Quantcast
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%
 
Total:45

24FPS is visibly low - too low. But people are so used to it that switching to 48FPS was off-turning for most of them.

My compromise would be to increase in babysteps, so it woudn't be too off-putting for those used to 24 frames but also noticely better for those who can see all the flaws of that low framerate. Hence, an increase to 30FPS would do for now - and also wouldn't cost too much additional bandwith and is even easier to work on 60FPS panels. Later on down the line, increases to 36, 48 and finally 60FPS over the course of many years should eliminate the problems with the low framerate peu à pau.



Around the Network
thismeintiel said:
CGI-Quality said:

Nothing hyperbolic about that statement and there is no debate to win. You either prefer higher frame rates or you don't. Yes, by comparison to both what I see in real life and 60+fps gaming, 30fps is choppy. If you truly think it runs 'nearly as good as real life', then it is clear that you haven't spent much time playing higher or you're just choosing the lower frame rate for.....whatever reason. Remove the motion blur (what many 30fps games hide behind) and you have a choppier experience. That's Game Design 101.

It is 100% hyperbolic to say that 30 FPS is choppy.  Movies run at 6 FPS less than those games, and they are not choppy, either.  And it's not just from experience that I know this, it is just a scientific fact.  It only takes ~20 FPS to fool the brain that a series of images are actually in motion, without the choppiness of something like stop motion animation.  At 24 FPS and 30 FPS, it is impossible for it to look choppy.  Sure, it's not as smooth as 60 FPS, but nothing choppy about it.  And motion blur is not to remove any kind of choppiness from low framerate, it is to address image ghosting from previous frames, mainly caused by turning the camera quickly.  It's also used to simulate something our eyes naturally do with motion.  A game running at 18 FPS isn't going to magically look smooth because you threw some motion blur at it.

Well, glad we agree that it is about preference.  30 FPS for games is here to stay because many think it actually looks more cinematic.  Same goes for 24 FPS for film. 

At 30 fps, yes. There is little sloppiness in frame and those 6 extra frames make a hell of a difference. The problem is that Hollywood and half of Netflix content and other streaming services are running at 24 fps and actors movements look awkward and uncanny without editor intervention and even then, they can only so much. I'm not calling for 48 or 60fps even though I think 60 fps is vastly superior for action and sports or anything with people moving at a faster pace than 24 snaps can accurately capture and reproduce, I just want those extra 6 frames and the near infinite smoothness it brings to movement and action scenes even though I would love 60 fps to slip in as standard at some point down the road. It'll be a generational time scale for that to happen. Just give us the 30 fps asstandard on our costly TV's that support 50/60 hz depending on EU or NA as standard or even 100hz. 24 fps is the bare minimum and ridiculous with our level of tech today. 



 

Everything in the above reply is my opinion, from my own perspective and not representative of reality outside of my own head!

-Android user, please be gentle with critique on my spelling.

Bofferbrauer2 said:
24FPS is visibly low - too low. But people are so used to it that switching to 48FPS was off-turning for most of them.

My compromise would be to increase in babysteps, so it woudn't be too off-putting for those used to 24 frames but also noticely better for those who can see all the flaws of that low framerate. Hence, an increase to 30FPS would do for now - and also wouldn't cost too much additional bandwith and is even easier to work on 60FPS panels. Later on down the line, increases to 36, 48 and finally 60FPS over the course of many years should eliminate the problems with the low framerate peu à pau.

Exactly. I see lots of TV content at 30 fps so perhaps they are doing exactly that. Fingers crossed. 60 fps is a good generation away whatever the path may be to it. 



 

Everything in the above reply is my opinion, from my own perspective and not representative of reality outside of my own head!

-Android user, please be gentle with critique on my spelling.

Darwinianevolution said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

source? 

https://bid.berkeley.edu/cs160-fall12/index.php/Human_Information_Processing

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

its more like 12fps at very minimum. 

