@TRYHARD HUNTER nah, do you know where it gets f.... really? in long shots it feels choppy, slow moving into the far showing a forest? 24fps ...choppy it's like pictures pictures to my eyes. This video looks like fast fordward and not really 60fps smooth, just faster. We want 60fps liquid smooth, not choppy
That also isn't perfect, because original 60 fps video has far less motion blur, making it sharper, but jittery when frames are dropped to make it 24 fps.
That's the point! You can see a lot of cinemas offering 60fps. However, the original is recorded at 24fps. It makes the overall experience bad. It should be played at whatever fps it was recorded at.
@Berserk14378 Yes, but they are related. If you film at 240 fps, your shutter speed will be of course 1/240s (or faster), so no motion blur. At 24 fps, each frame will be at 1/24s or anything faster. At 24 fps, if shutter speed is high, each frame is less blurry, but the film movement is less smooth.
@Berserk14378 Indeed. You would need to blur frames by aggregating them to simulate 1/24s shutter speed if you film at 60 fps, but I don't think that would make any sense. Another thing to bear in mind, which is obvious for some: a faster shutter speed means a darker image. So using 1/60s is harder in darker locations (you need higher ISOs or bigger apertures).
@@AUSSIETRAINDRIVER this is not even real hfr this is just ghosting between frames, if you watch real hfr it would blow your mind away. If you want a good example of how hrf look like here ruclips.net/video/u1LTx4h7D_0/видео.html&feature=emb_title
@@frodobaggins7469 60fps is usually only used to slow movement down in movies to 24/25fps it doesn't mimic natural movement. If you swing your arm in front of your face you will get motion blur, which is relatable. High frame rates cut that blur between frames and give a more robotic look. While it looks good on live broadcasts, sports, when it comes to cinema it looks very un natural. You will find almost every movie has been filmed in 24 or 25fps second.
@@AUSSIETRAINDRIVER films are filmed in 24 fps because of historical reasons and we have simply not advanced beyond it because it was too expensive to go beyond in the past in film days, but now we are beyond film and 24 fps is simply something we are used to, we can make movies in 120fps but people generally hate it because they are so used to 24 fps, like the same people who hated color tv when it came out. You are simply repressing technology.
It's a poor comparison, because it's 24fps footage interpolated (probably 3:2) to 60fps. If the CG was rendered at 60fps it would look quite a bit different.
@@garyboi9779 Only because you're not used to them. Your wired to think it looks bad because you associate high framerate with soap operas, hence the belief why it is low quality.
@@mxntalduck Sorry, no link, no source, all bull. ruclips.net/video/z8u-9uwR-Y8/видео.html ruclips.net/video/fsxF-bU5rQw/видео.html (Note that I only agree on framerate here, not the movie part) If you can become motion sick, you've proved that you can recognise higher frame rates and that humans perceive much higher than your "science" claims. The reason you are motion sick is because you aren't used to seeing films like that. You can actually experience motion sickness looking at 30FPS with enough conditioning. This is easily observable. If you really think humans observe that, play a VR game at 30FPS. You'll vomit.
The problem with rendering movies in 60fps is that it ignores voluntary slow-motions and smaller frame rate for effects like making the transformers appear heavy and slow like it should...
Yup, it's unrealisting because is too much info for your eyes and you remove the sense you got about speed when you look objects moving in front of your eyes. 60 frames are more suitable if you are gonna make slow motion scenes or if you want to analyze movements, but for the way you eyes see in real world, 24-30 fps always are gonna look more real.
@@henriqueeeee technically we dont live in any fps, since objects are actually moving, not just an illusion of them moving. and if you really pay attention to how moving things look irl, youll see things like motion blur, and "unsmoothness" which turning an animation into 60fps comepletely destroys
@@evanl854 Only if you want things to look unrealistic. In the real world, when we aren't looking at screens, we only see about the equivalent of 75 fps, meaning those old 90's monitors are more accurate to what we see in our day to day lives. Yes, when it comes to flashing images on a screen we can see faster than that, but look away from the screen. Move your hand in front of your face. Notice how it's blurry. Sometimes you might even see the individual images of your hand, almost like an old or cheap digital camera. This is because when it comes to motion at least, human sight is pretty poor. 240 fps might be realistic if you're a parrot or hawk or something, but not a human.
@@JackFastGame The only way I'd upgrade to a 240 fps screen is if I were in a competition where the end result would be lots of money. Otherwise it's just pointless.
The best part is this isn't 60 FPS clip at all. its 48fps (double of 24) and extra frames (2 every 8) are just same frames. This interpolation looks way better then others, where moveing objects are doubled every second frame. Anyway, still i think 24 is best way to shoot, mainly for motion blur. or shoot 48 with half shutter speed.
@@GGamersUnited in movies 24 fps is really good lol having it higher you will see a lot of pauses having it on 100+ fps you can even see stunt double of the actor lmao if youre talking about games then its good to have high fps
@@yoink9148 ooh, yes, brother ,I was memeing. This at 60 FPS looked like in slow mo. haha also very weird and it would make CGI even more expensive. no thanks Jeff.
Here is what i observed The 60fps looks exactly like a video game or in real its animated sequence everything looks like its animated which is true and it takes away the details of movements in the sequence and we cannot observe what exactly happened in a split second But on the another hand 24 frames made everything look natural real and smooth... Even if we compare to 60 its choppy but it looked smooth until we saw 60fps, so there is something magical in 24 fps because it makes animations or GFX Look real and natural and it also make it easy to see the details and every split second movement easily
@@7EEVEEhe’s not wrong. The video you’re watching is originally in 24fps. 60fps comparison looks, as he said, “artificial” because it doesn’t look natural. It’s a forced motion interpolated 60fps on a footage that wasn’t naturally 24fps, hence it looks fast forwarded and jumpy. His “life” is pretty “optimal” to have noticed that. Not sure what “laggy” has to do with it.
