60fps please !

[Jazz Jackrabbit]

I see that almost all of the recent Linus tech tips videos on youtube were posted in 4K 30fps, and not in 4k 60fps. 

 

Please use 60fps, it makes a lot of difference, pleasing to the eyes and stuff.

 

I know Linus's team uses Red Camera, So is there a specific reason of not doing 60fps, maybe brightness or clarity? I think Red and some post production can handle that.

[Jazz Jackrabbit]

26 minutes ago, RainGamma said:

Well it's prob to save space (idk if boosting it to 60 fps uses more space but)

It definitely uses more space and time, but other smaller channels are doing it now.

[.Apex.]

27 minutes ago, RainGamma said:

Well it's prob to save space (idk if boosting it to 60 fps uses more space but)

it does double the size, but after compression it won't exactly be double, and i don't think they save their videos in compressed form, they wouldn't need a Petabyte for that

[flibberdipper]

60FPS for a channel like LTT is hilariously unnecessary. And IIRC they're filming at 8K then scaling to 4K, and getting a camera and storage to film 8K60... And edit 4K60... While keeping the raw files for a while... Yikes Scoob.

[iLostMyXbox21]

I prefer 1080p 60fps, not everyone has 4K screens

[Jazz Jackrabbit]

3 minutes ago, flibberdipper said:

60FPS for a channel like LTT is hilariously unnecessary. And IIRC they're filming at 8K then scaling to 4K, and getting a camera and storage to film 8K60... And edit 4K60... While keeping the raw files for a while... Yikes Scoob.

It looks cool and smooth though. And i have seen Hardware Unboxed, Gamers Nexus and others do 60 fps. 

[.Apex.]

Just now, iLostMyXbox21 said:

I prefer 1080p 60fps, not everyone has 4K screens

to be honest 1080P camera upscaled to 4K just because of the higher bitrate on Youtube would be more than fine, I have no clue why some Youtubers are using a RED camera, it's so completely unnecessary..
 

This is their old videos with the Sony 1080P Camera upscaled to 4K on Youtube, can't see a god damn difference.. 

[Jazz Jackrabbit]

2 minutes ago, iLostMyXbox21 said:

I prefer 1080p 60fps, not everyone has 4K screens

Actually, I think Youtube will make it available in lower res also once uploaded in 4K

[Princess Luna]

1 minute ago, Jazz Jackrabbit said:

Actually, I think Youtube will make it available in lower res also once uploaded in 4K

I mean between 60fps 1080p or 1440p and 4k30fps you gotta wonder which is better for yourself.

[Mira Yurizaki]

Personally I don't see a point unless there's a lot going on in a short amount of time.

 

Though I guess Linus's exaggerated gestures count.

[flibberdipper]

7 minutes ago, Jazz Jackrabbit said:

It looks cool and smooth though. And i have seen Hardware Unboxed, Gamers Nexus and others do 60 fps. 

Okay... And did I ever say it made 100% sense for them to do it either? At least HU and GN do benchmarking videos where it'd actually make sense to have 60FPS (especially HU, iirc they use actual captures though I don't watch so I could be wrong). And 60FPS for a video with so little action is unnecessary.

 

6 minutes ago, syn2112 said:

to be honest 1080P camera upscaled to 4K just because of the higher bitrate on Youtube would be more than fine, I have no clue why some Youtubers are using a RED camera, it's so completely unnecessary..
 

This is their old videos with the Sony 1080P Camera upscaled to 4K on Youtube, can't see a god damn difference.. 

Honestly I sometimes wish people would record with really good quality at 1080p or 1440p 30FPS and then export it at 4K"60" just for all that extra bitrate.

[Jazz Jackrabbit]

10 minutes ago, flibberdipper said:

Okay... And did I ever say it made 100% sense for them to do it either? At least HU and GN do benchmarking videos where it'd actually make sense to have 60FPS (especially HU, iirc they use actual captures though I don't watch so I could be wrong). And 60FPS for a video with so little action is unnecessary.

