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

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, heIly said:

soap operas are filmed at 24fps. they look the way they do due to lighting, medium filmed on, and extremely quick turnaround rate. as in, they're filmed, and edited, the very same day they're aired. 

 

so no, the "soap opera" effect isn't caused by 60fps, it's frame interpolation, to make it seem better than it really is.

 

 

 

Soap Operas since Broadcast TV was available has always been 60i, not 60p. They have ALWAYS used broadcast cameras because they used to be LIVE, it wasn't until cheap magnetic tape in the 80's came along that broadcasts could be recorded in advance. The "Soap Opera" effect is this "60fps" look, even though it was originally interlaced.

 

Film has always been 24fps.

 

TV Animation is between 8 and 24fps, but typically animated on 2's (12fps) or 3's (8fps)

 

If you take a look at old VHS/SVHS, DV/Hi8/HDV, tapes you'll see that they output 480i60 in NTSC regions, and the horizontal resolution depends on the tape and speed. Like all this stuff is horribly crappy by todays standards. But anything converted to DVD around this time also has that grungy interlaced appearance. 

[ThonyGreen]

With 10M views a day majority is from mobile devices with mobile data connection while people commute. Thats where he is coming from. This forum does not represent majority of his viewers. Only dedicated and curious visit the forum and its a fraction of his following. 
 

There is no point for 60fps review video. 
 

I love high refresh rates for content that benefits from it such as gaming.

[kv]

I prefer 60fps+. The only reason 24/30fps feels 'cinematic' is we've had over 100 years of conditioning due to a decision to save film stock. There's no practical reason for it to remain that way, after all - sports are broadcasted at high framerates and no one bats an eye on 'the soap opera-effect'.

[vorticalbox]

I download YouTube videos to watch on the bus and 60fps ones are far nicer to watch than 30fps

[TheNamelessOne]

30fps for regular videos and 60fps for video games. And if you think everything should be 60fps then you are wrong. You are just wrong. Stop trying to turn films into video games.

Honestly I use a program called 4K Video Downloader on Windows in order to download YouTube videos at 30fps. Because whenever I see youtubers and especially tech youtubers upload 60fps videos that are them standing at their desk in a chair and talking to a camera, I just want to punch them in the face for how dumb they are.

That is not content that benefits from more frames. It's a talking head. No one needs to see your mouth at a higher framerate (unless they have a mouth fetish  ).

It's idiotic. And it's worse for tech youtubers who do benchmarks because they show a static image of some numbers. How in God's name does a static image benefit from being rendered at 60fps?

[George.]

I prefer 30 fps especially on youtube since it tends to be less pixelated due to insufficient bitrate. Youtube limits the video bitrate and since 60 fps requires double the bitrate it gets all mushy when objects move a lot or the operator moves instead. Also 60 fps on videos of this sort I find only distracting since it just looks unnaturally smooth.

No point having > 29.97 unless it's sport or game footage.

[poochyena]

1 hour ago, TheNamelessOne said:

30fps for regular videos and 60fps for video games. And if you think everything should be 60fps then you are wrong. You are just wrong. Stop trying to turn films into video games.

Honestly I use a program called 4K Video Downloader on Windows in order to download YouTube videos at 30fps. Because whenever I see youtubers and especially tech youtubers upload 60fps videos that are them standing at their desk in a chair and talking to a camera, I just want to punch them in the face for how dumb they are.

That is not content that benefits from more frames. It's a talking head. No one needs to see your mouth at a higher framerate (unless they have a mouth fetish  ).

It's idiotic. And it's worse for tech youtubers who do benchmarks because they show a static image of some numbers. How in God's name does a static image benefit from being rendered at 60fps?

well... whats the harm? Gamers Nexus does feature much moving around, but when he does, its nice seeing it at 60fps. especially b-roll. Also he does show clips of video games sometimes, so it makes sense there too.

[amdorintel]

8 hours ago, ThonyGreen said:

There is no point for 60fps review video. 

if linus thinks he get get a minimum # of hits, he will do it

[vanished]

2 hours ago, poochyena said:

well... whats the harm? Gamers Nexus does feature much moving around, but when he does, its nice seeing it at 60fps. especially b-roll. Also he does show clips of video games sometimes, so it makes sense there too.

Well, to play devil's advocate, there are some downsides to 60.

 

For one, it's more data to download, and takes more processing power to render.  Some very weak devices may not even be able to display it properly.

