24 frames per second is starting to look awkward in 4k.

Forums - Movies Discussion - 24 frames per second is starting to look awkward in 4k.

I prefer film in...

24 fps. 28 62.22%
30 fps. 3 6.67%
48 fps. 4 8.89%
60 fps. 4 8.89%
North of 60.... 3 6.67%
Any/indifferent/comments/middle America. 3 6.67%
OdinHades said:
24 fps should be illegal in 2019. Period.



Around the Network
Darwinianevolution said:
John2290 said:

Yes. 24 fps was the standard for technical reasons for many years yet people, critics and creators are still beating the drums sayong it looks better than higher rates and should be kept as the stnadard. Like those fools who used to say vinal is better for it's flaws. It seems to be all nostalgia based and no reality to it at all. I think it may just e social engineering so the elite don't have to go and replace all their infrastructure and tech and the streaming service don't need to fouble bandwith. Or maybe it's just foolish people being foolish or like you said, lazy and doing the bare minimum. 

Well, technically vinyl is better than some digital formats like MP3, due to the way they are compressed (again, don't quote me on this), but regardless of that, there is a massive problem with sharing and storing any kind of video format. The more quality it has, the more size it occupies, so a company like Google, that owns not only Youtube but many other services dedicated to storing digital stuff, might look at the sheer amount of money needed to keep everything in order and just consider it not worth the efford. Just imagine the everyday bill of just YouTube when it comes to infraestructure, electricity, hardware to storage everything... Cutting corners might be needed to slow down the monumental expenses.

The platforms are actually the ones supporting it. Youtube, Netflix etc but the content isn't coming outside of Youtube creators. I agree, as I said before I think there is a conspiracy to spread this to critics who parrot lower FPS in the same way they bomb netflix originals for the threat to cinema going. They are weak willed sheep and people listen to them for some reason. Laziness and cheapness prevails where innovation vould excel.


I really can't tell the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps. So the framerate in movies doesn't matter to me either. On top of that I don't have a 4K tv set either and the majority of my movie collection is on DVD's.

Higher frame rates look awful in film. It makes sets and effects look bad. Also the comment about vinyl is just factually wrong. Vinyl is the least compressed way to listen to recorded music. It has flaws, but in terms of range vinyl is superior to cds, tapes, mp3 etc.

24fps gives it a dream like structure..and its cheaper.

heres a vid about the topic


maybe your tv sucks  :D

Tsubasa Ozora

Keiner kann ihn bremsen, keiner macht ihm was vor. Immer der richtige Schuss, immer zur richtigen Zeit. Superfussball, Fairer Fussball. Er ist unser Torschützenkönig und Held.

Around the Network
John2290 said:


The motion of people on screen is starting to look awkward at 24 fps filming and editing techniques are failing to hide the scrappy and crappy motion. What is this stupid love of 24 fps among self fart smelling critics? Is i a conspiracy to keep costs down for the filming elite and streaming servicesm? Is it just me?

When 1080p came around it was noticeable but forgivable and something that could be ignored however the higher we go in resolution and screen size the more we need to update FPS in films. 4k even a 47 inch on 24 fps can look so unnatural and uncanny with peoples fast action movements and when it does look good with editor intervention it can look choppy in an other way entirely. I do not understand this love for 24 fps, as a gamer maybe it's me who is just more sensitive to FPS now with frames north of 60 fps right up to 120 in VR. Is it just me?

The insane difference between something filmed in 24 fps against something filmed in 48 fps or even 60 fps should be noticeable to all regardless and motion can become so fluid and natural. I fail to see how anyone anyone can not be put off by the awkward motions of lower FPS after seeing higher rates, especially in fight scenes or fast action where editors litterally still frame some scenes and rubber band the action to offset the low fps. Is it just me? 

However it is not all doom and gloom for 24 fps as it only seems to be peoples relative movement and speed. Planet Earth 2 and other 24 fps filming without people in fast motion, stuff like dramas or nature Docs look great and rarely stutter. Is it just me?

Planet earth 2 works as well streaming as it does on blu ray and it is by far the best 4k content I've seen outside of 4k, HDR 60fps showcases on YouTube. I can see why Netflix would not want to support a double the frames for bandwith reasons but is it worth the sacrifice yo the eye? Is it just me?

I can't even watch Titans because of the awkward motion. Bright almost made me rage quit the damn film in some scenes. Is it just me?


What's your thoughts? Do you notice 24 fps over 48 fps or 60? Do you care outside of gaming? Do you play VR or high end PC and have higher standards? So familiar with high and smooth motion that 24 fps seems uncanny and unnatural or am I just hyper focusing on it now that I have seen the light... 


Is it just me?


/Rant end. 

24fps for me is okay when cameras are not panning sideways. However the added benefit of doubling that is great. When you look at 4k hdr then not having judder by current filming techniques is to me very important but unfortunately you have limitations when filming at 24fps.

When the Hobbit released in HFR I found the fluedity amazing and very natural once you get used to it but the immediate complains about "fake" look put a halt to faster developments until Avatar  2 does better.

The issue here is that fake had nothing to do with 48fps for the hobbit but that bad cgi and scenery was immediately spotted. Therefor minimum for future films to me would be 48fps recorded so judder will be removed. For those that prefer 24fps it is easier to cut by half but at least have that option.

On my bravia x930e I've set motion interpolation at a level of 1/5 to at least remove a tiny bit of panning judder. Beyond that you'll see artifacts and maybe some other lags so this was the best thing for me. Black level insertion might help as well but I feel the flicker and lower brightness is not always what I want either. 

Last edited by elazz - on 13 January 2019


PS4 will sell 25 million units before 31st of March!

Edit: I didn't state what year! HAHA, so I'm still right in some sense

Darwinianevolution said:
Don't quote me on this, but isn't 24 fps the minimum required for the human brain to interpret motion, and not just a series of still images?


AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Darwinianevolution said:
Don't quote me on this, but isn't 24 fps the minimum required for the human brain to interpret motion, and not just a series of still images?



Though here it says it's 20 fps. Again, not an expert on this, so take everything with a pinch of salt.

You know it deserves the GOTY.

Come join The 2018 Obscure Game Monthly Review Thread.

AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Darwinianevolution said:
Don't quote me on this, but isn't 24 fps the minimum required for the human brain to interpret motion, and not just a series of still images?


He said don't quote me you idiot!

Vinyl is far superior to pretty much every digital format. As long as you keep it clean and don't cheap out on your amp and player. The reason why Vinyl went away was because its highly unpractical. Comparing Vinyl to MP3 is like comparing 8k to 480p.

High res Flac, CD are pretty decent (720 to 1080p) and DSD is actually great (4K) but most of those are also formats from the past which where mastered way better in their time, than music is mastered nowadays. Progression doesn't always mean better quality. Which is why blu ray almost always looks (and sounds) way better than streamed 4k.

Last edited by Qwark - on 13 January 2019

Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar