Linus said on WAN show that 30fps is preferred over 60fps among LTT viewers. Is that true?

[Mark Kaine]

Confession time: I don't usually watch TV, but if I do I immediately notice the footage (movies, shows, doesn't matter) as very choppy and stuttery. 

 

I definitely prefer watching youtube at 60fps,  I also seen movies at 60fps,  it's very smooth,  how it should be. 

 

Tech advances,  big surprise! 

[dalekphalm]

16 hours ago, poochyena said:

I prefer all videos at 60fps, but curious if linus is right that most prefer 30fps

Considering LTT videos are glorified talking heads, I think that 30 FPS is better for most people, since it allows those with lower internet connections to enjoy higher resolutions.

 

Additionally, 60 FPS would significantly impact their workflow and storage needs, because it would (effectively) double the storage requirements for each and every video - with minimal benefits.

 

Eventually? Sure. We aren't there yet.

 

Now, CSF videos, or videos that predominantly show fast paced action on the screen (Eg: videos with video game clips), should be 60 FPS. But it should be on a case-by-case basis.

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

all non media content like movies and shorts in 24, the rest i can get used to 60fps but not good content like those with a good production budget that's made to look like a tv show, like most LTT videos, or Vsauce, veritasium etc. 

[WkdPaul]

I only really watch the WAN show, and when it's a regular LTT video, it's more for background noise than anything  so for LTT content, 360p on YT is more than enough for me (I rarely look at the WAN show, it's easy to just listen to it while doing something else).

[dalekphalm]

16 hours ago, Levent said:

I don't know how people enjoy anything that is shot with less than 60fps. I hate watching movies because of that, action movies shot with 24fps gives me motion sickness. 

I guess you don't watch basically any movies, then?

There have only been a handful of movies shot in higher than 24 FPS - mostly just the Hobbit trilogy in 48 FPS HFR.

 

Gemini Man (recent Will Smith movie) was shot in 120 FPS 4K HDR 3D (that was a mouthful) - and apparently no commercial Cineplex in the world has a projector to play it as intended. The best that can be done is either 4K 60 FPS or 2K 120 FPS at a few cinemas.

 

60 FPS will eventually be adopted in the cinema, but it'll be a slow transition, because filmmakers need to learn new ways of lighting and filming a set shot in 60 or 120 FPS - as to minimize or avoid the Soap Opera effect.

 

When I watched the Hobbit movies, it was certainly noticeable at first, but eventually I got used to it for each film.

 

Avatar 2 is apparently being shot in 60 FPS.

[Levent]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

I guess you don't watch basically any movies, then?

There have only been a handful of movies shot in higher than 24 FPS - mostly just the Hobbit trilogy in 48 FPS HFR.

 

Gemini Man (recent Will Smith movie) was shot in 120 FPS 4K HDR 3D (that was a mouthful) - and apparently no commercial Cineplex in the world has a projector to play it as intended. The best that can be done is either 4K 60 FPS or 2K 120 FPS at a few cinemas.

 

60 FPS will eventually be adopted in the cinema, but it'll be a slow transition, because filmmakers need to learn new ways of lighting and filming a set shot in 60 or 120 FPS - as to minimize or avoid the Soap Opera effect.

 

When I watched the Hobbit movies, it was certainly noticeable at first, but eventually I got used to it for each film.

 

Avatar 2 is apparently being shot in 60 FPS.

Of course I watch them, its not that annoying in cinema but at home definitely not enjoyable. I wish monitors came with 24hz refresh rate, would make it a little less annoying.

[Flying Sausages]

A wise man says, "Human eyes cannot see 60 fps"
 

[dalekphalm]

6 minutes ago, Levent said:

Of course I watch them, its not that annoying in cinema but at home definitely not enjoyable. I wish monitors came with 24hz refresh rate, would make it a little less annoying.

Ah - I see the dilemma. You're experiencing screen jitter from 3:2 pulldown.

 

Watch the movie on a 120 HZ monitor - or on a TV that can do true 24 Hz playback, and it'll improve the experience a lot.

 

My LG Plasma TV is one such TV - it can playback Blu-Ray's at 24p and it's glorious.

 

Granted, I definitely am for filmmakers experimenting more with 60 FPS and 120 FPS - especially for action films. If they can get it to the point where they can eliminate the soap opera effect, then higher is better for films that aren't just talking heads.

 

1 minute ago, OlympicAssEater said:

A wise man says, "Human eyes cannot see 60 fps"
 

Mostly because humans don't see in FPS  But the eye can most certainly perceive the difference between 30 and 60 (and most people can perceive the difference between 60 and 90, although less and less can tell beyond that).

[TomvanWijnen]

I would definitely notice the difference between a 30 FPS and 60 FPS LTT video. Whether it'd be worth the doubling (?) in storage and such, I don't think so, unfortunately.

[TrainFan475]

I prefer a higher framerate, but it probably wouldn't be practical for the types of videos they make.

[Zodiark1593]

So long as I hadn't just viewed 60P content mere seconds prior, I tend not to care much.

 

Some movies pan far enough that 24 fps doesn't really cut though.

[vanished]

7 hours ago, TomvanWijnen said:

I would definitely notice the difference between a 30 FPS and 60 FPS LTT video. Whether it'd be worth the doubling (?) in storage and such, I don't think so, unfortunately.