 

Second, it means less light per frame since your exposure time is halved, and that means using either more lights, or more ISO, and in the case of the latter, that means more noise reduction and thus less sharp footage, or simply more noise.  Higher ISO also means less dynamic range which negatively impacts image quality in ways that are a bit harder to explain but definitely noticeable if you see an example.  This can be countered by using a nicer camera, but that costs money that could have been put into other things.  Speaking of Gamers Nexus, you will notice that their video quality is quite a bit poorer than LTT, and though that's most likely due to the camera, the fact they're pushing theirs to 60 fps is not helping things for the reasons I mentioned.

 

I came up with a few other reasons before too:

On 11/5/2019 at 8:53 PM, Ryan_Vickers said:

[...]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.  [...]

[TetraSky]

I don't personally care.
30fps is fine for videos of a dude talking in front of a camera.
Literally makes no sense to have 60fps everything just for "smoothness". It's ok for gaming, entirely pointless and a waste of bandwidth for most other contents.

Didn't LTT test this before? Where they literally just doubled the frames of a 30fps video to make it into a pseudo 60fps one, and somehow people in the comments were going bonkers that because it was 60fps now, it was so much better, when really, it's all just a placebo from a stupid number at the bottom of their screen.

[amdorintel]

4 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

 stupid number at the bottom of their screen.

people are addicted to games and other people are addicted to games and fps

no ones plays darts or pool or crib face to face anymore, or baseball, basketball, badminton, volleyball that is one of the main reasons for the obesity factor, but I believe the impact of the screens will affect the human eye's drastically.

i bought a VR machine, used it 3 or 4 times and now its collecting dust

[Kisai]

11 hours ago, TheNamelessOne said:

Because whenever I see youtubers and especially tech youtubers upload 60fps videos that are them standing at their desk in a chair and talking to a camera, I just want to punch them in the face for how dumb they are.

 

No. This is wrong. You upload content at the maximum capable (eg even if you play a game with a resolution of 320x240@60, you integer scale it (x9) to 2880x2160 so that it plays back on every piece of equipment between 720p and 4K with minimum loss.) Let youtube figure out what is the best way to compress it for crappier viewing experiences. People who have a 4K webcam and yell at the camera while they review products aren't producing a better view experience than LTT does with RED cameras. Yet, 4Kp60 is undeniably a better experience. Even if it comes from a crappy source like a webcam.

 

Video and Audio is all about GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out) You can never add details that were never there in the first place, but you can easily remove details after-the-fact. So hence, you upload in 4Kp60, let the viewer decide if they want to watch it at 4Kp60, 1080p60, 720p60, 480p30, or whatever. That is not a decision you should make for them.

 

There are plenty of other pieces of content out there that was originally in a much lower resolution (eg NES/SNES/MD/SMS/DOS) that were pushed through a native 60i TV or 70p (yes seventy) computer screen even though the actual motion on the screen was rarely above 8fps. That additional framerate removes the jitter and tearing.

 

When people complain about the "soap opera effect" they are explicitly talking about frame interpolation being added to content that doesn't need it, and looks especially wrong when those interpolation frames are added because it also adds several frames of latency so the audio runs out of sync. It's like adding additional P frames between I frames in an MPEG stream. It's not whole-cloth creating more Keyframes, it's adding additional delta information so that the transition between the key frames looks like a "adobe flash motion tween" rather than data that was always there. Because that data was never there. GIGO. So with film, it suddenly makes every chroma-key scene look like the actors have been cut out and glued glued to a flat background.

 

 

[AdmiralKird]

7 hours ago, Kisai said:

 

Let youtube figure out what is the best way to compress it for crappier viewing experiences...So hence, you upload in 4Kp60, let the viewer decide if they want to watch it at 4Kp60, 1080p60, 720p60, 480p30, or whatever. That is not a decision you should make for them.

 

I would agree in theory, but in practice...

1. Shooting at 60/30/24fps is going to change how you handle the shutter speed of the camera, so playing a 60fps video back at 24fps isn't going to look as good as if it was originally shot for 24fps, or it's gonna look sub-optimal for 60fps if you shot 60fps with a 24fps shutter angle.

2. But more importantly this isn't how youtube operates. I jump between youtube on many machines. Sometimes its on a 4KTV, sometimes an 4th gen i7, sometimes a late 2000's laptop. If you watch videos at 1080p on an older system, it can play great at 30fps or 24fps. I watch one video at 1080p, another at 1080p, then I run into a 1080p60 video... my performance effectively halts to... nothing. I see 1 frame every twenty seconds.

 

Youtube doesn't handle remembered settings management by performance/bitrate - it only handles remembered settings by resolution.

