24 fps vs ??

[belie]

Remember how they did the video on shot in 4k and downscaled to 1080p vs the shot in 1080p. Can we get another video showing shot in 48 fps downscaled to 24 fps, and shot in 24 fps? Maybe even higher? say 60 fps? Perhaps a video showing a difference in visuals for 24, 48 and 60 fps?

[Mihle]

Should not be any difference.

[The Belgian Waffle]

I don't think there will be a difference. 

[belie]

Isn't that what people said when they asked if there would be a difference between 4k to 1080p and 1080p?

[AlTech]

On ‎10‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 4:21 AM, belie said:

Isn't that what people said when they asked if there would be a difference between 4k to 1080p and 1080p?

No. There's a difference. From 4K to 1080p is downsampling. It's lowering the resolution whilst having better image quality than regular 1080p.

[Dash Lambda]

On 10/22/2016 at 4:21 PM, belie said:

Isn't that what people said when they asked if there would be a difference between 4k to 1080p and 1080p?

Resolution affects the amount of information in the image, so rendering at a higher resolution means there's more detail, even if you reduce it to a lower resolution afterward. It's the inverse of how an image rendered at 4k looks better than a 4k image that was rendered at 1080p.

 

Framerate doesn't affect the amount of information in the image, just how smooth the movement is. Something captured at 24fps will look the same as something captured at 48fps if both are played back at 24fps.

 

Though, there are two things that could possibly change...

1: Motion blur can vary, but it's dependent on way more than framerate. 

2: Higher framerates can reduce brightness, but that's only meaningful on ludicrous high-speed cameras.

[belie]

6 hours ago, Dash Lambda said:

Resolution affects the amount of information in the image, so rendering at a higher resolution means there's more detail, even if you reduce it to a lower resolution afterward. It's the inverse of how an image rendered at 4k looks better than a 4k image that was rendered at 1080p.

 

Framerate doesn't affect the amount of information in the image, just how smooth the movement is. Something captured at 24fps will look the same as something captured at 48fps if both are played back at 24fps.

 

Though, there are two things that could possibly change...

1: Motion blur can vary, but it's dependent on way more than framerate. 

2: Higher framerates can reduce brightness, but that's only meaningful on ludicrous high-speed cameras.

 

That's what I want to see. I want to see the difference in the motion blur. I feel like after watching The Hobbit in higher fps, made it more interesting and pulled me into the scene, rather than watching it in 24 fps which made the SFX more visible. I'm going to get hated for this comment, because I'm pretty sure only 5% of the people actually like the movie in a higher fps. Just like most action movies using 24 fps, makes the scenes feel blurry as hell, but when you watch the deadpool trailer in 60 FPS, it looks amazing.

[Dash Lambda]

3 minutes ago, belie said:

That's what I want to see. I want to see the difference in the motion blur. I feel like after watching The Hobbit in higher FPS, made it more interesting and pulled me into the scene, rather than watching it in 24 fps which made the SFX more visible. I'm going to get hated for this comment, because I'm pretty sure only 5% of the people actually like the movie in a higher FPS. Just like most action movies using 24 FPS, makes the scenes feel blurry as hell, but when you watch the Deadpool trailer in 60 FPS, it looks amazing.

God it's refreshing to hear someone say 60 FPS is better for movies... I don't understand how people can prefer lower framerates.

 

Motion blur is mostly affected by exposure time, though, which is only loosely related to framerate. You can have a camera shooting at 24 FPS using the same exposure time as a camera shooting at 48 FPS, meaning they'll both look the same when played back at 24 FPS.

 

Now, what actually matters is in playback. "Downscaling" 48 FPS to 24 FPS does nothing, but playing it back at 48 FPS makes it look a lot smoother than 24 FPS. That's not something that would make a good video, though. The sponsor spots would take longer than the content.

[belie]

1 minute ago, Dash Lambda said:

God it's refreshing to hear someone say 60 FPS is better for movies... I don't understand how people can prefer lower framerates.

 

Motion blur is mostly affected by exposure time, though, which is only loosely related to framerate. You can have a camera shooting at 24 FPS using the same exposure time as a camera shooting at 48 FPS, meaning they'll both look the same when played back at 24 FPS.

 

Now, what actually matters is in playback. "Downscaling" 48 FPS to 24 FPS does nothing, but playing it back at 48 FPS makes it look a lot smoother than 24 FPS. That's not something that would make a good video, though. The sponsor spots would take longer than the content.

 

True. I highly doubt we will see 48-60 fps in the next 2 years at home. They will save that for movie theaters to get some customers back. Blu-ray isn't big enough for 48 FPS movies. They will either have to find a new format or move into streaming or downloading legally. Even the 4k UHD movies are going to start hitting a cap, since Comcast put up the 1 tb bandwidth limit once again. I get headaches and blurry vision after