24 fps was a compromise to have a standard for all movies. It's enough to keep up the illusion of movement but has a few problems with fast movements.
The human eye is better suited to track fast horizontal movements, running animals, scanning the horizon etc. Using 48fps for that will work better. For static scenes and close ups it tends to break immersion and you have to be very careful that it won't look like a 'making of' video.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2012/04/28/the-hobbit-at-48fps-too-much-information-and-the-science-of-eye-movement/
Maybe a combination will work best to keep the dream like quality of film while improving tracking shots and far away panning shots with hfr. A bit like how hand drawn animation combines character animation at 12fps with backgrounds panning at 24fps.
We're already getting used to sections of movies shot with IMAX cameras and switching aspect ratios on the fly, so why not use variable frame rates as well. Use the most suitable frame rate depending on the subject.
Btw that comparison is impossible to do correctly on most hardware. Unless you have a 240hz monitor it's not possible to view a 24fps and 48fps video correctly on current monitors. And I doubt that that You tube video actually runs at 24fps, it's probably encoded with 3:2 pulldown to 30fps. That 48fps MP4 file reports to be 59fps on inspection. Not sure what kind of conversion went into that.
Anyway uneven 30fps vs 60fps then: Both look pretty fake because of the lighting but the higher frame rate suffers a bit more when it comes to the CGI. Especially the water splashing and the barrel and people flying through the air look extremely fake. The panning shots do look better.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
