• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Wow, 48 fps video is much better

M

marraco

Well-Known Member
Look at this file:

http://maximum-attack.com/basement_red_fps.zip

It contains 2 videos: one filmed at 24 fps, and the other at 48 fps.

24 fps is the speed of cinema movies. 48 is future movies speed.

New movies filmed at 48 fps are The Hobbit, Prometheus, Daredevil, Fantastic Four, the Chronicle sequel, The Wolverine, the Rise of the Planet of the Apes sequel, and A Good Day to Die Hard (Die Hard 5).

Not all theaters are ready for playing movies at 48 fps, like not all can play 3D movies. I don't care much for 3D movies, (I feel that they need to fix a lot of errors like blurring and focus), but I ever dreamed of higher fps movies, because 24 fps movies look jerky to me. I thought that nobody cared, but it seems like they care, so it is happy news to me. The future is 48 fps (?why not 60 or 72?).
 
48 fps? Well how many fps does anyone need these days? 24 fps high bit-rate content already looks fantastic as it is, so it seems kinda redundant. Same thing with 3D, it was all the rage years ago and all of a sudden we're bringing it back? Big deal...

I'm still waiting for 4k and lossless (read: perfect to near perfect quality) video to hit the mainstream. Youtube already supports the former, but be prepared to suffer performance hits since it's based on Flash and/or if your computer isn't up to snuff; as for the latter, storage and processing power are constantly evolving and in the next decade or so, I could see this becoming a reality or at least an experiment. I mean, modern computers are already capable of decoding high bit-rate streams at 1080p resolution and higher, so the next step would be to introduce lossless or near-lossless content to the masses right?
 
Last edited:
Most people I know aren't even aware of fps in videos... they have no clue what it is, and how it works, and thus people settle in with "what is offered". Low framerates look jerky to me as well, but I don't really go looking into what the framerate is, except when it really, really annoys me.

Heck, my dad doesn't even get bothered if he's playing a video on his harddrive recorder through usb and it's not smooth and the sound is choppy... and there's quite a lot of people I know who don't mind it that much. They just settle with it.

As for movie theatres... why don't they up that? Well, perhaps it's because to the people in charge of money, it's all fine.. 24 fps is what people need, no one complained about 24 fps being "bad". People don't seem to notice. 24 fps is usually what you need to trick the eye to make animation seem viable, yet there are some people that need a higher framerate with that. But that's a significant minority, thus the change wont be done that fast. Besides; 3d is something you can market... it's more of an experience... a higher framerate not so much, cause most people aren't aware how it all works, and it's not a real improvement nor experience either. And for the, say... 0.1% that really want it, they're not changing hardware over it, they can settle without those people.

Why are some movies done in 48 fps? I can see how action scenes might require more fps, but dialogue and such not so much. And especially if you add in CG animation, I think 48 fps helps that department a lot more with the renders, thus stuff gets shot in 48 fps. Some production companies might convert it to 24 fps back, just for hardware reasons in cinema's and all. From what I understand 48 fps might double the data and datastream as well. Or at least increase it significantly. That might result in more hardware, more software, new codecs, stuff like that. And those are all quite expensive to get as a licensed product.

But like I said, to most people 48 fps is pretty much showing them the movie twice in half the time, lol. They wont even know they see double the amount of frames per second. I think it's a bit like high quality audio. FLAC is a rather high quality format, but how many people still use MP3? And of those, how many still settle for 192 kbps? I'm quite sure that if you make a spectral image of it you can clearly show the difference between the high quality and what's being left out in 192.. but do people care? No.. why not? Because they don't hear that (or some of them are just ignorant). People aren't aware or "needy" for that high of a quality, especially if it's something they just do "for fun". And watching movies and listening to music for example are mostly things that are done for recreational purposes... a lot of people can't or don't want to invest a lot in expensive equipment over it, just for the sake of hearing each frequency or seeing every image perfectly clear and smooth.

No, I don't agree with those people, but this also is a case of "majority rules"... and that's also why implementation of high quality sound and video isn't that much of a priority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Top Bottom