It’s very evident that at 60fps your mind perceives more motion and is primed for action while 24fps gives you a more relaxed feeling to ‘cruise along’ with whatever the screen presents to you. An analogy would be hitting the car’s accelerator while in gear at 5000rpm vs 1500rpm.
Honestly, i see no difference at all. At the solo 60fps version i thought its run faster. But side-by-side i really dont see any difference on my mobile device. BUT, the clip at all is what FPS? Does it make any sense to watch such a comparison when the Output clip is 60fps at all? Is it really the same like have a native 24p output?
@Berserk14378 Except the gimmick is actually real and is actually creating new frames 'out of thin air' by comparing 2 or more frames and generating new frames in between them. Of course, this won't always be as good as the one captured by the camera since it will have some visual artifacts. However, there are already existing AI technologies that are much more superior and least likely to produce visual artifacts. For example, this research from Nvidia: ruclips.net/video/MjViy6kyiqs/видео.html
@Berserk14378 There is already existing software technology that is already in modern TVs, It's called 'motion-compensated frame interpolation' or 'motion smoothing' which is enabled by default and it's also the reason why people are having soap-opera effects in modern TV's because they didn't disable it. Nvidia's solution is just a better version that is powered by AI which will eventually be in the next generation of TV.
@Berserk14378 I agree that motion smoothing looks bad since it has a lot of visual artifacts compared to Nvidia's AI solution. My point is, Nvidia's solution will eventually be in next-generation or future generations of TVs. It may not be real-time now, but it'll be soon.
At first I was convinced the 60fps was sped up. Then I couldn't stop watching it. The more I've watched it the more I prefer 60fps (note: I do game at 60+ so that might be a factor) and now flicking between the two the 24 just doesn't feel nice. No doubt going to another movie or clip in 24 would be fine for me. As a side note, when they did Hobbit in HFR I personally liked it, but I will certainly agree that it didn't feel as natural, I just enjoyed how sharp it felt. Sort of let me appreciate the CG textures a little more.
Whys that? Why would movie companies opt for tougher editing, more expensive vfx? 24fps works because it's the low and you can see smooth video. It's done for efficiency.
60 fps is fine, as long as the movie is designed to be watched in 60. CGI is harder to do at 60. Also the RUclips compression makes it look even worse, even the 24fps look's like utter shit.
cgi is the same for 30 or 60 its actually 2d animation thats much harder to do because you hasve to animate more then twice as many frams cuz in animations frames are individually animated, and this video is kinda misleading because the cgi and the movie was filmed in 24 fps not 60 so native 60 would feel much much better then 24 fps
I don't understand that 24fps fetish. I think a lot of people just parroting that 24fps cinematic nonsense. I don't shoot 60fps that often because it's harder to edit etc. But if there were no technical limitations (which is just a matter of time), I would prefer 60 over 24fps, 90% of the time. (and I talk out of experience because this vid is not 24fps / 60fps)
The motion looks fine at 24fps, why does it need to be higher? It's the most efficient way to edit, do effects, animate, and sync to sound. You're right about the technical limitations, but they're limitations that will never go away.
The transformers are well suited for 60 fps but I think it makes the actors look bad ( like bad acting and too animated ) That's the feel it gives me. I also find High definition is great for natural geographical films but can also have this false effect or spoil a scene if inadequately used. It's funny how it works but films sort of take us out of our own reality for a while, I think the higher frame rate and higher definition is too real sometimes exposing the falseness ( fake reality ) of the movie, reminding me constantly that it's only a move. It's like watch a film being made rather than enjoying the film. I'm not knocking it, it will improve I'm sure as producers and editors gain more experience working with it. These are my feelings, thoughts and opinions, that's all.
4 года назад+1
It`s the same effect as when high definition remasters are released, you can clearly see all those props as clearly fake with higher resolution while in lower resolution it could pass as believable. Higher FPS is much less forgiving to bad props, effects and acting.
Indeed! But I feel it also gives us the opportunity to notice more subtle things. In stage plays, actors would have to scream "I am uncomfortable", for 24fps movies the have to exaggerate awkwardness, but at 60, they could just be a bit fidgety and we'd notice it! At 24 fps the cars, etc flying towards the transformer didn't look that bad, but needs motion blur in 60fps.
@@easternhills1329 Tbh I think that your first analogy isn't entirely accurate. 24fps is perfectly adequate for capturing human motion (and very slick looking transformers) so 60 fps would really just be jarring and not much else.
@@despondent27 I agree. One great example is Demon Slayer, where 24 FPS can feel like 60. A lot of anime is actually often animated in 12s, and then goes to 24 when the budget is higher or action is intense. Most of the time there's no need to increase the frames above 24.
why 24 looks better for movies ? cause easier for your eyes and brain to look at it. i tey to rewatch it many times and i notice that my eyes moving so fast when i watch the 60 fps one , its like my eyes going around and cannot relax ( doesnt feel so good ). as for 24 i feels like i can look at it with ease. but still higher framerates is nice if u were the one who's in control , i mean "games"
60 just looks weird as hell i cant do it. i only want high fps for gaming so i dont miss anything but it doesn't feel natural for a movie thats supposed to transport you into a different reality
24 fps is better , 60 is okay but it feels unnatural to us especially when were used to seeing 24 frames it not only looks unnatural but the way the movement is shown is unrealistic , with 24 fps we can sense some realism with the whole scene not playing out as smooth
no, it looked less laggy than 24 fps. higher frame rate is smoother. chimpanzees like you remind of people who like black and white movies over colored films
@@shashkingsyndrome6401 can't take all this seriously especially when u have SYNDROME , imma just give u the benefit of the doubt that u have somethin goin on ur tiny head , u could've just corrected the right way , sounds like ur better than everyone ur like that one kid who's an asshole at school respect is all it takes , clearly u dont know me i'd finesse u
@@shashkingsyndrome6401 bruh lower frame rate isn't just bc it's old style, there are time where u need 24fps to make screne look fast and time where u need 60fps for detail.
24fps really takes you outside of reality into a movie. High fps ends up looking like an old daytime soap opera or real life. Aunt nobody trying to be in real life watching a movie. It's escapism for the most part.
The fact is, rendering things into 60 fps causes a lot of artifacting, and the fact I barely see any because of all the weird details of Bayformers that artifacts look like part of the design makes me feel weird
I guess once they figured out the brain could perceive info faster than they were giving it to us, they slowly started speeding it up. Pretty soon they'll just download it all in our sleep and we'll think we've had a whole host of experiences.
Actually 24 fps is better because it gives motion blur. The 60 fps give super buttery smooth video. 60fps is for slomo shots because in slomo there is no motion blur.
@@frodobaggins7469, well thank goodness people like you don't give us orders about what we like. 24 frames per second is the proper cinematic movement format and it will take a long time before audiences get used to anything faster.
@@frodobaggins7469 i agree with you. I've been watching all my videos and movies with Smooth Video Project and its awesome. i can never go back to watching laggy 24FPS content,it's just too stuttery. movies only use 24FPS because it's cheaper. there's no other reason lol.
dissagree , it feels like someonr trying to choke u with big melons all at once , i mean its tiring , and 24 feels relaxed for eyes and for brain. we talk abt movies anywy , for games i will go 90-144fps ofc lol , cause better reaction time for me.
and even if i play games i can still consider using 30 if that games is something like mmorpg where u going around slashing mobs , but when it comes to FPS / racing games that needs quick reaction time , 60 is must. 90-144 is better ofc. i feel laging below that.
@@sebastianode4994 I have completley changed my opinion since I posted this comment, but i prefer the fps to be as high as I can get it on every game. Because, in games, it looks way better. In movies/animated shows it just looks like dogshit when I look at it now when it's done through a bot.
@@craftspirit No. 24 FPS is more realistic than 60 FPS. If you were to wave your hands in front of your face quickly right now, you’d just see a blur because your eyes just are not good enough. A camera however, will capture the movement without or with little blur, so already that makes 60 FPS look unnatural and different to real life, like everything is ‘too smooth’. Another problem is, at higher frame rates it becomes so obvious that people are acting, to the point can actually see their cues - very distracting if you’re trying to get into a film.
Well 60fps version actually not speed up. It just look like speed up. The reason i think because 60fps even smoother than real life. You can try to moving you hand fast then record it with 60fps then you cam clearly see the different
VFX artists would have to work harder to make 60fps stuff look realistic. The best compromise is 30. The new standard should be 30 and 24/25 should be abolished.
I understand now why movies are still recorded at 60fps. At 24fps it looks natural with regular speed. While 60fps is vastly smoother it’s way to fast and you loose focus on the content.
Tbh I like the original 24fps better it brings that cinematic vibe feeling but 60fps is not that bad its just that I feel like watching in a video game
Imagine to work at ILM or Weta Digital and animate/render 60 or even 120 effect shots per second. That's why the Avatar sequels take so long for example. For certain movies like Transformers or Avatar I can see it have an huge impact as these movies are more tech demos than movies. Overall I prefer the cinematic look of 24 FPS.
Imagine if this logic was applied to other aspects of film. If 480p was the standard in hollywood and there would be goons saying that 1080p looks weird and less cinematic.
60fps looks terrible in movies, its like fast forward. Going to see a movie that is in 60fps will ruin the experience, if someone is waving a sword you can't see shit as its over before it begin it's that fast.
@@jcp1984again Yeah the Hobbit was fucked up.... I could not believe they passed that off to an audience it clearly looked like it was in fast forward. It's was irritating to watch , you get screwed when you pay for that.
60fps in general for movies is a joke.... it feels like it's in fast forward for a faster run time. I mean it's not comfortable to watch at all, hell I remember reading it's closer to how fast people move in real life..... No it's not that is way to fast!!.
this isnt even a good representation, they are literally duplicating frames to get to 60 fps there is a vast difference between native 60fps content (recorded and rendered in 60fps) and this
no, it looked less laggy than 24 fps. higher frame rate is smoother. chimpanzees like you remind of people who like black and white movies over colored films
I have video which are recorded on 60 fps some scene and 240 fps at some scene! But I have edited and have to export how much fps should I be export in?
Forget the frames. . . these are the sound effects they went with for release? There are clearly 2/3 of the sounds that should be happening missing and I can't get over it.
It also effects actors performances though. So until we can brainwash actors into thinking they're actually going through the events of the movie, it won't work.
It's kinda does but not needed and they have to edit another 36 frames for one second. When you're filming a 1 and a half hour long movie that's over 7k for 60fps and over 2.4k for 24fps.
