Hacker News Reader

Comment by charcircuit | Hacker News Reader

This doesn't answer the question considering NTSC isn't used anymore. Why not 60 fps considering it's the standard refresh rate of practically all displays that are in use?

View on HN

Apparently, many people are so used to 24 fps that films shot at higher framerates are slightly unsettling (even if they don't realize why), and have even been, ironically, described as unnatural. I've noticed it myself; I watched a YouTube video recently that was at 60 fps and my attention kept going to the hands of the person talking as he waved them around. The motion was too fluid. Slightly distracting. I guess my brain is used to interpolating what it would have looked like from a blur at 24 fps, rather than actually seeing the fine details. Though I'm sure we'll get used to it soon enough.

It's also kind of happened for audio quality where when someone is being interviewed, its natural for the host to be in crisp quality while the guest has crappy airpods mic quality. And how games show black bars on the top and bottom for cut scenes. It's beyond just limitations and now part of your expectation.

I will say that seeing 60fps video on youtube is very very noticeable, much more than the resolution. I personally much prefer it but I can see how others don't since it is such a difference to the normal.

I have the opposite. Panning shots at low frame rate look odd and make my head hurt, especially with 3:2 pull-down.

The first time I saw a film at 48 fps it finally felt so natural and immersive.

I know what you mean about the panning. If you've never looked into it, film shutter angles are an interesting topic. Conventionally, the shutter is open for 50% of the frame. At 24fps, that does create a noticeable judder, but also makes movement less blurry. You can reduce or increase the angle, but it's a trade-off either way at 24fps.

48+fps makes motion both a lot smoother and less blurry, however for me, it makes their costumes look a lot more like... costumes. For example when I watched The Hobbit in 48fps, it felt more like a LOTR themed fancy dress party than a film.

I suspect, in time, most people will get used to high frame rates as it becomes more common and learn to suspend disbelief the same way they do at low frame rates. Objectively, it looks fantastic.

> felt more like a LOTR themed fancy dress party than a film

Ooh, I experience this too. Great way to put it.

Would be nice to have variable frame rate, so both panning and action could look good. Shoot everything in 120fps (divisible by 24, 30, 60) and simply skip frames when appropriate.

This is the correct answer.

I realise I'm in the minority, but I had the opposite reaction watching The Hobbit in 48fps. It looked no more like a set with costumes than other films do, but I was no longer unpleasantly distracted by any fast movement or panning.

As far as I'm concerned, everything should be shot and delivered at 120.

Hopefully higher frame rates become common with IMAX movies. The content matter is usually stunning but panning shots can be very jerky on such large screens, especially at the edges.

The opening of Apocalypse Now would look like dog shit at > 24fps.

For a good comparison, watch the few Twilight Zone episodes (the original from the 60s) from season 2 that were shot on videotape, as opposed to film for the rest of the series. They look downright weird.

I think we are awaiting the first blockbuster artist who understands how to use HFR to create an even more cinematically immersive film, paired with the producer willing to take a risk on them. This film will change tastes permanently. One side effect of it is that it should ruin moviegoers’ taste for the smeary CG aesthetic of Marvel movies, so don’t expect this film to come from Disney. :)

Except disney does a bunch of CGI animated films, which have NO EXCUSE to be low framerate.

Well, right, we are talking about live action. There is expectation of 24fps-style motion blur in animation but that can be emulated.

If you're asking why movies aren't shot at 60 fps instead of 24/23.976 fps, there are "HFR" movies shot at higher frame rates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_with_high_frame_...

From what I can find as I write this, the only movies distributed at high-framerates on Blu-ray are Gemini Man and Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk.

Although HFR is technically an improvement, not everyone's a fan of the "feel". Relevant HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14616930

24fps has an aesthetic that "looks cinematic" because we have all watched decades of cinematic films at 24fps. From jump cuts, montage and flashbacks to the color saturation and frames per second of film, you've learned an entire visual language over all of these years of watching moving pictures!

In the 1970s it seemed common for tv shows to be shot on video in the studio but on film outside, perhaps because video cameras were too large or sensitive for outdoor use. The audience simply became accustomed to the large difference in appearance between indoors and outdoors in tv shows. IIRC, Doctor Who and Benny Hill went through this change during episodes frequently. It also reminds me of the first time I went over to a friend's house who had a large tube standard def tv after I had switched to HD. The scanlines that had always been invisible to my brain were suddenly very obvious. Funny how we adjust.

NTSC may be gone now, but to avoid the need for frame rate conversion during simultaneous analog and digital broadcasts, and for compatibility with older equipment and recordings, the U.S. broadcasters all adopted (and continue to use) SD and HD digital formats with 30/1.001 or 60/1.001 frame rates.

(See also: drop frame time code.)

> Why not 60 fps considering it's the standard refresh rate of practically all displays that are in use?

Actually, I'd say 50fields/sec is the most popular frame-rate in-use around the world. Theatres still use 24fps or perhaps 48fps.

Shooting at 1200fps would make everybody happy. But 24fps works pretty well.

NTSC at this point is just a blanket term for any standard/tech stemmed from NTSC.

NTSC's components, including framerates, are still widely used in various (previously NTSC) countries.

Because the cinematic feel of 24 fps is extremely different from the video feel of 30fps, which in turn is completely different from the reality TV show feel of 60 fps.

Thats old people talk. Young dont even know what reality tv is, they hardly know what TV is in the first place. Tiktok is 30 (well, 29.97), most of YT and twitch already 60, games >60.

"Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk" was shot at 120fps and displayed in cinema and at home on 120fps or 60fps.

This is a drama film. Both critics and viewers hated the look of it.

Marvel comic book films should def be shot at 60/120 though. Why haven't anyone tried this with audiences?

Even if YT lets you play back at 1080p60 (or higher), any channel with videos that have cinematic looking segments (even something as simple as product review channel) have that look because those segments weren't actually shot at 60fps. The temporal smoothing of 24fps is critically important to get that look. And people still notice them and comment on how insanely good those segments are =)

Because ATSC inherited the NTSC frame rate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com