 

So if I set my laptop to 1080p, it won't auto downgrade me whenever I run into a 60fps video, which requires me changing the setting manually to 720p60 or 480p to get it to work - and then remember to reup it afterwards. (And youtube doesn't even have an option for 1080p30 once a video is uploaded at 60fp. It no longer exists!) This has numerous problems for:

 

* Older folk aren't going to know to set their resolution lower, and probably not some of the younger kids receiving mom and dad's hand me down hardware.

 

* Plenty of people are going to be multitasking on a laptop while listening/watching youtube on the side, and 60fps is gonna make it twice as consuming to play.

 

* You'll also run into the same problem with people having their default set to 4K24-30fps for the majority of uploaded high-end youtube content, that then can't handle 4K60fps.

 

* And then in the international markets, lots of people are going to be using older machines.

 

* Mobile data connection fluctuations are going to come into play here as well.

 

Will 60fps make videos better for a certain viewership? I mean maybe... but it's probably doing more damage at the low end and data collection should be performed to make sure 60fps uploads as default for LTT isn't done to appease the current loudest complaining voices without considering who the new complaining voices or what lost viewership might be. One might make the argument people with better hardware are more lucrative for advertisers, but I'm not sure that data is available to youtube creators in sponsorship deals. Youtube furthermore should scale settings based on remembering how a user set their laptop for equivalent bitrate rather than resolution... but they don't, and that's the environment a lot of us live in, and content creators need to be aware of it as well. (Also Luke, if you're out there, make sure this is how floatplane operates when you get there if you're not already).

 

TL;DR: 60fps videos screw up users' playback settings on youtube enormously for those not on cutting edge hardware that can't handle 4K@60fps. This is entirely youtube's fault, but creators inherit this problem and should upload accordingly for their target audience.

As for the aesthetics of 24/30/60 debate, it really doesn't matter much for LTT. It'll look good at 24-60 with marginal differences. When people complain about 60fps looking "low-budget," I don't think people are aware good shooting at 24fps is much more difficult than 60fps - you can't pan the camera as quick without getting a strobing effect - which looks awful. COUGH PAUL GREENGRASS. You have to plan your movements before you make them. In everyday lives our head and eyes don't tend to adjust smoothly and calmly unless you're... idk Margot Robbie or Harrison Ford. We jerk our heads, dart our eyes... you can't film like that at 24fps. If anything the reason default phone cameras are set at 60fps now is because the tech and storage has caught up to make it worth setting as default, as Joe and Jane's home videos are going to look noticeably better at 60 simply because they have the cinematography experience of a tadpole. If 24 or 30 frames looks nauseating it's because the filmmakers set the shutter speed too high. Take for instance, since most here have probably seen them, some of the battles in Game of Thrones. Earlier episodes like Blackwater (2.09) and Watchers on the Wall (4.09) are shot with a low shutter speed. They're beautiful, smooth, and alluring - styled yet still smoothed to life. Then you get later episodes like Battle of the Bastards (6.09) or The Long Night (8.03) where they are shot with a high shutter speed - highly stylized yet disorienting and somewhat vomit inducing. It's not just the framerate, it's how it's used.

[JZStudios]

On 11/4/2019 at 8:03 PM, Animal901 said:

Films are 24 fps. Tv broadcast at 30 frames a second. Video games are 60+ frames a second.  Stop trying to turn film and tv into video games! 

Historically TV broadcasts have been in 60. Oddly enough, specifically Mexican Telanovellas (Soap operas) all run at 1080p60 here over broadcast while the American stations are still 480 or 720. I don't watch sports to know if they broadcast in higher res at higher framerate, but I wouldn't doubt it.

 

On 11/4/2019 at 8:23 PM, Arika S said:

less bandwidth needed for 30FPS and none of LMGs content would benefit from 60FPS

I don't think that's necessarily true with YT, other than 1080p seems to default to 60 and to get 30 you have to run at a lower res. I've been watching in 480p since it uses 1/4th the data, and it's not all that bad.

[Animal901]

9 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

Historically TV broadcasts have been in 60.

 

Out of here with your junk history/science. Film is 24fps and tv started off showing film...

Here let me google that for you.....

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=tv+history&s=g

 

 

 

btw its mostly 1080p60hz now. except fox and upn/cw.  i don't know if you know about 4k yet. 

[JZStudios]

6 minutes ago, Animal901 said:

Out of here with your junk history/science. Film is 24fps and tv started off showing film...

Here let me google that for you.....

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=tv+history&s=g

Yeah, back in the 50's when Adolf made his first appearance. Interlacing and more digital mediums have been broadcasting in 60 for decades.*

*Minus the PAL region locked to 50.

