you for saying "factually," honestly.


----------



## GrandMax

Let the debate begin on HFR begin. http://www.quibl.com/debate/29

Personally, as a gamer, I think it's a huge move forward.


----------



## Crazy9000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *un-midas touch*
> 
> Speaking of debate (purely), at what point does adding fps no longer produce a benefit? And isn't it conceivable that some form of artistic filming can benefit from less frames, artistically?
> 
> I just had to get you for saying "factually," honestly.


It no longer produces a benefit when the display can't produce the framerate itself, or when the difference becomes negligible to our eyesight. Don't believe any "human eye can only see at X fps" statements, studies have shown you can notice changes at absurdly high FPS.

Artistic stuff is another matter. I would say color is "better" then black and white, but artistic films love to use it.


----------



## un-midas touch

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GrandMax*
> 
> Let the debate begin on HFR begin. http://www.quibl.com/debate/29
> 
> Personally, as a gamer, I think it's a huge move forward.


See I think this is where the point I'm trying to make is rooted. Movies aren't games. And while I understand and appreciate that games are moving towards producing an experience as realistic and immersive as possible... that's not always necessary with movies. A movie is more of a one-way art form. Good film makers know how to tweak every bit of nuance and detail towards the feel they are trying to achieve, which doesn't always include realism. Sometimes the goal is even to reduce realism.

Idk, it's pretty hard to say art is bad due to the medium used. Maybe that's all I'm trying to say.


----------



## Crazy9000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *un-midas touch*
> 
> See I think this is where the point I'm trying to make is rooted. Movies aren't games. And while I understand and appreciate that games are moving towards producing an experience as realistic and immersive as possible... that's not always necessary with movies. A movie is more of a one-way art form. Good film makers know how to tweak every bit of nuance and detail towards the feel they are trying to achieve, which doesn't always include realism. Sometimes the goal is even to reduce realism.
> 
> Idk, it's pretty hard to say art is bad due to the medium used. Maybe that's all I'm trying to say.


The "24 fps" was the lowest frame rate they could have the film play at, and keep the audio from being off. That's where it came from, and for some reason has stuck. Since film was really expensive, having the lowest FPS possible was key. That really isn't the case anymore, so there's no reason to stick with it.

The problem is that they seem to be thinking 60fps is going to be completely smooth, which it's not. We're a long way off from that still, so there still needs to be some processing effect, like blurr, added.
Quote:


> So the conclusion is: To make movies/Virtual Reality perfect, you'd have to know what you want. To have a perfect illusion of everything that can flash, blink and move you shouldn't go below 500 fps.


http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm


----------



## Coma

What? Sports have always commonly aired at 60i, this isn't new. Pirates are just not dropping frames, they aren't doing anything revolutionary.


----------



## Zero4549

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Foolsmasher*
> 
> It's also a way of saying I prefer my movies to look different than an episode of Days of Our lives shot on video. Ruining immersion is far more detrimental than a little motion blur during a pan.


Theres nothing immersive about blur and judder. You're just so used to it from seeing it in movies your whole life.

If you were raised without 24fps motion blur and judder, you would think it looks atrocious and completely breaks immersion every time a motion sequence spazzes out across a screen like a epilepsy seizure.

People complained that CDs sounded worse than audio cassettes at first, then they realized static hisses and pops weren't actually desirable after all.


----------



## Foolsmasher

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zero4549*
> 
> Theres nothing immersive about blur and judder. You're just so used to it from seeing it in movies your whole life.
> 
> If you were raised without 24fps motion blur and judder, you would think it looks atrocious and completely breaks immersion every time a motion sequence spazzes out across a screen like a epilepsy seizure.
> 
> People complained that CDs sounded worse than audio cassettes at first, then they realized static hisses and pops weren't actually desirable after all.


I can tell you that I and many others, probably the majority, prefer 24fps compared to something that looks like a soap opera. Not sure what else to tell you. I'm not saying you're wrong for liking what you like, but you'll never convince me it's "better" just because there are more frames.


----------



## Cheezman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Foolsmasher*
> 
> I can tell you that I and many others, probably the majority, prefer 24fps compared to something that looks like a soap opera. Not sure what else to tell you. I'm not saying you're wrong for liking what you like, but you'll never convince me it's "better" just because there are more frames.


I agree. Film just looks and "feels" right at 24fps.


----------



## iEATu

It would probably take people a few movies to get used to. But seeing something that looks like real life is much more believable than making the watcher feel like they're watching a screen.

You know, I actually remember when watching Inception I was thinking how blurry things were. It was really hard to see what was happening some times because of the huge amount of motion blur. It was pretty annoying actually. I was concentrating to see something better that wasn't there.


----------



## johnny13oi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nenkitsune*
> 
> Some broadcasts are done in 60FPS, I noticed this when I had my LG tv with whatever interpolation software it has. Some things like sporting events and some TV shows don't do anything when you try to use the "120hz" mode that the TV has, as all 60 frames are already filled by the source. And they do indeed look very nice.


