Hacker News Reader

Comment by rowanG077 | Hacker News Reader

The problem is the refusal of hollywood to release true 60fps content. I'd take a 60fps version of a movie any day over 24 or 30 fps.

View on HN

Agreed. It might seem weird at first, but I think that in the end it'll be like transitioning from B&W to color. Our brains will adjust and we'll realize that we were missing out on all that fidelity.

60fps changes your perception of a movie. For some reason ~24fps you get the cinematic feeling, with 60fps you get "amateurish" videographer feeling. Not sure what's the science behind that.

It's just conditioning. If it had been the opposite, you'd find 24 jarring and 60 natural.

24fps lets you focus attention with motion blur (tracking shot on two characters walking, they will be in sharp focus, while everything else will be blurred but still convey movement, etc.). It's a similar tool beyond depth of field. However, a 60hz movie could just have 30hz portions. Stuff like panning cameras over a landscape looks terrible at 24hz. I don't know how you could combine the two without making things feel too much like changing between technology all the time during the movie though.

You could easily add high quality motion blur in 60 FPS if that was the desired look.

More FPS is really no different that increased resolution. There is nothing sacred about 24, 480 or 1080.

It's all conditioning ;)

How would you add lush blur to a tracked shot in 60fps? The exposure wouldn't last as long so you'd have to do it digitally wouldn't you? Then it can be hard to keep the tracked subjects unblurred or can make things look interpolated.

The lenses would still have a limited depth of field though, like a photo from an SLR.

Wouldn't that make the background be blurred? Or is that kind of blur somehow different to motion blur?

Motion blur indicates direction, you could maybe use a weird aperture shape to simulate it, but things at different depths wouldn't blur right due to not picking up different parallax movements the same way, and other moving objects that weren't in focus wouldn't have their motion blur picked up correctly.

Oh yeah, that makes sense.

Faster shutter = less motion blur?

I, for one, don’t want to watch movies that aren’t in 24fps.

Why? Seriously. This sounds as crazy to me as someone saying: "I, for one, don't want to watch movies that aren't 320p."

Yet, black and white photography is alive and well

What's your point? Outhouses are still alive and well as well. Doesn't mean modern sanitation is vastly superior.

Not sure what that has to do with this discussion.

You seemed to have doubted that rational people might be choosing limited tech in the very post I replied to. So I provided an example of well respected class of art, where much of the image information is discarded, ignoring decades of progress.

I don't doubt rational people choose limited tech in specific circumstances. I doubt rational people choose limited tech in all circumstances.

What would you think about someone that only wants to see black and white photography and won't even take a look at full color photographs?

There's a big difference between appreciating black and white photography and thinking that color photography should not exist.

Higher resolution is unambiguously better.

Higher frame rates are not.

Why? Every single time I see 60fps content it feels like higher quality then standard.

Most people who are into film do not agree with you, hence the fact that higher frame rates being better is ambiguous at best.

Nobody is disputing that higher resolution is better. You have most of an industry screaming about the terrible trend of higher frame rates.

I’m glad that you prefer it, but that doesn’t make it an unambiguous benefit.

Where do film people scream about higher framerates? I know at least that James Cameron want to move to 60 [1].

[1] https://www.cinemablend.com/new/James-Cameron-Still-Making-T...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com