@@GeneralAeon and! People can see more detail in the animation, meaning they need more detailed textures, lighting, animation, physics. Everything would have to be completely overhauled. Video games have an advantage because they're rendered in real time anyway. Movies have to have huge render farms just to get a few seconds of footage.
60 fps looks butterly fluent but ggi looks fake like a video game, maybe because it is interpolated 60 fps not "true" filmed/produced 60 fps. Hobbit was filmed in true native 48 fps and i think it looked very good in cinema. Better than the interpolated hobbit trailer.
Nope, I disagree. Motion pictures are made with fake things - fake sets, fake beards, fake backgrounds. A more realistic image format makes that fakeness painfully obvious for most viewers. This is not a small thing and it's gonna take a long time for high frame rates to get common. So far they've not done well in the cinema.
@TRYHARD HUNTER, dude... I would know and I will know. I've got good eyes for movement and picking up differences in frame rates. Been like that since I was a little kid. :-D Sorry but when my brain has accepted 24 frames per second as the "proper cinematic format of movement", it's incredibly awkward to see anything faster.
This motion interpolated 60fps isn’t giving a good impression to what 60fps actually should be. But a lot of people are calling this “good looking”, which is kind of concerning, if not only unsurprising.
Recommended tool to change the FPS of a video: bit.ly/3lmE4QF
Turn on 1.25 speed or 1.5 More realistic that it's really 60 fps.
24 looks like a movie and 60 looks like a cutscene in a video game
yup
I agree ._.
Sorry, but yet, I choose 60fps fluency is much better
Yea
Bruh I play all games at 30 fps cuz I got low end pc
60fps looks like it's fast forwarded but it's probably because it wasn't filmed in 60fps
there is a lag to 24fps, compare to 60fps, can't we just move on from 24fps.
no because we arent used to it.. thats why feeling like this
@TRYHARD HUNTER lmao you can't structure a sentence and you're calling others retarded
@TRYHARD HUNTER nah, do you know where it gets f.... really? in long shots it feels choppy, slow moving into the far showing a forest? 24fps ...choppy it's like pictures pictures to my eyes. This video looks like fast fordward and not really 60fps smooth, just faster. We want 60fps liquid smooth, not choppy
You're definitely right! The movie was shot in 24 fps, this kind of effect happens because of something called motion interpolation.
i think you should take a 60 fps footage and convert to 24fps to show how different it is, instead of converting the 24fps to 60.
That also isn't perfect, because original 60 fps video has far less motion blur, making it sharper, but jittery when frames are dropped to make it 24 fps.
That's the point! You can see a lot of cinemas offering 60fps. However, the original is recorded at 24fps. It makes the overall experience bad. It should be played at whatever fps it was recorded at.
@Berserk14378 Yes, but they are related. If you film at 240 fps, your shutter speed will be of course 1/240s (or faster), so no motion blur. At 24 fps, each frame will be at 1/24s or anything faster. At 24 fps, if shutter speed is high, each frame is less blurry, but the film movement is less smooth.
@Berserk14378 Indeed. You would need to blur frames by aggregating them to simulate 1/24s shutter speed if you film at 60 fps, but I don't think that would make any sense. Another thing to bear in mind, which is obvious for some: a faster shutter speed means a darker image. So using 1/60s is harder in darker locations (you need higher ISOs or bigger apertures).
it would still be almost the same, interpolation is pretty good
60fps takes away the motion blur that gives the cinematic effect on each movement.
sounds like bs
@@frodobaggins7469 well it isn't. ;)
@@AUSSIETRAINDRIVER this is not even real hfr this is just ghosting between frames, if you watch real hfr it would blow your mind away. If you want a good example of how hrf look like here ruclips.net/video/u1LTx4h7D_0/видео.html&feature=emb_title
@@frodobaggins7469 60fps is usually only used to slow movement down in movies to 24/25fps it doesn't mimic natural movement. If you swing your arm in front of your face you will get motion blur, which is relatable.
High frame rates cut that blur between frames and give a more robotic look.
While it looks good on live broadcasts, sports, when it comes to cinema it looks very un natural. You will find almost every movie has been filmed in 24 or 25fps second.
@@AUSSIETRAINDRIVER films are filmed in 24 fps because of historical reasons and we have simply not advanced beyond it because it was too expensive to go beyond in the past in film days, but now we are beyond film and 24 fps is simply something we are used to, we can make movies in 120fps but people generally hate it because they are so used to 24 fps, like the same people who hated color tv when it came out. You are simply repressing technology.
It's a poor comparison, because it's 24fps footage interpolated (probably 3:2) to 60fps. If the CG was rendered at 60fps it would look quite a bit different.
It would look worst
@@Josmersuero worse* and it wouldn't. It would definitely look better with less artifacts on screen.
it takes 1000's of hours to render these scenes at 24fps 60fps looks weird with films and is not worth all of the extra cost and render time.
@@garyboi9779 Only because you're not used to them. Your wired to think it looks bad because you associate high framerate with soap operas, hence the belief why it is low quality.
@@mxntalduck Sorry, no link, no source, all bull.
ruclips.net/video/z8u-9uwR-Y8/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/fsxF-bU5rQw/видео.html
(Note that I only agree on framerate here, not the movie part)
If you can become motion sick, you've proved that you can recognise higher frame rates and that humans perceive much higher than your "science" claims. The reason you are motion sick is because you aren't used to seeing films like that. You can actually experience motion sickness looking at 30FPS with enough conditioning.
This is easily observable. If you really think humans observe that, play a VR game at 30FPS. You'll vomit.