[Animal901]

1 minute ago, JZStudios said:

Yeah, back in the 50's when Adolf made his first appearance. Interlacing and more digital mediums have been broadcasting in 60 for decades.

 

Not watching your halloween video.  Do you understand tv happened before hitler? Aslo hitler happened before the 50s... out of here with your trash history.

[JZStudios]

22 minutes ago, Animal901 said:

Not watching your halloween video.  Do you understand tv happened before hitler? Aslo hitler happened before the 50s... out of here with your trash history.

None of what you said is true or relevant. Aside from Hitler in the 50's. Typo.

[Animal901]

13 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

None of what you said is true or relevant. Aside from Hitler in the 50's. Typo.

You want to say that while you're the one who referenced hitler on the tv in the 50s and you want to all be Hitler insisted on 60fps. Now you want to say that was a typo...... Lmfao. Get out of here with that baloney! Be gone! Good day!!!!!!!!

[TheNamelessOne]

11 hours ago, Kisai said:

No. This is wrong. You upload content at the maximum capable (eg even if you play a game with a resolution of 320x240@60, you integer scale it (x9) to 2880x2160 so that it plays back on every piece of equipment between 720p and 4K with minimum loss.) Let youtube figure out what is the best way to compress it for crappier viewing experiences. People who have a 4K webcam and yell at the camera while they review products aren't producing a better view experience than LTT does with RED cameras. Yet, 4Kp60 is undeniably a better experience. Even if it comes from a crappy source like a webcam.

I'm sorry did you just say that crap quality video being rendered at a higher resolution 4K in this case and higher frame rate = A better experience

???

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, Animal901 said:

You want to say that while you're the one who referenced hitler on the tv in the 50s and you want to all be Hitler insisted on 60fps. Now you want to say that was a typo...... Lmfao. Get out of here with that baloney! Be gone! Good day!!!!!!!!

Let's just take a step back and relax for a moment. Give JZ the benefit of the doubt - I'm 99.9% certain he knows Hitler was in fact dead by the 50's (unless you believe the conspiracies that he faked his death and was smuggled to Argentina - in which case, it's still reasonable to assume it's still a typo and he meant the 30's).

 

As for the rest of his claims, I'm not gonna comment on that, because I'm not even sure what you two are arguing over.

15 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

None of what you said is true or relevant. Aside from Hitler in the 50's. Typo.

 

[dalekphalm]

Just now, TheNamelessOne said:

I'm sorry did you just say that crap quality video being rendered at a higher resolution 4K in this case = A better experience

???

Yeah that's a little unintuitive. If you have unlimited bitrate, sure you want to record at the maximum 4K60 and then downscale as needed - but even in that case, in the context of this discussion, 4K30 would be the better ideal.

 

Of course the proper solution would be that YouTube would downscale 60 FPS video into 30 FPS, and would give viewers the option to choose any resolution (from their standard options anyway) and you'd get the choice of either 30 or 60.

 

But since that's not an option, in my opinion it makes sense for the Creator to target their content type to maximize efficiency for all the users that may have issues playing 60 FPS (slow internet, low bandwidth caps, congestion, or even just low end hardware that struggles with 60 fps, etc) - Talking head? 30 FPS. Videogame Gameplay footage, or fast paced action (Eg: sports or a video with fast paced movement)? 60 FPS.

 

LTT does a bit of both, but the majority is talking head. They should target those videos at 30, and then whenever they do a video with gameplay footage or fast paced action, do those separately in 60.

 

In 5 years, we can return to this discussion, and maybe it'll make sense to fully switch to 60 FPS.

[Animal901]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

Let's just take a step back and relax for a moment. Give JZ the benefit of the doubt - I'm 99.9% certain he knows Hitler was in fact dead by the 50's (unless you believe the conspiracies that he faked his death and was smuggled to Argentina - in which case, it's still reasonable to assume it's still a typo and he meant the 30's).

 

As for the rest of his claims, I'm not gonna comment on that, because I'm not even sure what you two are arguing over.

 

You can't trust anything someone who tried to pass off 60fps 50s hitler would say. 

[The1Dickens]

Let's all just agree that 240fps is the optimal speed. Then, you can run it at 24, 30, 60, or 120 fps "natively".

 

But for real, though, YouTube does need a 60 or 30 button. Also an HDR/SDR button. Maybe I want to watch tree frogs in 4K60HDR one minute, and then a WAN Show at 1080p30SDR the next. Or vice versa, even. Maybe I'm feeling rebellious that morning.

[Automobili3XF]

Everything at 60 for me, it feels smooth.