If 60 FPS is so good, why do movies still use 24 despite having every possibility of changing available...

Based human-eyes poster

Based Marioposter

They're not better at 24. Any time I see a 60 FPS YouTube video, it looks way better to me. Hollywood is too afraid of normies saying it looks weird.

Based normie slayer poster

Actually, the human eye can see up to 40 frames per second, 20 frames per eye (hence the term "20/20 vision")

Sounds like a cope to me, ever since switching to a 165 hz monitor 60fps feels like shit

wrong, movies are entirely linear and have no visual variation and never drop frames, video games are non-choreographed and can differ in fps if not locked
two entirely different mediums

Based high-freq poster.
Based 20/20poster
Based choreoposter

Based basedposter.

more movie frames cost money for the studio
more video game frames cost money from the end user

nigger

Based basedposterposter
based niggerposter

I didn't say video games and movies were the same, I said that, subjectively, 60 fps can make video games look too "real," and feel like a set, just like they can with movies.

That was before now everything is digital, so it doesn't matter if it's 1 frame or a 1,000,000. It's just that the few movies that have tried higher frame-rate were panned by movie critics but The Hobbit was awesome at 48fps.

Its funny because someone out there will believe it

also special effects and acting look worse at higher framerates because they are shit at it

1 frame vs 2 frames means half the storage space needed, half the bandwidth (between the cameras and the storage medium, not necessarily over an internet,) half the time needed to render special effects in post, etc. Digital isn't magic.

You're making a very naive calculation on how half the framerate actually works.

>brags about having less

yess, good cuck, dont ask more of your devs, dont ask more for your money.and be into work on monday at 9 am sharp! mr goldberstein needs a new yacht and youre gonna earn it for him

Based jewposter
based actingposter
based funnyposter
based criticsposter

Each frame is stored uncompressed on the cameras' storage media. Compression is done after the fact, in post, way at the end. The production deals with the raw, uncompressed files. This is how it "actually works," not how you think it should work in an "ideal" situation.

>60 FPS is so good
>60 FPS
>60

Consolebois are so conditioned by corporate salesmanship to think a certain way and value certain things. Coincidentally, those things all happen to be beneficial to the limitations within the console toy industry.

And I bet you think "exclusives" are a good thing, too.

Attached: 1576622864721.jpg (1024x1502, 181.14K)

>mfw working with animation and special fx some good years ago
>mfw having goddamn 60 frames to scrutinize and fuck around for every goddamn second
nigga you have zero idea

Attached: 1600431445885.gif (200x156, 419.82K)

Your point about raw footage, sure. But it doesn't take "half" the time to render when it's half the frames.

Very long renders, normies don't don't care and are used to 24 shitters per autism.
So basically money and time.

Wrong
Movies don't use perfect fixed frames, in fact many of movies frames are blury and twisted, because they need that to convey fluid motions otherwise our eyes will perceive the movie as stuttering
You can't do that with games, because a game render efvery frame in real time and they are always "perfect", so you can't use the same optical trick to fuck with our eyes and make a 24 fps game look fluid, because yo uare the one actually controlling the camera and the game itself
Just go and try to pause any kind o movie or tv series while some action is going on, and look ad how much blur there is on screen, that thing is not replicable on games at all, that's why they need actual high framerate to look fluid and good

Also, more fps mean more responsivness and more input per second that yo ucan give to the game, so fast paced game literally play better at higher fps.

> select effect to render
> software determines what that effect should look like at frame 1 and applies it to the frame
> software determines what that effect should look like at frame 2 and applies it to the frame
> software determines what that effect should look like at frame 3 and applies it to the frame
> software determines what that effect should look like at frame 4 and applies it to the frame
> software determines what that effect should look like at frame 5 and applies it to the frame
> software determines what that effect should look like at frame 6 and applies it to the frame
> done
vs
> select effect to render
> software determines what that effect should look like at frame 1 and applies it to the frame
> software determines what that effect should look like at frame 2 and applies it to the frame
> software determines what that effect should look like at frame 3 and applies it to the frame
> done
So, to reiterate the point, more movie frames cost money for the studio.

Industry standard, automatic motion blur, lowest framerate to still look sequential, tradition, etc. It has been such a mainstay throughout cinema history, it's attached to the "cinematic feel" movies have as opposed to television shows. Video games are a completely different medium with different considerations, and high framerates are a sign of better performance, and help make computer generated graphics more appealing.

This, they're just jewish as fuck even though they literally make billions.