The problem with rendering movies in 60fps is that it ignores voluntary slow-motions and smaller frame rate for effects like making the transformers appear heavy and slow like it should...
*You are coping hard*
They're made from highly advanced technology, their movement should reflect that.
@@TerminatorTheory Spoken like a 12 year old raised by Twitch who can't formate an actual argument. lol
@@aminulhussain2277 Yeah but there is also gravity as a factor... They would be heavy...
@@chopholtz4950Overthinking a kids movie too hard bro
60fps gives me the feeling of unrealism. It looks cartoonish
devastator(goofy ass remix)
u live in 60 fps tho
Yup, it's unrealisting because is too much info for your eyes and you remove the sense you got about speed when you look objects moving in front of your eyes. 60 frames are more suitable if you are gonna make slow motion scenes or if you want to analyze movements, but for the way you eyes see in real world, 24-30 fps always are gonna look more real.
@@henriqueeeee technically we dont live in any fps, since objects are actually moving, not just an illusion of them moving. and if you really pay attention to how moving things look irl, youll see things like motion blur, and "unsmoothness" which turning an animation into 60fps comepletely destroys
Because it was rendered, that means every second frame was computer generated
Now i know why 24fps is used in cinema. 60fps make it look like a video game.
24 fps for watching a movie, 60 fps for playing a video game
No 240 FPS for playing a video game
@@evanl854
Only if you want things to look unrealistic. In the real world, when we aren't looking at screens, we only see about the equivalent of 75 fps, meaning those old 90's monitors are more accurate to what we see in our day to day lives.
Yes, when it comes to flashing images on a screen we can see faster than that, but look away from the screen. Move your hand in front of your face. Notice how it's blurry. Sometimes you might even see the individual images of your hand, almost like an old or cheap digital camera. This is because when it comes to motion at least, human sight is pretty poor.
240 fps might be realistic if you're a parrot or hawk or something, but not a human.
@@Mechaghostman2 120/240 fps is for competitive purposes, not for casual games.
@@JackFastGame
The only way I'd upgrade to a 240 fps screen is if I were in a competition where the end result would be lots of money. Otherwise it's just pointless.
@@Mechaghostman2 bruh you obviously have never played above 60hz, once you go to 144+hz u never go back
The best part is this isn't 60 FPS clip at all. its 48fps (double of 24) and extra frames (2 every 8) are just same frames.
This interpolation looks way better then others, where moveing objects are doubled every second frame. Anyway, still i think 24 is best way to shoot, mainly for motion blur. or shoot 48 with half shutter speed.
24 FPS: Movie
60 FPS: Video Game Cutscene
Video games are 144fps
60fps feels like video games but little bit weird because of cgi originally rendered in 24fps it's kinda off
Cool I can watch the 24fps x 60fps comparison in 1080p60fps!
120fps would make the comparison fair (5*24fps aka 2*60fps)
24fps is for movie, 60fps and ++ is for commercial scene
There was so much cg going on in the first scene
Felt like my eyes coudn't keep up
+
60fps makes me really motion sick
60FPS looks like a live action documentary of Animal Plant 😂
60 FPS is like ASMR, but for eyes
144 FPS is like heaven, but for nerds.
@@GGamersUnited in movies 24 fps is really good lol having it higher you will see a lot of pauses having it on 100+ fps you can even see stunt double of the actor lmao if youre talking about games then its good to have high fps
@@yoink9148 ooh, yes, brother ,I was memeing. This at 60 FPS looked like in slow mo. haha also very weird and it would make CGI even more expensive. no thanks Jeff.
Only if you don't know how filmmaking works
Here is what i observed
The 60fps looks exactly like a video game or in real its animated sequence everything looks like its animated which is true and it takes away the details of movements in the sequence and we cannot observe what exactly happened in a split second
But on the another hand
24 frames made everything look natural real and smooth... Even if we compare to 60 its choppy but it looked smooth until we saw 60fps, so there is something magical in 24 fps because it makes animations or GFX Look real and natural and it also make it easy to see the details and every split second movement easily
doesn't look "natural real", it looks like "a movie". and you're used to see that in movies.
60FPS looks natural and real to me. It feels like I'm on scene with the action.
60fps looks straight up like a video game cutscene, 'cause it's too smooth and fluid
Surround Sound Is Great On This Video :O
The 60 makes it easier to tell what’s going on in the scene
you probably never ask why anime frame rate is not 60fps and CG Environment should'nt added, its reduce the epicness from film itself
24 fps look more realistic and 60 fps looks artificial
Is your life laggy lmao
@@7EEVEE FPS is not lag idiot
@@7EEVEEhe’s not wrong. The video you’re watching is originally in 24fps. 60fps comparison looks, as he said, “artificial” because it doesn’t look natural. It’s a forced motion interpolated 60fps on a footage that wasn’t naturally 24fps, hence it looks fast forwarded and jumpy. His “life” is pretty “optimal” to have noticed that. Not sure what “laggy” has to do with it.
@@ShMartinJo mid iq moment
@@7EEVEE No, it’s your iq that’s lagging behind.
It’s very evident that at 60fps your mind perceives more motion and is primed for action while 24fps gives you a more relaxed feeling to ‘cruise along’ with whatever the screen presents to you.
An analogy would be hitting the car’s accelerator while in gear at 5000rpm vs 1500rpm.
I personally feel anxiety when things jitter in front of me. Makes me feel like my brain isn't functioning properly.
how is there no blurry edges when its interpolated thats insane!! consideren this is transformers so many small debris
So, you basically made a soap opera out of the theatrical movie. Very nice, lol.