20fps was the minimum audio would sync with video correctly. They went with 24fps, because its even and divisible, by 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12



 

 

Bofferbrauer2 said:
24FPS is visibly low - too low. But people are so used to it that switching to 48FPS was off-turning for most of them.

My compromise would be to increase in babysteps, so it woudn't be too off-putting for those used to 24 frames but also noticely better for those who can see all the flaws of that low framerate. Hence, an increase to 30FPS would do for now - and also wouldn't cost too much additional bandwith and is even easier to work on 60FPS panels. Later on down the line, increases to 36, 48 and finally 60FPS over the course of many years should eliminate the problems with the low framerate peu à pau.

Except we are used to 30 fps.  We watch videos at 30 fps all day long.  We don't really need to get used to it.  Television showings were effectively 30 fps for decades.  But the preference is still there among audiences for 24 fps.  So you have to ask yourself why this would be.

Filmmaking has seen plenty of adjustments over the years to new technology.  I remember in the 90s how people were fretting about about the move from film to digital with many filmmakers vowing that they'd never go.  Most have relented.  But 24 fps has persevered and hasn't shown the slightest signs of ceasing to be the standard.

Perhaps the old farts that have made their careers out of this stuff actually know what they're talking about

Last edited by NightlyPoe - on 14 January 2019

Around the Network

Your TV would be the cause of the jitters when panning.

It is like the old says when you converted NTSC to PAL, PAL video would jitter if the TV screen wasn't capable of running progressive video.

What i found with modern TV, they are designed for sports and gaming, so they try to automatically add more smoothing to it at higher HZ. So when you put in a movie it looks fake like a tv show or a home handy cam recording. You need to turn all that interpolation shit off and it will look mint. like it would in a cinema.

Thankfully TVs have movie mode and game mode etc for you to change settings in each one.



 

 

Cobretti2 said:
Your TV would be the cause of the jitters when panning.

It is like the old says when you converted NTSC to PAL, PAL video would jitter if the TV screen wasn't capable of running progressive video.

What i found with modern TV, they are designed for sports and gaming, so they try to automatically add more smoothing to it at higher HZ. So when you put in a movie it looks fake like a tv show or a home handy cam recording. You need to turn all that interpolation shit off and it will look mint. like it would in a cinema.

Thankfully TVs have movie mode and game mode etc for you to change settings in each one.

Yeah, judder in panning in 24fps on TVs usually comes either from 3:2 pulldown conversion to NTSC (on SDTVs), HDTV set not being able to run at multiple of 24fps or not being able to recognise and reverse 3:2 pull down.



Seems to me people are just getting used to higher FPS and then of course start noticing the stutter of lower FPS. Welcome to the world of a PC player trying to play on consoles where people say that they cannot see the stutter but you still do.

Funnily enough I have never cared about low fps in movies. The only thing I notice is when they use 12fps animation on CG in anime.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

vivster said:
Seems to me people are just getting used to higher FPS and then of course start noticing the stutter of lower FPS. Welcome to the world of a PC player trying to play on consoles where people say that they cannot see the stutter but you still do.

Funnily enough I have never cared about low fps in movies. The only thing I notice is when they use 12fps animation on CG in anime.

Yeah. I think it's the VR headset that has made me notice it. Most games are 60 but somehow look as smooth as 120 with the tech. That's five times the frames of a 24 fps film, no wonder I've started to notice the difference. I used to see no difference in 30 v 60 fps tests on YT however now It is night and day. 60 is butter compared... oh lord, am I now with the master race?

 

Nòòòòòòòòòòòò....



 

Everything in the above reply is my opinion, from my own perspective and not representative of reality outside of my own head!

-Android user, please be gentle with critique on my spelling.

Noooooooooooo

Lord please. Please.

Noooooooooooo



 

Everything in the above reply is my opinion, from my own perspective and not representative of reality outside of my own head!

-Android user, please be gentle with critique on my spelling.