AVATAR WAS AWESOME!!!

Chat about anything not covered in these forums, but keep it civil!

Post » Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:10 am

Wouldn't that mean all cinemas buying new 60fps equipment, and therefore raising ticket prices? I'd notice the difference probably, but wouldn't a lot of people just go "huh? it looks the same, why is it more expensive?"
Scirra Founder
B
359
S
214
G
72
Posts: 22,952
Reputation: 178,600

Post » Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:49 am

Yeah, unless you're a gamer then you probably can't tell the difference between 60 and 24 fps. That's something you train your eyes for.
Moderator
B
5
S
2
G
6
Posts: 4,348
Reputation: 10,971

Post » Thu Dec 31, 2009 6:06 am

Is that sarcastic, about the 60 fps? :)
I think especially N64 owners have trained their fps-eyes, because F-zero was aimed for: high fps (60?) and low details.
Turok 2 had trouble running smoothly, on N64 and Perfect Dark had trouble running at... 24 fps, I believe.
So N64 owners could experience the difference. :)

This console generation has: Modern Warfare 2 (360) = 60 fps? Runs smoothly.
Operation Flashpoint 2 (360) and Killzone 2 both seem non-60-fps-games, I believe.

Just making small talk...
:)
B
16
S
5
G
7
Posts: 599
Reputation: 5,000

Post » Thu Dec 31, 2009 6:46 am

No, I wasn't being sarcastic, for most people 24fps is too fast for the eye to see. You can't really tell the difference unless you see two things with different frame rates played side by side.

Gamers are different, especially hardcore gamers. They're used to seeing things at high fps rates. It's like a baseball player... they can see the stitching on a ball that's coming at them at 85mph and tell which way it's spinning because thier eyes are trained for it. Or competition players for fighting games... they can tell what move the other person is doing and react to it just by seeing the first frame of the attack animation. Your average joe can't do that kind of stuff because they haven't spent hours upon hours training their eyes for that sort of thing.
Moderator
B
5
S
2
G
6
Posts: 4,348
Reputation: 10,971

Post » Thu Dec 31, 2009 6:51 pm

That's true. Also true is that when "normal" people see 60fps footage, they think it's 3D. I happened to walk in a showfloor where a 3D TV demo stand was a few meters away from a 60fps bluray demo stand. People would stop and ask if the bluray thingie was 3D too.

So while they may not be able to call out the fps on any footage like some of us do, they perceive it as more "real".
B
3
S
2
G
4
Posts: 1,445
Reputation: 4,665

Post » Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:03 pm

I guess a new generation wouldn't mind
but since I grew up on 24
I really hate the look of 60 fps video
it looks unprofessional, like it's not a real movie
wonderful for games
but in movies, I like the 24 fps movie "look"
when I was helping a friend with his indie film
I slowed the footage from it's original 60 fps down to 24
it looks like a soap opera instead of a movie otherwise

shifting to 60 fps might make sense anyway, since 24 is probably based on old camera tech, and now it's just a legacy thing everyone's accustomed to, but I really don't see the correlation with 3d, to be honest. it's not like most theatres have LCD shutter glasses, or anything
there's no flicker. it's just like a normal movie, but 3d
Spriter Dev
B
87
S
21
G
12
Posts: 3,240
Reputation: 16,461

Post » Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:38 pm

I don't see it either. They did.
remember, untrained eyes.

And the reason why 60fps looks "amateur" is also because your mind is trained to associate 24-fps with "professional", so that'll go away too in time, just like the digital-clean versus film grain stigma is fading away.
B
3
S
2
G
4
Posts: 1,445
Reputation: 4,665

Post » Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:04 am

theres less moblur is why it looks unproffesional.

i know what lucids talking about, its hard to explain :P. also, i know this sounds odd, but it looks too "real" esp with hd added on. i mean, the cameras that take it are better at focusing and finding a clear image than our eyes are even capable of, and the image comes off as if were seeing what an eagle would see, because were just seeing an awesome image that we wouldn't even be able to focus on with our eyes. i dunno its a weird sensation, not to say its the wrong way to go, but movie makers have to find all the tricks the new formats need to look better, its a renaissance, and you cant expect everything to look the greatest it will at its infancy i guess.
B
52
S
7
G
6
Posts: 1,945
Reputation: 7,610

Post » Mon Jan 04, 2010 3:08 am

this focus thing you mention is not an issue in photographs, and if our eyes are capable of perceiving the sharpness of HD sets, they can certainly perceive the sharpness in life.

I'm absolutely convinced it's just a people thing. We're used to 24fps = high budget, higher = Made for TV.

It's like that guy that used to narrate trailers: "In a world...."
you heard his voice, you knew it was high budget.
B
3
S
2
G
4
Posts: 1,445
Reputation: 4,665

Post » Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:25 am

[quote="Madster":10y1rxqx]this focus thing you mention is not an issue in photographs, and if our eyes are capable of perceiving the sharpness of HD sets, they can certainly perceive the sharpness in life.

I'm absolutely convinced it's just a people thing. We're used to 24fps = high budget, higher = Made for TV.

It's like that guy that used to narrate trailers: "In a world...."
you heard his voice, you knew it was high budget.[/quote:10y1rxqx]

I don't know...I think it is the lack of motion blur. it reminds me of Pal tv (no offense :D )
When I render out animations with motion blur, it becomes more "real" than without motion blur.
60 fps really takes away some of the blur, thus the realism. I have heard that games started doing 60 fps because it was near impossible to process motion blur in real-time 3D games.
B
2
S
1
G
4
Posts: 156
Reputation: 1,612

PreviousNext

Return to Open Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests