60fps please !

[flibberdipper]

6 minutes ago, Bangert said:

i noticed the number of player goes double after the update that makes it from 30 to 60fps.

Because it's a game... Not a video... Higher framerates for games generally make them more playable/enjoyable. It's not rocket science.

[poochyena]

I loooove 60fps video, but my PC can barely even handle 4k60fps and its fairly beefy. I'd choose 1440p60fps if I had the option. With the type of video Linus makes, i'd prefer 60fps over 4k.

[dalekphalm]

15 hours ago, Bangert said:

agree. between 1080 60fps vs 4k 30 fps, i will go for the first one. you can be fine with 1080hd and offcourse it's great to have 4k. but pfs should be the priority when it comes to any video, games ,etc. i downloaded a game called dungeon hunter on APKnite, i noticed the number of player goes double after the update that makes it from 30 to 60fps.

Videos and games are totally different.

 

The reason why games "feel better" at a higher FPS is because you're interacting with the environment in the game.

 

Your example of a game where the number of players doubled when they went to 60 FPS is entirely irrelevant to Linus, standing stationary, and talking into a camera.

 

You'd hardly notice a difference anyway (not saying you wouldn't, but it would be minor), so the trade off is really just not worth double the storage requirements.

[LTTmurphy]

On 1/25/2019 at 1:44 AM, flibberdipper said:

60FPS for a channel like LTT is hilariously unnecessary.

This ^ ... except, as many have mentioned already, when it comes to showing gameplay footage. I endorse LMG for not catering to YouTube's forced 60 fps nonsense, because for trivial technical reasons I need 30 fps and as soon as 1080p 60fps is provided I can't get 1080p 30fps anymore. I condemn GN, PH and other channels of the nature of LTT for mindlessly indulging in that imposed trend – JTC also doesn't, although to his typical shenanigans like blowing up watercooling loops and flying drones in his warehouse it might even be beneficial – since in general it's utterly pointless for their channels and mostly their content but means a lot of extra hassle for me and others at the current state of a given environment.

The reason I reply to this old thread (despite it's despised for whatever reason even if there is not a significant newer one on the same topic), besides stating the above to encourage LMG to stick to 30 fps, is the following:

 

Linus has stated on multiple occasions in the past that his camera department keeps nagging at him to let them shoot at 23.976 fps, and for Mac Address they're actually doing it now ... which I don't really comprehend when it comes to tech-related talking head videos on Youtube or Floatplane.
What are the advantages and/or motivations (I assume it's not storage size) to film for a channel like Mac Address and distribute to streaming platforms in 23.976 fps?

 

[TetraSky]

28 minutes ago, LTTmurphy said:

What are the advantages and/or motivations (I assume it's not storage size) to film for a channel like Mac Address and distribute to streaming platforms in 23.976 fps?

As far as I know, there's no real advantage, except maybe the smaller file size and ease of working on it (fewer frames to edit if you need to do so).

As for motivations... I'm guessing it's something to do with cinematography elitism and wanting to do like "the pros" at Hollywood, even though this framerate only exist due to limitation of the technology at the time. Also because what they are doing doesn't really benefit from a smoother experience offered by 30fps or higher.

[LTTmurphy]

Thanks for your quick answer, altough I specifically doubted that smaller file sizes etc. are the reasons given their storage capacities and the minor differences between 24 and 30 concerning that matter.

 

13 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

I'm guessing it's something to do with cinematography elitism [...] what they are doing doesn't really benefit from a smoother experience offered by 30fps or higher.

 

The former is exactly what I thought but kept to myself to not influence any response – yet as for the latter I agree with earlier posters who already stated how meaningless cinematography aspects are as far as the given content is concerned (meaning what they're doing also doesn't benefit from diverging from the 30 fps Youtube standard), hence me pointing out "tech-related talking head videos on Youtube or Floatplane" and "for a channel like Mac Address" ;D
 

I'm curious if anyone has any idea besides what the two of us were suspecting ...

[Spindel]

Seriously why would you even need to watch a channel like LTT at 4K?

[Mark Kaine]

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

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

actually on yt the higher res the better regardless of your screen due to yt compression algorithms theyll give hi res better bitrates = better image quality and it'll be just downscaled to your monitor keeping higher image quality and bitrates…

 

only reason not to is maybe low bandwith connection or your pc not keeping up, although even low end pcs shouldnt have issues with 4k videos nowadays.

 

On 2/5/2019 at 10:41 PM, dalekphalm said:

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.

Tbh, its one of the reasons I dont watch a lot of these "tech tubers" anymore, the framerates / smoothness is often jarring, this isnt even necessarily down to "framerates" more like production quality I suppose, I dont get these weird annoying slowdowns on Techmoan videos for example (of course maybe an unfair comparison, his hair will naturally lag a lot less than for example "Thanks, Steve GN" where its often extremely noticable…)

Of course production will be better if someone only produces one video/week instead of one or several/day, also noticable by the quality of the contents of course, theyre much more thorough, often with years of research included, than those mass produced ones, that often tell you exactly nothing.

 

[VFXGuy]

On 1/25/2019 at 12:07 AM, Jazz Jackrabbit said:

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.

The standard for Hollywood films is 24fps. 60fps is really excessive for normal viewing and especially streaming. 60fps and alike are primarily meant for vfx and time remapping/slow motion. It also increases render times and upload and processing time on YouTube- decreasing time they have to make videos as well as taking up more storage.

[XWAUForceflow]

Recently Linus made a comment (sorry, no link for it, I am sure someone can help) where he stated that if he forced 60FPS half his camera team would quit. I am quite aware of the arguments but I have to say I am really, really baffled by this. 24FPS (or 30FPS) does not look better than 60FPS. There are practical reasons for why to use lower frame rates, but it appears that the camera department from LMG goes for the 'we want the cinematic look, so we are forcing the issue'.

Do LTT videos need 60FPS? Heck no, not unless you are doing some action shoots 30 is enough, but I am just baffled how many people claim that 24(30) is looking better. To me that's the exact same kind of people who claim that vinyl sounds inherently better than digital. No it doesn't! Just because there are vinyl prints out there that used much better quality base recordings and are better mixed before pressing them does not make vinyl better. If you used the same raw recordings and processing and then made a digital copy with it, it would be measurably better. For me the same is true with FPS. Just because so many people associate 60FPS with cheaply produced soap operas doesn't make the technology itself bad. I am just hoping that with more and more people growing up that are used to 60FPS in visual media that finally that stupid 24FPS limitation will die and media creators will start to utilize the much greater visual clarity that 60FPS offer.

[Mark Kaine]

GN is at 60fps now!?  The hair never looked as glorious! Aha.

[Avocado Diaboli]

18 minutes ago, XWAUForceflow said:

but I am just baffled how many people claim that 24(30) is looking better. To me that's the exact same kind of people who claim that vinyl sounds inherently better than digital.

You're kinda comparing apples to oranges here. 60 fps clearly encodes more information than 30 fps, while vinyl is just a playback medium. There are good tapes that can sound just as good as a vinyl record through a decent amp and set of speakers and obviously lossless digital audio can also sound just as good, because they literally contain the same audio data. But video shot at 60 fps contains twice as much data, so I don't think this comparison is applicable.

 

As for video/film framerate, I personally don't care about high frame rate content. I watched The Hobbit in theaters at 48 fps and the only thing that did was highlight the artificiality of many of the props and digital effects. The way the movie was shot ended up looking way too busy, with the increased clarity and smoothness of the movements creating a much more "noisy" - for lack of a better term - image. Also, choreography clearly looks fake if it's not masked by filmic blur.

 

And regarding actual noise, shooting at a higher framerate means you necessarily have to shoot at faster shutter speeds. 30 fps means you can shoot at a maximum shutter speed of 1/30, so you have a 30th of a second to let light hit the sensor. Cut that in half and you have to compensate, either by increasing the amount of light in the scene or the sensitivity of the sensor, which can introduce digital noise.

 

Honestly, the trade-offs are really not worth it, because between increased file sizes, increased render times and lower flexibility for shooting on location there's a good reason to keep framerate as low as possible.

 

I mean, the only reason film eventually went from 16 to 24 fps wasn't even because of the look, 16 fps is enough to trick the brain to see motion where there is none. But the reason why they increased it anyway was because sound film became available and 24 fps is the lowest framerate you can record sound with to have enough bandwidth to encode what the microphones pick up. The sound was literally recorded on the same piece of film.

 

 

This is incidentally why people in those old silent films always seem to be in such a hurry, because people take 16 fps film (and inconsistently shot film to boot, because it was hand cranked) and render it as 24 fps video for modern audiences.

 

As for YouTube videos, I don't see the purpose of increased framerate for most applications outside of gaming, because they don't meaningfully impact the content. Most video on YouTube isn't shot in a way that makes use of the increased framerate and the visual clarity that it brings. And even then, if you want to mimic the clarity of 60 fps video, you can just artificially cut down the shutter speed of your camera to decrease motion blur without doubling the amount of data you have to handle, process and archive.

[LTTmurphy]

1 hour ago, XWAUForceflow said:

Recently Linus made a comment (sorry, no link for it, I am sure someone can help) where he stated that if he forced 60FPS half his camera team would quit.

