Hacker News Reader

Comment by bitL | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com