Live action media in a high framerate looks disgusting

Odradek · 2016-07-18 21:39:57

It does

Salix Babylonika · 2016-07-18 21:42:26

It really, really does.

Anonus · 2016-07-18 21:45:34

I always thought soap operas and other "cheap" shows utilizing a high framerate looked nicer and less sluggish than things with a "better" framerate

Crystal · 2016-07-18 21:49:10

What prompted this? Like, watching something specific?

Odradek · 2016-07-18 21:50:26

My dad watches a bunch of tv shows in high framerates

Tre · 2016-07-18 22:11:41

Yeah, I think 24 FPS is my sweet spot for most things. Soap operas and the like are just weird to look at by comparison.

I'm still getting used to the idea of every video game ever going at 60 all the time-- it depends on the game for me, but 3D games can be really weird to look at for with such high frame rates sometimes.

Anonus · 2016-07-18 22:22:49

24 fps just moves so slowly to me

LOAD Cherry · 2016-07-18 22:26:52

I got this feeling watching the Hobbit in 60 FPS. It looks weirdly cheap in scenes where there's little to no CGI

Crystal · 2016-07-18 22:29:16

Odradek said:
My dad watches a bunch of tv shows in high framerates

Ah, makes sense.

On topic, I don't think this has ever been an issue for me? Or at least not one that I can notice, so probably not.

Anonus · 2016-07-18 23:27:27

why is it that the smoother and closer to reality a framerate is the less desirable it is anyway

Anonus · 2016-07-18 23:27:47

I dunno why "realism" is strove for in all aspects but this

Anonus · 2016-07-18 23:36:34

Humans see in 66fps

So what makes a framerate much lower than that more desirable?

Klinotaxis · 2016-07-18 23:45:54

No

Mandelbrot · 2016-07-18 23:47:42

it's more that most current cinematography isn't really meant to be viewed at that pace

Anonus · 2016-07-18 23:54:12

oh

so i misunderstand

MadassAlex · 2016-07-19 05:20:19

Tre said:
Yeah, I think 24 FPS is my sweet spot for most things. Soap operas and the like are just weird to look at by comparison.

I'm still getting used to the idea of every video game ever going at 60 all the time-- it depends on the game for me, but 3D games can be really weird to look at for with such high frame rates sometimes.

I can sympathise with the aesthetic concern, but 60 FPS is probably for the best in terms of the medium. Additional detail, clarity, and twice the frame options in animation will help plenty of games in the long run.

Crystal · 2016-07-19 05:23:24

I, uh, really don't want to be that person, but...

When I read that comment, I struggle not to associate it with TB and his ilk, even though I know that's very plainly not the case. Never mind that I've seen good arguments for it, which even if I still am not entirely understanding of the precise mechanics, will research and more earnestly broach in the future. So I get a confused response in part since it seems like a fine discussion, return to the first line.

Tre · 2016-07-19 05:33:02

MadassAlex said:

Tre said:
Yeah, I think 24 FPS is my sweet spot for most things. Soap operas and the like are just weird to look at by comparison.

I'm still getting used to the idea of every video game ever going at 60 all the time-- it depends on the game for me, but 3D games can be really weird to look at for with such high frame rates sometimes.
I can sympathise with the aesthetic concern, but 60 FPS is probably for the best in terms of the medium. Additional detail, clarity, and twice the frame options in animation will help plenty of games in the long run.

I'm not denying that there are benefits to it or anything (hell, VR's got stuff going at 90-- there has to be some advantage to it if the numbers are going to triple the previous industry standard), it's just a little weird to look at if you're used to seeing those lower frame rates, that's all.

Just something to get used to, albeit a more abstract thing than the graphical jump between the PS2/Xbox era and the PS360 generation.

MadassAlex · 2016-07-19 05:45:43

^^ For what it's worth, I think the 60 FPS hardliner stance is too narrow-visioned itself; I'd rather a game simply be good in the first place, frames be damned as long as the experience is essentially smooth. Additionally, 60 FPS also asks for animations that use that newfound flexibility, which could be advantageous in some games or a wasted expense in others.

You might think of it this way: An animation built for 60 FPS might not translate well into 30 FPS, as some shift might occur in a frame that only exists in the former variant. Conversely, a 30 FPS animation will be compatible with 60 FPS, albeit with some more options in terms of the ratio of key frames to motion frames.

Some modifications to animations are also less awkward in 60 FPS. If we have an animation that lasts one second, modifying its speed by 5% costs us an awkward 1.5 frames at 30 FPS; 60 FPS costs us 3. Obviously, animations frequently last a fraction of a second or for several seconds, so this example isn't applicable in all cases. But it hopefully illustrates the control over animation delivered by 60 FPS.

Again, though, not much of this matters in the absence of games that use it well. I'm looking forward to those games, probably moreso during the next console generation though.

Sredni Vashtar · 2016-07-19 17:56:26

I think the fluidity is key in games that require very fast response times and minimum delay, but it is really unnecessary in simpler works going for a less hyper-detailed aesthetic, particularly 2D games.

Live action media in a high framerate looks disgusting

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories