https://twitter.com/YTCreators/statuses/482322459413053442YTCreators said:60 FPS: Motion-intense videos will look even better on @YouTube when we launch support for 48 and even 60 frames per second, coming soon.About time.That said, what do people ever use 48fps for?
Niitris said, June 27, 2014, 06:46:15 pmThat said, what do people ever use 48fps for?24 fps is the standard film frame rate, 48 is double that. The goal of doubling the fps was to reduce motion blur and flicker and help create a more natural 3D look (if the film is shot or converted to 3D); however, this has the unfortunate side effect of making everythin look too real, if you can believe it. The higher frame rate makes everything look too life-like, making it easier to notice the artificiality of the sets and costumes, and everything looks like a cheap soap opera.
Just seems like a unorthodox number even if it is double of 24. I agree about how it makes movies look more artificial.Won't have much effect on movies and whatnot but now being able to see games in their true framerate will be great (exposing 30fps gameplay will also be great).
I think 48 frames per second is supposed to be the highest frame rate the human eye can decipher or something.
Drex pls. Don't be that guy who incorrectly tells the people that the human eye can't see the difference past 48 or 60 frames :|
Ehh. I'm just going off of what I read somewhere. I've been meaning to see a comparison video of the two frame rates, but I haven't came across one yet.
Niitris said, June 28, 2014, 04:33:43 pmJust seems like a unorthodox number even if it is double of 24. I agree about how it makes movies look more artificial.It has to be double of 24, I think. Because 24 is film standard and looks the most natural, and 3D needs double, so it has to be 48 or something? I don't remember and am probably getting it wrong but I'm pretty sure it had to be 48.
24 frames is less natural, it's just that we've gotten used to it. It also gives a "dramatic" effect by covering up "realities" with all its artifacts. The Hobbit in 48 frames looked terrible. It didn't look like a movie, it looked like a bunch of actors on a set. You can see all the flaws in the make-up and set design. In 24 frames, you didn't notice any of that stuff and it was a much more enjoyable experience. If it wasn't for the cost and physical weight of film, movies would have always been 48 frames or higher. But now everything is digital (regardless of the few snobs that hold on to film), so it doesn't matter. What they have to do now is improve everything that's in front of the camera, and switch to a lesser frame rate, or do some effect, during action scenes because without motion-blur it's very difficult to focus on anything when shit's moving fast.And the human eye is capable of detecting things at around 1000th of a second, but people have only reported to be able to detect things around 300th of second in lab studies. And I remember reading something about people being able to detect video frame rate differences up to 150 fps in a study.Video frame rates are...Spoiler, click to toggle visibilty...always half the frequency of the voltage coming out of the wall. In America, we have 60 cycles coming out of the wall and 30 frames on our TVs. In England they have 50 cycles and 25 frames, which is why, before HDTV, whenever you watched something from the BBC on American TV, it always looked weird. The standards conversion from 25 to 30 frames would have to duplicate frames in order to keep the timing right which would blur the image.
that's nice to know.so double frames will make everything seem even faker, I already have trouble with 1080p on a nice tv screen, I loled at some scenes of the avengers because of the actors on a set effect.
I think stuff like Fraps, doesn't that record in 60 FPS? Wondering because I think I recorded a few game play videos with it.For the videos that are already uploaded that WERE 60 fps, are they reduced to youtube's limitations now? I'm curious if the 60 FPS videos already uploaded now will be fixed to actually be their original 60 FPS when they update the service with that feature. We wouldn't have to re-upload our 60 FPS videos for the quality. Well anyway, it is about time they did something about that.
only if youtube kept a raw copy; apparently it has been doing it for a bit as it unofficially supported 4k that way.
Now you also have to consider what the new TVs do with the faster refresh rate gimmick.What that basically does is figure out how to fill in the "missing frames" of any source material and bump it up to 60fps.It does it to EVERYTHING. I was watching the Twilight Zone and I was very surprised. I wouldn't say it necessarily killed it for me, but it was very strange to see something that old and "distant" look so real. Also consider that some TVs are better than others and with some of them (maybe all of them, I haven't really checked) you'll notice an occasional speeding-up of the picture. That's because the picture needs to catch up after the timing issues introduced by the refresh process.A lot of people hate it and a lot of people can't watch without it. All in all, it is the future standard. It'll be improved, techniques will be developed to ensure that old stuff holds up and new stuff isn't unbearable. The first all-digital movies looked goofy. Now only the trained eye can see the difference between digital & film.Human eyes and ears love detail. Old music sounded better because of the extra harmonics generated by the limitations of the gear and recording medium. Now we have all these clever plug-ins that do all sorts of things to take our modern clean audio and give it all sorts of juice, making it sound as good as old shit but big and impressive to "modern" standards.Extra frames = extra detail. As much as you might hate the way faster frame rates look, your eye is gonna get addicted to the detail.
Super late response but what the hell.Nucka said, July 01, 2014, 04:33:55 pmI was watching the Twilight Zone and I was very surprised. I wouldn't say it necessarily killed it for me, but it was very strange to see something that old and "distant" look so real.Six of the episodes in the second season were recorded on videotape (the stuff they used to record low-budget dramas), which had a much higher framerate than the norm. You probably saw one of those episodes, and they stick out like a sore thumb against all the other episodes. I say this with confidence because I have a TV that does that shit, but when I watched Twilight Zone on it, it doesn't look that different.And with that, my secret is out.Nucka said, July 01, 2014, 04:33:55 pmExtra frames = extra detail. As much as you might hate the way faster frame rates look, your eye is gonna get addicted to the detail.Speaking as someone who buys Criterion Collection Blu-Rays at regular price (usually around $40) so that I can get near-perfect picture and sound quality, I have not found myself addicted to increased framerate at all.
Jango Pyrope said, July 07, 2014, 02:09:58 pmSix of the episodes in the second season were recorded on videotape (the stuff they used to record low-budget dramas), which had a much higher framerate than the norm. You probably saw one of those episodes, and they stick out like a sore thumb against all the other episodes. I say this with confidence because I have a TV that does that shit, but when I watched Twilight Zone on it, it doesn't look that different.I double checked...it's called A Hundred Yards Over the Rim and it is part of season 2, but it is not one of the six that were videotaped. Maybe you've gotten used to it or maybe your tv has dynamic control of the process, knowing where to apply it as needed. All I know is what I saw (not counting the dirt and noise) did not look much like film anymore. So the process was doing its thing, which also included the weird sped up look from time to time. Also, I'm a professional lunatic. I notice the slightest shit.
60FPS YouTube is now available.QuoteEarlier in the year, YouTube announced that it would begin to officially support 60fps videos, and Kotaku reports that this feature is now officially live, albeit only on Google’s own Chrome browser for the time being, and only in HD. Now that 60fps videos are a reality on YouTube, it should be interesting to see how content providers and publishers make use of the feature.
Jmorphman said, June 27, 2014, 08:56:10 pmNiitris said, June 27, 2014, 06:46:15 pmThat said, what do people ever use 48fps for?24 fps is the standard film frame rate, 48 is double that. The goal of doubling the fps was to reduce motion blur and flicker and help create a more natural 3D look (if the film is shot or converted to 3D); however, this has the unfortunate side effect of making everythin look too real, if you can believe it. The higher frame rate makes everything look too life-like, making it easier to notice the artificiality of the sets and costumes, and everything looks like a cheap soap opera.Which is exactly why I don't understand these "60 FPS or bust" guys
Because the whole "making things lifelike" thing is important to them, apparently. I can barely tell the difference half the time, anyway.
Cazaki said, October 31, 2014, 12:54:53 amJmorphman said, June 27, 2014, 08:56:10 pmNiitris said, June 27, 2014, 06:46:15 pmThat said, what do people ever use 48fps for?24 fps is the standard film frame rate, 48 is double that. The goal of doubling the fps was to reduce motion blur and flicker and help create a more natural 3D look (if the film is shot or converted to 3D); however, this has the unfortunate side effect of making everythin look too real, if you can believe it. The higher frame rate makes everything look too life-like, making it easier to notice the artificiality of the sets and costumes, and everything looks like a cheap soap opera.Which is exactly why I don't understand these "60 FPS or bust" guysBecause Jmorphman was talking about movies not games.
Jmorphman said, June 27, 2014, 08:56:10 pmNiitris said, June 27, 2014, 06:46:15 pmThat said, what do people ever use 48fps for?24 fps is the standard film frame rate, 48 is double that. The goal of doubling the fps was to reduce motion blur and flicker and help create a more natural 3D look (if the film is shot or converted to 3D); however, this has the unfortunate side effect of making everythin look too real, if you can believe it. The higher frame rate makes everything look too life-like, making it easier to notice the artificiality of the sets and costumes, and everything looks like a cheap soap opera.Wait... THAT'S what it was?I KNEW IT. SOMETHING ABOUT SOAP OPERAS, THE WAY THEY LOOKED... It was WEIRD and I could NEVER explain WHY it had that weird look. ALL THESE FUCKING YEARS AND THAT'S WHAT IT WAS!THANK YOU! I can now DIE knowing that the mystery behind why soap operas always had that WEIRD look has been SOLVED for me!
I think the soap opera thing is sorta related, but the 48fps thing is specifically about the Hobbit movies. Soap operas look cheap from a combination of factors: the generally cheap and rushed sets and lighting; and being shot on video, 60 frames per second. I'm not sure if it's that we're trained by movies to think that 24fps looks more natural (because stuff shot on film has better picture quality than video, but less frames per second) or if it's that live action stuff in 60fps looks worse for the same reasons as the 48fps Hobbit movies.[MFG]maximilianjenus said, June 30, 2014, 05:21:47 pmso double frames will make everything seem even faker, I already have trouble with 1080p on a nice tv screen, I loled at some scenes of the avengers because of the actors on a set effect.TV might be calibrated wrong, and you might have motion-smoothing on (which interpolates new frames to boost lower framerate stuff up to 60), which invariably makes everything look terrible, except for sports.
Cazaki said, October 31, 2014, 12:54:53 amJmorphman said, June 27, 2014, 08:56:10 pm24 fps is the standard film frame rate, 48 is double that. The goal of doubling the fps was to reduce motion blur and flicker and help create a more natural 3D look (if the film is shot or converted to 3D); however, this has the unfortunate side effect of making everythin look too real, if you can believe it. The higher frame rate makes everything look too life-like, making it easier to notice the artificiality of the sets and costumes, and everything looks like a cheap soap opera.Which is exactly why I don't understand these "60 FPS or bust" guysBecause 60fps doesn't have to do with visuals, it's about gameplay.Having twice (or even 3 times) as many frames helps make gameplay more responsive. For some genres this isn't a big deal and it might be worth reducing frames for better graphics. In others, the more frames the better.
Well in some gaming genres it makes it better to be at 60 FPS like CoD I agree, but for people to take a shit on a game for being locked in at 30 makes zero sense to me, especially if the game focuses on cinematics.Real life doesn't look like how 60 FPS does in games, it just doesn't, so for people to be upset at devs for not putting 60 FPS into their game is just absurd to me.
The people who often gets upset at framerate locking are either complaining about the wrong genre to lock the FPS on (Racing, fighting, FPS, TPS, sports) or the locking being forced on the PC version too, where there's no reason at all to and they only bring the lock to PC because of poor planning while working on the game's engine (We already discussed this pages ago at the gaming news thread. We're not going there again :| ).Here's a 30 vs 60 FPS comparison while we're at it to showcase YT's 60FPS mode:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsHmZ1Sl8Ho&list=UUdlTh96TimYS2nnSKFZvq2A