Maybe that’s why cgi in movies used to look better cause the cgi was less noticeable with 24 fps
Honestly, i see no difference at all. At the solo 60fps version i thought its run faster. But side-by-side i really dont see any difference on my mobile device. BUT, the clip at all is what FPS? Does it make any sense to watch such a comparison when the Output clip is 60fps at all? Is it really the same like have a native 24p output?
60fps looks like something I’d see in real life, no story telling just action
Holy crap, the 60fps looks SO CLEAN
It looks more satisfying and pleasant to viene
I know right
I guess I'm one of the weirdos that prefers 60 fps.
my tv has a movie mode where it turns everything into 60 fps. but it also keeps that cinematic motion blur effect
What kind of TV do you have??
@Berserk14378 Except the gimmick is actually real and is actually creating new frames 'out of thin air' by comparing 2 or more frames and generating new frames in between them. Of course, this won't always be as good as the one captured by the camera since it will have some visual artifacts. However, there are already existing AI technologies that are much more superior and least likely to produce visual artifacts. For example, this research from Nvidia: ruclips.net/video/MjViy6kyiqs/видео.html
@Berserk14378 There is already existing software technology that is already in modern TVs, It's called 'motion-compensated frame interpolation' or 'motion smoothing' which is enabled by default and it's also the reason why people are having soap-opera effects in modern TV's because they didn't disable it. Nvidia's solution is just a better version that is powered by AI which will eventually be in the next generation of TV.
@Berserk14378 I agree that motion smoothing looks bad since it has a lot of visual artifacts compared to Nvidia's AI solution. My point is, Nvidia's solution will eventually be in next-generation or future generations of TVs. It may not be real-time now, but it'll be soon.
I actually like the 24 frames per second because it feels more like a movie.. The 60 seconds per second scene were animated and not real
At first I was convinced the 60fps was sped up. Then I couldn't stop watching it. The more I've watched it the more I prefer 60fps (note: I do game at 60+ so that might be a factor) and now flicking between the two the 24 just doesn't feel nice. No doubt going to another movie or clip in 24 would be fine for me.
As a side note, when they did Hobbit in HFR I personally liked it, but I will certainly agree that it didn't feel as natural, I just enjoyed how sharp it felt. Sort of let me appreciate the CG textures a little more.
60fps is the future u like it or not
Whys that? Why would movie companies opt for tougher editing, more expensive vfx? 24fps works because it's the low and you can see smooth video. It's done for efficiency.
24 fps looks better to me, 60 fps looks so unreal to me
60 fps is fine, as long as the movie is designed to be watched in 60. CGI is harder to do at 60.
Also the RUclips compression makes it look even worse, even the 24fps look's like utter shit.
cgi is the same for 30 or 60 its actually 2d animation thats much harder to do because you hasve to animate more then twice as many frams cuz in animations frames are individually animated, and this video is kinda misleading because the cgi and the movie was filmed in 24 fps not 60 so native 60 would feel much much better then 24 fps
I don't understand that 24fps fetish. I think a lot of people just parroting that 24fps cinematic nonsense. I don't shoot 60fps that often because it's harder to edit etc. But if there were no technical limitations (which is just a matter of time), I would prefer 60 over 24fps, 90% of the time.
(and I talk out of experience because this vid is not 24fps / 60fps)
The motion looks fine at 24fps, why does it need to be higher? It's the most efficient way to edit, do effects, animate, and sync to sound. You're right about the technical limitations, but they're limitations that will never go away.
The transformers are well suited for 60 fps but I think it makes the actors look bad ( like bad acting and too animated ) That's the feel it gives me. I also find High definition is great for natural geographical films but can also have this false effect or spoil a scene if inadequately used. It's funny how it works but films sort of take us out of our own reality for a while, I think the higher frame rate and higher definition is too real sometimes exposing the falseness ( fake reality ) of the movie, reminding me constantly that it's only a move. It's like watch a film being made rather than enjoying the film.
I'm not knocking it, it will improve I'm sure as producers and editors gain more experience working with it.
These are my feelings, thoughts and opinions, that's all.
It`s the same effect as when high definition remasters are released, you can clearly see all those props as clearly fake with higher resolution while in lower resolution it could pass as believable. Higher FPS is much less forgiving to bad props, effects and acting.
Indeed! But I feel it also gives us the opportunity to notice more subtle things. In stage plays, actors would have to scream "I am uncomfortable", for 24fps movies the have to exaggerate awkwardness, but at 60, they could just be a bit fidgety and we'd notice it! At 24 fps the cars, etc flying towards the transformer didn't look that bad, but needs motion blur in 60fps.
@@easternhills1329 Tbh I think that your first analogy isn't entirely accurate. 24fps is perfectly adequate for capturing human motion (and very slick looking transformers) so 60 fps would really just be jarring and not much else.
@@jamieh9466 exactly, i mean, just take a look as how great some animations are at capturing subtle movements, even in a lower framerate.
@@despondent27 I agree. One great example is Demon Slayer, where 24 FPS can feel like 60. A lot of anime is actually often animated in 12s, and then goes to 24 when the budget is higher or action is intense. Most of the time there's no need to increase the frames above 24.
why 24 looks better for movies ?
cause easier for your eyes and brain to look at it.
i tey to rewatch it many times and i notice that my eyes moving so fast when i watch the 60 fps one , its like my eyes going around and cannot relax ( doesnt feel so good ).
as for 24 i feels like i can look at it with ease.
but still higher framerates is nice if u were the one who's in control , i mean "games"
24 fps is way better in movies then games lol
60fps looks better but the 24fps makes it seem more choppy and mechanical like a robot
60 just looks weird as hell i cant do it. i only want high fps for gaming so i dont miss anything but it doesn't feel natural for a movie thats supposed to transport you into a different reality
Does anyone else feel some kind of motion sickness from the 60fps render? It makes me feel weird idk how to describe it.
24 fps is better , 60 is okay but it feels unnatural to us especially when were used to seeing 24 frames it not only looks unnatural but the way the movement is shown is unrealistic , with 24 fps we can sense some realism with the whole scene not playing out as smooth
no, it looked less laggy than 24 fps. higher frame rate is smoother. chimpanzees like you remind of people who like black and white movies over colored films
@@shashkingsyndrome6401 can't take all this seriously especially when u have SYNDROME , imma just give u the benefit of the doubt that u have somethin goin on ur tiny head , u could've just corrected the right way , sounds like ur better than everyone ur like that one kid who's an asshole at school
respect is all it takes , clearly u dont know me i'd finesse u
@@shashkingsyndrome6401 bruh lower frame rate isn't just bc it's old style, there are time where u need 24fps to make screne look fast and time where u need 60fps for detail.
Watch it in 0.5x speed, the difference is clear there
24fps is the real world, 60fps is the i robot world
24fps really takes you outside of reality into a movie. High fps ends up looking like an old daytime soap opera or real life. Aunt nobody trying to be in real life watching a movie. It's escapism for the most part.
Damnnn, I don't recall transformers being that sick 💀👌
24 looks way better
The fact is, rendering things into 60 fps causes a lot of artifacting, and the fact I barely see any because of all the weird details of Bayformers that artifacts look like part of the design makes me feel weird
Oi Josuke! I use Za Hando to erase 36fps of the video so it doesn't look weird! Ain't that WACKY?!
@@CRaKCed_ceTAceAN oi Josuke, I erased half of this guy named Micheal Bay's chromosomes and now he's making Glorified Metal Orgies: The Movie.
The difference between the 2 is that 60 fps is faster and smoother looking right?
I guess once they figured out the brain could perceive info faster than they were giving it to us, they slowly started speeding it up. Pretty soon they'll just download it all in our sleep and we'll think we've had a whole host of experiences.
To me 60 fps makes dialouge seem to not match lips moving.
I am just waiting when all movies will be made 60 FPS.
Actually 24 fps is better because it gives motion blur. The 60 fps give super buttery smooth video. 60fps is for slomo shots because in slomo there is no motion blur.
i hate hoolywood movies in 60fps... feels like watching a soap opera.
soap opera has advanced away from hoolywood movies, 24fps needs to lie in the grave along with black and white color.
@@frodobaggins7469, well thank goodness people like you don't give us orders about what we like. 24 frames per second is the proper cinematic movement format and it will take a long time before audiences get used to anything faster.
@@frodobaggins7469 no
@@frodobaggins7469 your the mistake I'm afraid of making
@@frodobaggins7469 i agree with you. I've been watching all my videos and movies with Smooth Video Project and its awesome. i can never go back to watching laggy 24FPS content,it's just too stuttery. movies only use 24FPS because it's cheaper. there's no other reason lol.
I personally like it at 60 fps. It just looks better to me.
I actually dissagree. 60 Frames is far more clear but I think that motion blur is important for the action of the scenes.
dissagree , it feels like someonr trying to choke u with big melons all at once , i mean its tiring , and 24 feels relaxed for eyes and for brain.
we talk abt movies anywy , for games i will go 90-144fps ofc lol , cause better reaction time for me.
and even if i play games i can still consider using 30 if that games is something like mmorpg where u going around slashing mobs , but when it comes to FPS / racing games that needs quick reaction time , 60 is must. 90-144 is better ofc.
i feel laging below that.
@@sebastianode4994 I have completley changed my opinion since I posted this comment, but i prefer the fps to be as high as I can get it on every game. Because, in games, it looks way better.
In movies/animated shows it just looks like dogshit when I look at it now when it's done through a bot.
24 fps looks right. 60 fps for movies doesnt look natural and is just bad
60fps looks fake as hell. Every movie they alter at a higher FPS just looks ridiculous.
I like the higher FPS but gotta agree with you
You are WRONG. 24 fps looks FAKE AS HELL. 60fps looks more realistic.
craftspirit lol
Because its actually faked 60 fps lol
@@craftspirit No. 24 FPS is more realistic than 60 FPS. If you were to wave your hands in front of your face quickly right now, you’d just see a blur because your eyes just are not good enough. A camera however, will capture the movement without or with little blur, so already that makes 60 FPS look unnatural and different to real life, like everything is ‘too smooth’. Another problem is, at higher frame rates it becomes so obvious that people are acting, to the point can actually see their cues - very distracting if you’re trying to get into a film.
Well 60fps version actually not speed up. It just look like speed up. The reason i think because 60fps even smoother than real life. You can try to moving you hand fast then record it with 60fps then you cam clearly see the different
VFX artists would have to work harder to make 60fps stuff look realistic. The best compromise is 30. The new standard should be 30 and 24/25 should be abolished.
devastator is a CGI masterpiece
60fps makes the cgi stick out more. Now it looks like a video game
24 fps looks better for a movie
what happened to the 2 guys in the middle of the transformation tho?
0:02-0:06 There was a mistake in the animation. Look at the bottom left corner and how there’s a weird cut of the dust
I don’t see it
Je ne le vois pas.
