Hacker News Reader

Comment by andersa | Hacker News Reader

Release your movie in native 120 fps and I'll turn off motion interpolation. Until then, minor flickering artifacts when it fails to resolve motion, or minor haloing around edges of moving objects, are vastly preferable to unwatchable judder that I can't even interpret as motion sometimes.

Every PC gamer knows you need high frame rates for camera movement. It's ridiculous the movie industry is stuck at 24 like it's the stone age, only because of some boomers screaming of some "soap opera" effect they invented in their brains. I'd imagine most Gen Z people don't even know what a "soap opera" is supposed to be, I had to look it up the first time I saw someone say it.

My LG OLED G5 literally provides a better experience than going to the cinema, due to this.

I'm so glad 4k60 is being established as the standard on YouTube, where I watch most of my content now... it's just movies that are inexplicably stuck in the past...

View on HN

Hear hear. 24 FPS is an abomination for fast movement.

> Every PC gamer knows you need high frame rates for camera movement.

Obviously not, because generations of people saw "movement" at 24 fps. You're railing against other people's preferences, but presenting your personal preferences as fact.

Also, there are technical limitations in cameras that aren't present in video games. The higher the frame rate, the less light that hits it. To compensate, not only do you need better sensors, but you probably need to change the entire way that sets, costumes, and lighting are handled.

The shift to higher frame rates will happen, but it's gonna require massive investment to shift an entire industry and time to learn what looks good. Cinematographers have higher standards than random Youtubers.

> You're railing against other people's preferences, but presenting your personal preferences as fact.

It is a fact that motion is smoother at 120 fps than 24, and therefore easier to follow on screen. There are no preferences involved.

> Also, there are technical limitations in cameras that aren't present in video games.

Cameras capable of recording high quality footage at this refresh rate already exist and their cost is not meaningful compared to the full budget of a movie (and you can use it more than one time of course).

The cost of recording/storing 120fps video, and editing/rendering effects at this fps is costly and incredibly meaningful to take into account when creating movies.

> It is a fact that motion is smoother at 120 fps than 24

Yes, but that's not what you wrote. "unwatchable judder that I can't even interpret as motion sometimes" is false, unless you have some super-rare motion processing disorder in area MT of your brain.

> Cameras capable of recording high quality footage at this refresh rate already exist and their cost is not meaningful compared to the full budget of a movie

Yes, but that's not what I wrote. The cost to handle it is not concentrated in the camera itself. Reread my comment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com