 

Honestly I sometimes wish people would record with really good quality at 1080p or 1440p 30FPS and then export it at 4K"60" just for all that extra bitrate.

I donno...maybe its because of my personal experience...60fps is always soft and less stressful on your eyes compared to 30...even if there is no action. Feels more natural as well. 

[ignaloidas]

Pls no, my shitty laptop CAN play 720p@30FPS but CAN'T play 720p@60FPS. This would decrease my watching quality to 480p which sucks.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, iLostMyXbox21 said:

I prefer 1080p 60fps, not everyone has 4K screens

Am I the only one okay with 768i 15 FPS? 

[NineEyeRon]

While we are, I know it’s a bit of an edge case but have we considered the users on 768x4096? 

[iLostMyXbox21]

3 hours ago, fpo said:

Am I the only one okay with 768i 15 FPS? 

I’m okay with 720p 60fps in games, 30 FPS with videos

[dalekphalm]

3 hours ago, VegetableStu said:

bitrate determines filesize. if both files of differing framerates have the same bitrate they'll be in the same ballpark size.

depending on the kind of tracking/panning and shutter speeds, the quality difference may be better or worse on 60fps, but is not exactly a factor on choosing between the two

 

as for 60 vs 30 itself: it depends on the kind of video they want to make. you'd have 3 groups of people:

• who don't like the realtime-ness of 60 on certain kinds videos
• who don't like the cinematic 25/30
• who don't care and take it in for what it is

and a bonus fourth for those who see it as a resolution and play with playback rates while editing (imagine 60fps video with 60, 30, 15 aliased segments etc)

 

also depending on the device's or the app's ability to go 60 instead of 30.

If an otherwise identical video file has the same bitrate at both 30 fps and 60 fps, then the one at 60 fps essentially has half the bitrate per frame. Thus, quality would be roughly halved.

 

Obviously it's more complex than that, and if the frames are similar, a good codec will save space there, but none the less, to achieve similar quality in both results, the bitrate for 60 fps should be roughly doubled.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, VegetableStu said:

well yeah on average it's the same, but like you said per-frame you get half the bitrate budget. the way I see it is in an "equal" IRL setting the moving object travels half the distance of the 60fps frame than the one in the 30fps frame, that's why I'm in the "possibly negligible but not too horrible in half the cases" camp

 

there's probably so much bitrate one can throw at it before it's too big to handle, let alone tell the difference apart (hence the advent of variable bitrate). youtube actually specifies 1.5x the bitrate for higher framerates vs videos of lower framerates. personally i feel like this would be hard to tell unless there's fast movement (gets worse when it's sharp)

In terms of the question at hand (LTT doing 60 fps), I think that's entirely pointless. LTT doesn't do much (if any, these days) gaming content in any of their videos. Most videos contain a talking head, and fairly slow panning "glory" shots of product.

 

CFS might benefit from 60 fps (they might already do this, even), but LTT and TechQuickie would not.

 

With that in mind, if they do a video that's, say, focused on gaming footage, I think doing a 60 fps shoot (Native 60, for god's sake, not record at 30 and then render at 60) would definitely be beneficial.

 

Because of how rare those videos are, it wouldn't affect their storage needs drastically.

[TetraSky]

I can barely watch 1080p60 videos on Youtube because my network connection has issues keeping up... If Linus starts outputting videos in 60fps, I'd have to downgrade the resolution to 720p60. Even more so these days since Youtube doesn't load the entire video if you pause it while it buffers completely, it stops loading after a few minutes.

So quite frankly, I can live with 30fps for live action videos that doesn't have fast paced movement if it means they look sharper.

 

Beside, didn't they do a test before where they uploaded a video in 60fps, but it really was just a 30fps video that had doubled frames and everyone was losing their shit that they had uploaded a 60fps video as if that mattered... yet it actually was just garbage?

[Mihle]

On 1/25/2019 at 1:46 AM, iLostMyXbox21 said:

I prefer 1080p 60fps, not everyone has 4K screens

Only if it's upscaled to 4K before uploading to YouTube, because you then get higher bitrate. If not, I would not want that.