Apparently the transformer model in that scene was worth one terabyte of storage
What movie is this?
60fps better, more details
What did you render this video in that you uploaded to RUclips? Cause that’s the only frame rate we are actually seeing. Lmao.
Other people: arguing about 24fps and 60fps
Some random pal guy: 25fps!!!
60 is hard to watch 24 is better
I understand now why movies are still recorded at 60fps. At 24fps it looks natural with regular speed. While 60fps is vastly smoother it’s way to fast and you loose focus on the content.
This is not even real 60 fps. He just sped up the footage.
Tbh I like the original 24fps better it brings that cinematic vibe feeling but 60fps is not that bad its just that I feel like watching in a video game
Am I only to not see the differences
60 FPS master race.
No
Imagine to work at ILM or Weta Digital and animate/render 60 or even 120 effect shots per second. That's why the Avatar sequels take so long for example. For certain movies like Transformers or Avatar I can see it have an huge impact as these movies are more tech demos than movies. Overall I prefer the cinematic look of 24 FPS.
What is is there in 4k 24p. I'm starting to fall in love with it. Should I make all of my next vids in 4k 24p
gamers be like: more fps, more fps, more, MORE!
😐
@@xers6704 😹
Dude this isn't 60 fps. He just increased the playback speed.
Awesome comparison!
Thank you!!
watching the 60 fps made me sick
60fps looks weird and not fun to watch. It’s better in 24fps.
Yea cause this is interpolated 60fps.
@@Dragoonoar , audiences have not generally liked the Hobbits in 48 fps or Gemini Man in 120 fps either. It just looks "wrong" to many people.
Imagine if this logic was applied to other aspects of film. If 480p was the standard in hollywood and there would be goons saying that 1080p looks weird and less cinematic.
60fps looks terrible in movies, its like fast forward. Going to see a movie that is in 60fps will ruin the experience, if someone is waving a sword you can't see shit as its over before it begin it's that fast.
@@jcp1984again Yeah the Hobbit was fucked up.... I could not believe they passed that off to an audience it clearly looked like it was in fast forward. It's was irritating to watch , you get screwed when you pay for that.
60fps in general for movies is a joke.... it feels like it's in fast forward for a faster run time. I mean it's not comfortable to watch at all, hell I remember reading it's closer to how fast people move in real life..... No it's not that is way to fast!!.
this isnt even a good representation, they are literally duplicating frames to get to 60 fps
there is a vast difference between native 60fps content (recorded and rendered in 60fps) and this
no, it looked less laggy than 24 fps. higher frame rate is smoother. chimpanzees like you remind of people who like black and white movies over colored films
I have video which are recorded on 60 fps some scene and 240 fps at some scene! But I have edited and have to export how much fps should I be export in?
24 fps is better in my opinion idk why
Forget the frames. . . these are the sound effects they went with for release? There are clearly 2/3 of the sounds that should be happening missing and I can't get over it.
60fps will be actually viable when we achieve cgi that looks completely identical to reality, until then it ruins the magic
It also effects actors performances though. So until we can brainwash actors into thinking they're actually going through the events of the movie, it won't work.
CGI in 60fps looks amazing.
It's kinda does but not needed and they have to edit another 36 frames for one second. When you're filming a 1 and a half hour long movie that's over 7k for 60fps and over 2.4k for 24fps.
@@GeneralAeon and! People can see more detail in the animation, meaning they need more detailed textures, lighting, animation, physics. Everything would have to be completely overhauled. Video games have an advantage because they're rendered in real time anyway. Movies have to have huge render farms just to get a few seconds of footage.
60 fps looks butterly fluent but ggi looks fake like a video game, maybe because it is interpolated 60 fps not "true" filmed/produced 60 fps. Hobbit was filmed in true native 48 fps and i think it looked very good in cinema. Better than the interpolated hobbit trailer.
I know what you mean, 60fps takes the 'movie' aspect away. And we are not used to see a movie in 60fps. But its cool to see 😜
@@nickgraauwmans did you see Hobbit in 48 fps? It was a very new experience quite when you first see an 140 Hz monitor.
Nope, I disagree. Motion pictures are made with fake things - fake sets, fake beards, fake backgrounds. A more realistic image format makes that fakeness painfully obvious for most viewers. This is not a small thing and it's gonna take a long time for high frame rates to get common. So far they've not done well in the cinema.
@@Halolaloo I've seen The Hobbit on a huge 4k TV and I thought it looked like garbage. It ruined the movie for me.
@TRYHARD HUNTER, dude... I would know and I will know. I've got good eyes for movement and picking up differences in frame rates. Been like that since I was a little kid. :-D Sorry but when my brain has accepted 24 frames per second as the "proper cinematic format of movement", it's incredibly awkward to see anything faster.
This motion interpolated 60fps isn’t giving a good impression to what 60fps actually should be. But a lot of people are calling this “good looking”, which is kind of concerning, if not only unsurprising.
Bro 60fps makes everything look like a video game
Why 60 fps is so ugly?
no jokes though but i love 60fps rather than the other
24 fps looks not really bad but ehh
60 fps looks siiick
60fps is so much better. I'd rather see movies like this.
I see no difference!
Probably because my screen is 24hz :(
Whered you even get a 24hz screen from lmao
@@inferno572 i think he was joke
Watch it in 1080p in your yt settings
@@mr.niceguy8533 i used a thing called cru and made my screen 24hz to see if i actually see a difference
I feel like I'm gonna vomit while watching the 60 FPS one.