What LG TV do you have? Many of the LG "120 Hz" TV's are just 60Hz panels with a strobing back light and are calling it 120Hz when it is not a true 120Hz Panel.


----------



## OcN13

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Eh, I always enjoy more content rather than less. I never complain about a 3-4 hour movie but that's just me...


I don't complain about 3-4 hour movie either. I do complain when they waste an hour eating.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Foolsmasher*
> 
> I can't speak personally as I've never seen a real film in native 48 or 60 fps, only the interpolated versions, which I find horrid. I can rely on some trusted reviewers who saw the Hobbit in 48 fps however.
> 
> I don't want an epic battlefield set in Middle Earth to look like it was shot on video with some guy playing dress-up. The soap opera look is not appealing to me and ruins immersion. Smoother motion be damned. I want to escape and be immersed into the movie, not necessarily have it look like it did while being filmed..


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Foolsmasher*
> 
> I can tell you that I and many others, probably the majority, prefer 24fps compared to something that looks like a soap opera. Not sure what else to tell you. I'm not saying you're wrong for liking what you like, but you'll never convince me it's "better" just because there are more frames.


Why are you comparing it to a soap opera? Which is recorded at 24fps? How is immersion ruined because some guy "looks" like dress up. That doesn't even make sense no offense. If there was any other video faults 60fps are not the cause. Again legit, non interpolated is better. Not better just because its MOAR.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Foolsmasher*
> 
> Typical OCN response, more FPS=better.


Typical response when not wanting to actually respond beneficially all the while stereotyping/blaming Crazy9000's helpful post as a result of belonging to this site.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Foolsmasher*
> 
> I can tell you that I and many others, probably the majority, prefer 24fps compared to something that looks like a soap opera. Not sure what else to tell you. I'm not saying you're wrong for liking what you like, but you'll never convince me it's "better" just because there are more frames.


I totally agree with you. More of something does not automatically equal better and in a movie I expect to be taken to another world, not to be watching actors walking around on a set recorded by a camcorder. Every high FPS movie I've ever seen makes it look like I'm watching a play...


----------



## OcN13

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I totally agree with you. More of something does not automatically equal better and in a movie I expect to be taken to another world, not to be watching actors walking around on a set recorded by a camcorder. Every high FPS movie I've ever seen makes it look like I'm watching a play...


Idk about you but I would love to watch movie's live . . Would it be as good as a movie? Probably not but only b/c live you would have limitations on special effects, digital or not. Movie has high fps while looking bad or "watching a play" does not mean high fps caused the bad quality.


----------



## Espair

I dont see movies in theaters but i had free tickets for the hobbit, and it was blurry... almost gave me a headache. Why is it the frames are just so darn low?? Or is this not related? Doesnt seem like the quality i would go back for if i decided to go to the movies again.


----------



## Nenkitsune

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *johnny13oi*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Nenkitsune*
> 
> Some broadcasts are done in 60FPS, I noticed this when I had my LG tv with whatever interpolation software it has. Some things like sporting events and some TV shows don't do anything when you try to use the "120hz" mode that the TV has, as all 60 frames are already filled by the source. And they do indeed look very nice.
> 
> 
> 
> What LG TV do you have? Many of the LG "120 Hz" TV's are just 60Hz panels with a strobing back light and are calling it 120Hz when it is not a true 120Hz Panel.
Click to expand...

If you noticed, I said the "120hz" mode did nothing for certian sporting events that were already being broadcast at 60fps. I can't remember exactly which model it was, but it was the last 32in tv LG ever made that was 120hz interpolated, internet connected, with all the bells and whistles that afterwards, was only found on 42in+ tv's.

and yes, it's a 60hz panel that uses interpolation software to add in frames to fill up the 30fps to 60. No strobing backlight though. Usually tv's marketed as 240hz have the strobing backlight.


----------



## slipstream808

At the rental house I work in Philadelphia (we rent high end cameras for cinematography and videos), no shooter (camera man) has even mentioned about shooting at 60p... yet. In fact if it can't do 24p than usually no one gets that camera.


----------



## WolfssFang

The only reason why we consider 24fps good for movies is because we are so use to it.


----------



## Wattser93

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OcN13*
> 
> I don't complain about 3-4 hour movie either. I do complain when they waste an hour eating.
> 
> *Why are you comparing it to a soap opera?* Which is recorded at 24fps? How is immersion ruined because some guy "looks" like dress up. That doesn't even make sense no offense. If there was any other video faults 60fps are not the cause. Again legit, non interpolated is better. Not better just because its MOAR.
> Typical response when not wanting to actually respond beneficially all the while stereotyping/blaming Crazy9000's helpful post as a result of belonging to this site.


You've never heard of "the soap opera effect" caused by interpolation? It's that effect that makes the characters look like they're floating on the screen with a "glow" around them as if they're being very poorly green screened into the scene. It ruins film IMO.


----------



## Eagle1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *un-midas touch*
> 
> See I think this is where the point I'm trying to make is rooted. Movies aren't games. And while I understand and appreciate that games are moving towards producing an experience as realistic and immersive as possible... that's not always necessary with movies. A movie is more of a one-way art form. Good film makers know how to tweak every bit of nuance and detail towards the feel they are trying to achieve, which doesn't always include realism. Sometimes the goal is even to reduce realism.
> 
> Idk, it's pretty hard to say art is bad due to the medium used. Maybe that's all I'm trying to say.


Former film student here, Crazy is right more fps = better. NTSC and PAl are to the standards that they are simply because It was the cheapest option. Movies are at 24 fps because it was the cheapest option that made the viewer think they were watching something move as if in real life. After all movies are just pictures played back. Motion blur is also pretty damn easy to put add in during editing.


----------



## cdoublejj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Not true. I mean, yeah, they aren't really 240Hz but that's besides the point. The point is that anything above 24fps looks less cinematic to the average person because that's what we are conditioned to see after a lifetime of 24fps films. The proof is in the disastrous reception that the 48fps Hobbit movie received. Almost everybody hated the higher frame rate because it makes everything look TOO realistic (ie props look like props and costumes look like costumes).


no he is right the TV is mixing in extra frames. when you play your games at 60 fps it doesn't look fast forwarded at all.


----------



## arctia

I don't watch movies in anymore. Despite of the automatic motion blur in films, I can still tell each individual frames flashing before my eyes, and it gives me headaches.

48fps is good, 60fps is better. Honestly 60fps should be the standard. Computer monitors are already using 60hz as baseline; having 60fps films make it easy for everybody. No more complicated encoders trying to do 24fps -> 60fps conversion.


----------



## dioxholster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arctia*
> 
> I don't watch movies in anymore. Despite of the automatic motion blur in films, I can still tell each individual frames flashing before my eyes, and it gives me headaches.
> 
> 48fps is good, 60fps is better. Honestly 60fps should be the standard. Computer monitors are already using 60hz as baseline; having 60fps films make it easy for everybody. No more complicated encoders trying to do 24fps -> 60fps conversion.


i know what you mean, it will make life easier having one standard, but 24p is just so elegant for movies, the smoothness of high fps takes away from the actors performance.


----------



## cdoublejj

Except for me it isn't so elegant because I can't get the cruddy frame flipping out of mind every time i think of 60fps. We need 60 fps NATIVE films i say.


----------



## un-midas touch

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Eagle1337*
> 
> Former film student here, Crazy is right more fps = better. NTSC and PAl are to the standards that they are simply because It was the cheapest option. Movies are at 24 fps because it was the cheapest option that made the viewer think they were watching something move as if in real life. After all movies are just pictures played back. Motion blur is also pretty damn easy to put add in during editing.


Any yet you've said nothing that refutes my statements.


----------



## Foolsmasher

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WolfssFang*
> 
> The only reason why we consider 24fps good for movies is because we are so use to it.


That kind of argument holds no weight. I was used to drinking cheap beer in college but never considered it to be good. I wasn't used to getting BJ's before my first one but I knew instantly that I liked it! People don't need to "get used" to anything before they can give their opinion.


----------



## bojinglebells

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cdoublejj*
> 
> I've never seen true 60fps. I have seen the fake 60fps that looks like it's in fast forward. My uncle has one of the newer TVs and when we watch older movies some scenes look fast forwarded, I was told it's the TV station adding extra frames or something like that.


I guess you don't watch TV then?

Channels like ABC (and thus ESPN) and FOX are broadcast in 720p60 specifically for the higher framerate advantage with sports in mind.


----------



## bojinglebells

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dioxholster*
> 
> i know what you mean, it will make life easier having one standard, but 24p is just so elegant for movies, the smoothness of high fps takes away from the actors performance.


no, the smoothness of 60fps means our brains are receiving 2.5x more frames (ie information) in order to determine whether or not what we're watching is fake, so when every subtle gesture becomes that much more detailed it only enhances our ability to perceive bad acting


----------



## John Shepard

60fps should be the standard seriously.
I watch all my blue rays and tv shows at 60fps on media player classic using an avisinth script.It looks and feels soooooo much smoother.
I am never going back to 24fps.


----------



## digitally

60fps for sports. the rest can stay where-ever they are... lol


----------



## cdoublejj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bojinglebells*
> 
> I guess you don't watch TV then?
> 
> Channels like ABC (and thus ESPN) and FOX are broadcast in 720p60 specifically for the higher framerate advantage with sports in mind.


I do, my uncle has a newer TV with 60 fps support... I think. YOU just proved a theory of mine I could have sworn i scoured the menus in that thing to turn off frame mixing/flipping yet ghost buster was all kinds of weirdness (TV, not dvd/bluray), (frame flipping). Also every one watches the game on it, is there a way to tell if the sports channel is playing in 60 fps?


----------