[Evanair]

One could make the argument for 60fps due to EFP and television broadcast but rarely for video such as this.

 

Honestly, I'm surprised they don't shoot on 24fps instead.

 

Some of it comes down to technical issues, which I'm surprised never got mentioned so far. Switching from 30fps to 60 is a loss of a stop of light, and in order to maintain the same quality, it means the studio lights have to be twice as bright.  I don't know if anyone has been on a shoot before, but the lights are bright enough as it is when stopped down. You would have to step way up on the T/F-stops to get a correct exposure.

 

Another reason is sharpness. Video is moving pictures, not freeze frames.  Even the human eye blurs things out ever a certain speed. Sure, we can record a video at 120fps at 8000s shutter speed of a fan blade and capture every single detail, every second, in pure sharp detail.  And then we can watch it and know something doesn't look right. Or we can shoot 24fps and get a cinematic blur and have good looking frames. Sure you can't pause it and pick out wood grain anymore, but it's more natural looking film.

 

But...

 

That all being said, LTT would qualify as broadcast video rather than cinema. Meaning industry standard is 4k60p.  

[Tsuki]

@LinusTechhas addressed this in the past several time.

File size is significantly larger, and does not make a meaningful impact in quality of their content.

 

they have even done experiments where they have 30fps footage uploaded in 60fps(still 30 fps, but youtube shows it as 60) and people were completely blown aware at how amazing it was, even though it was literally the same.  

for their content, its pointless.   its better to film at a higher resolution and scale down in order to make editing easier.

 

 

[dalekphalm]

8 hours ago, Jerkamie said:

-snip-

This is... not even remotely correct.

 

For one, eyes don't see in "frames" - it's a constant stream of photons and chemical signals.

 

And some people can perceive differences above 240 FPS. Much higher if you don't need to perceive high detail, but just quick movements, etc.

 

Your average person can likely perceive the difference between 60 FPS and 120 FPS. I find it unlikely that the average person would perceive any differences above 120 FPS, unless they were scrutinizing and comparing side by side.

 

With all of that in mind, LTT has no need to use more than 30 FPS for their videos, since they're not fast paced action shots.

[LinusOnLine]

I remember when everyone said that 1080 in 24p was the best there was and that it was much better than 60hz. People just fall for stupid sales talk all the time and when someone calls them out on it they will defend that 4k on a 5 inch cell phone screen to death

[dalekphalm]

18 minutes ago, LinusOnLine said:

I remember when everyone said that 1080 in 24p was the best there was and that it was much better than 60hz. People just fall for stupid sales talk all the time and when someone calls them out on it they will defend that 4k on a 5 inch cell phone screen to death

Context matters.

 

For games (an interactive medium), having a higher frame rate 100% improves the experience (to a degree anyway), and 24 FPS on a game is borderline unplayable. Solid 30 FPS for most people is the baseline.

 

For movies and TV series? I'm not opposed to higher frame rates - if done correctly. But so far, no one has done it correctly.

 

The Hobbit tried with HFR 48 FPS, but there were huge problems, including the "soap opera effect". Personally, I got used to it after about 20 minutes into the films, and it didn't detract much after that (and the action scenes for sure benefited from the higher frame rate).

 

I think higher frame rates largely still need research and perhaps even new shooting techniques to properly take advantage of them.

 

It would be great if a cinematographer could invent a shooting method that preserved the "cinematic" artistic style of 24 FPS while shooting in a higher frame rate. I don't know if that's possible, but it certainly hasn't been achieved yet.

 

In the case of LTT? 60 FPS is unlikely to suffer much from "soap opera" effect simply due to the fact that their videos aren't really cinematic to begin with.

 

But, on the flip side, there's simply no benefit. So what? You can see Linus drop something in higher frames? Does it add to the experience? No. The downsides are significant though, with roughly doubling of the file size for little apparent benefit.

 

Moving to a higher resolution (Such as their switch to 8K) gives them much better advantages, since they can digitally zoom in during Post for much cleaner shots without relying on optical zoom.