Yeah, not only do I remember this (it was a WAN Show like 2 or 3 weeks ago, don't remember which one exactly either) but it also was in the back of my mind when posting my question regarding 24 fps vs 30 fps. Anyone answering it – while tbh everything else in this thread has already been thouroughly discussed, especially the opening post ;] – seems to narrow it down to cinematography elitism. This was the only thing I could think of myself, however I truly didn't post to empasize this but to honestly find out if there might be any factual, practical, professional reasons I could just not think of ...

 

I would assume that the camera guys, whom Linus constantly goshs over as being so qualified and professional (especially one of them), wouldn't constantly nag at their boss about it without any substantial reasonings behind it, because that would exactly not be professionalism or a matter-of-fact qualification. So I'm trying to find out about those arguments.

 

Quote

I am quite aware of the arguments

Which arguments?

The one argmument that I know from experience is that Youtube's 60 fps video files are way smaller than double of otherwise identical 30 fps files, which inevitably means a loss in quality. So I get their opposition against that. Their favoritism of 24 fps I don't.

 

Quote

but I have to say I am really, really baffled by this. 24FPS (or 30FPS) does not look better than 60FPS. There are practical reasons for why to use lower frame rates,

For 30fps against 60fps yes, because either you need significantly more storage or you will lose quality.

For 24fps against 30fps no, because IMO the size difference is too insignificant to justify the downsides.

 

Quote

but it appears that the camera department from LMG goes for the 'we want the cinematic look, so we are forcing the issue'.

There we go again

 

Anything else, anyone?

 

 

Off Topic:

Quote

I am just baffled how many people claim that 24(30) is looking better. To me that's the exact same kind of people who claim that vinyl sounds inherently better than digital.

At least I can comprehend this. Be it for the exact reasons you mentioned afterwards (which is my stock argument against delusional wax heads), or be it for just liking the potentially "warmer" sound more.
But preferring stutter in pan shots over no stutter? I don't get it.

 

[YoungBlade]

3 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

only reason not to is maybe low bandwith connection or your pc not keeping up, although even low end pcs shouldnt have issues with 4k videos nowadays.

I don't think you realize how much trouble low-end iGPUs can have with 4k video. My laptop with an i5 3320M can handle 1080p60 video just fine, but at 2k60, it's starting to stutter. For its day, that was a good laptop chip. Yes, it's 9 years old, but the chips in some modern Chromebooks, like the A6 9220C, are actually comparable. I'd be surprised if such a laptop can actually play 4k60 without issues.

[LTTmurphy]

I wonder if anyone will ever answer the question I exhumed this thread for :3
I slowly start to understand the despise against doing so ...

[Mark Kaine]

2 hours ago, YoungBlade said:

I don't think you realize how much trouble low-end iGPUs can have with 4k video. My laptop with an i5 3320M can handle 1080p60 video just fine, but at 2k60, it's starting to stutter. For its day, that was a good laptop chip. Yes, it's 9 years old, but the chips in some modern Chromebooks, like the A6 9220C, are actually comparable. I'd be surprised if such a laptop can actually play 4k60 without issues.

yeah, i know not "all" pcs can handle it well, but honestly i thought when.my ~3 year old i5u can handle it, thats pretty low end already.

 

 

[Guest]

On 1/24/2019 at 4:07 PM, Jazz Jackrabbit said:

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.

It's an arbitrary number chase. 30fps and 60fps would be an ideal refresh rate for most 4K TVs, there's really no need beyond 30fps in reality.

 

Old console systems where 30fps. Nobody complained and few even knew what the number actually meant, pretty much the case with your inquire. 

 

After all, this is just video playback. Not competitive gaming frame rates we are after. 

[LTTmurphy]

43 minutes ago, WolframaticAlpha said:

Here, corrected it for you:

Not that I watch 4K myself (because I can't in lack of a 4K monitor or tv) but what about anyone who does own a 4K TV and sits in an appropriate viewing distance for that resolution? For them 1080p content will look pixelated unless they sit even further away 

[WolframaticAlpha]

46 minutes ago, LTTmurphy said:

Not that I watch 4K myself (because I can't in lack of a 4K monitor or tv) but what about anyone who does own a 4K TV and sits in an appropriate viewing distance for that resolution? For them 1080p content will look pixelated unless they sit even further away 

If you are sitting that close, you are probably destroying your eyes.

[LTTmurphy]

21 minutes ago, WolframaticAlpha said:

If you are sitting that close,

I don't, since I don't watch 4K myself because I can't in lack of a 4K monitor or tv.

Quote

you are probably destroying your eyes.

No one does when sitting in an appropriate viewing distance for that resolution.

???

 

Let X feet be the appropriate viewing distance for a 4K TV at any size.
If you sit X feet away from that TV watching 1080p content it's pixelated.
Unless you sit even further away.
 

[WkdPaul]

* thread locked *

 

Reading the last few replies should be obvious why.