That's an important consideration actually.  It's not always just about the end user experience, there's a lot more to consider.  It would take more data to store footage shot at 60 fps - maybe not double but definitely more, probably at least 50% - which means not only needing more server space to store it, but it means filling up the mags faster, which means a need to bring more on trips, a need to offload more often, and faster networking gear to keep the editing workstations fed.  Speaking of the editing workstations, it means needing more processing power to handle the workflow smoothly, and to render the final videos for floatplane and youtube.  It even impacts the way the footage is shot.  Going to 60 fps means either increasing your shutter angle, and/or getting more and/or brighter lights for the set, or just increasing ISO and accepting a noisier image.

[Tech_Dreamer]

i think regular chit chat shows like WAN show needs & requires only 30fps or even less like 24fps standard imo. But 60 fps should be an option for viewers. sometimes the 30fps being less smooth seems stuttery to people who are used to 60 fps. i'd opt for 60 fps just because it looks a bit smoother .

[amdorintel]

is linus still late ?

 

has the background changed ?

 

 

humans cant see a difference too much in anything over 60

 

[Orangeator]

4k@60 or go home. Hehe.

[Jordie of the Void]

I would much prefer to watch gameplay footage at 60fps, but camera-shot videos do look better to me at 30\24fps. Watching people just sit there and talk at 60fps always felt a little weird to me.

[TomvanWijnen]

7 hours ago, Jordie of the Void said:

I would much prefer to watch gameplay footage at 60fps, but camera-shot videos do look better to me at 30\24fps. Watching people just sit there and talk at 60fps always felt a little weird to me.

I wonder, do you (or someone else) know why this is the case? Wouldn't smoother just always be better?

[vanished]

4 hours ago, TomvanWijnen said:

I wonder, do you (or someone else) know why this is the case? Wouldn't smoother just always be better?

I've heard this from a few people before but never experienced it myself.  My best guess for why it would feel weird is because it's unfamiliar.  We grow up seeing filmed content at 24 or 25 or 30 fps so anything significantly higher really sticks out.  I think the traditional (lower) frame rate gives a feeling of separation - subconsciously, it ensures you remain aware you're watching a video - and when you see content shot at 60 or more, it's so much more like real life that this effect is reduced and it ends up being too realistic and perhaps this is unsettling because it's unfamiliar.

 

I've even heard some people say it can cause a sort of motion sickness.  Personally, this is also opposite to how I experience video.  For me, if the frame rate is too low it's painful and unpleasant to watch, but at higher frame rates, shaky camera movements and other substantial motion is far more tolerable.  I would guess that a reason to experience this the other way around though is similar to what I mentioned above - with lower frame rates, you don't experience it so much as you just see it, but with it being higher and more realistic, I could imagine people internalizing that motion more and experiencing the effects from it.

[amdorintel]

i tend to stay with computer stuff for atleast 10 years. i just have a lg 27" that fits perfectly on the desk without the stand, which i made wooden pieces for a little stand. I have no idea what my pixel dimensions are or any ratio, I just know its LED because its printed on the side cover. who knows what my fps is or refresh rate. i just want value and not into the latest and greatest because your always chasing it, spending money foolishly.

[PlayStation 2]

Anyone who complains about them going for 30fps rather than 60fps:

I deal with recording VHS tapes at high bitrates. VHS tapes normally have a ton of mixed frame rate content once deinterlaced. A LOT of space can be wasted trying to preserve proper frame rates with it when half the content is also 30/24fps.

If LTT can provide higher res video without needing to increase the frame rate, I'd take it. They don't make content that needs 60fps.

[spartaman64]

On 11/5/2019 at 1:44 PM, dalekphalm said:

I guess you don't watch basically any movies, then?

There have only been a handful of movies shot in higher than 24 FPS - mostly just the Hobbit trilogy in 48 FPS HFR.

 

Gemini Man (recent Will Smith movie) was shot in 120 FPS 4K HDR 3D (that was a mouthful) - and apparently no commercial Cineplex in the world has a projector to play it as intended. The best that can be done is either 4K 60 FPS or 2K 120 FPS at a few cinemas.

 

60 FPS will eventually be adopted in the cinema, but it'll be a slow transition, because filmmakers need to learn new ways of lighting and filming a set shot in 60 or 120 FPS - as to minimize or avoid the Soap Opera effect.

 

When I watched the Hobbit movies, it was certainly noticeable at first, but eventually I got used to it for each film.

 

Avatar 2 is apparently being shot in 60 FPS.

i hope thats not the last airbender avatar

[spartaman64]

6 hours ago, TomvanWijnen said:

I wonder, do you (or someone else) know why this is the case? Wouldn't smoother just always be better?

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-hobbit-causing-nausea-and-dizziness-2012-12 apparently the higher frame rate of the hobbit made some people nauseous. idk because i didnt even notice it when i watched the hobbit 

[Roswell]

On 11/5/2019 at 4:21 AM, RejZoR said:

I always look funny at people who say they hate the "soap opera" feel when watching 60fps movies. Bitch, that's how high framerate view looks like. You're just not used to it because you watch crappy 24fps or 30fps video all your miserable life. Just saying.

There hasn't been a 60Hz movie since 1983 according to Wikipedia.

 

Are you talking about putting on motion smoothing on your TV? Because, yeah, that looks awful.

[SenKa]

Personally on Youtube I can hardly tell between 30 and 60 FPS, the *horrid* compression is already enough to throw me off so the frame rate means incredibly little. Is it there? Yeah. But there are far more pressing issues for me.

[amdorintel]

1 hour ago, Vitamanic said:

according to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is supringsly wrong many times!