I hate the wording of the headline, because it makes it sound like the consumers’ fault that the industry isn’t delivering on something they promised. It’s like marketing a fusion-powered sex robot that’s missing the power core, and turning around and saying “nobody wants fusion-powered sex robots”.
Side note, I’d like for people to stop insisting that 60fps looks “cheap”, so that we can start getting good 60fps content. Heck, at this stage I’d be willing to compromise at 48fps if it gets more directors on board. We’ve got the camera sensor technology in 2025 for this to work in the same lighting that we used to need for 24fps, so that excuse has flown.
The only complaints I’ve ever heard about 60fps are from gamers who prefer higher refresh rates. Does anyone advocate for framerates to be lower than 60??
Well, that is possible. But it doesn’t change the result. When I watch something with higher fps, I suddenly see all the film work. The way the scene is lit artificially, the way the set pieces were placed, the way the actors were directed to first look here and then turn there… It’s like looking at a magician show and seeing and understanding all the tricks he’s doing. It is interesting in some way, but not for long if you’re not into the technical side. You can’t see the intended result - the magic.
Yeah, also as I alluded to earlier if you shoot at 60fps you get a shorter max exposure time per frame, which can translate to needing more light, which in turn leads to the studio lighting soap opera feel. But that was more of a limitation 15 years ago than it is now.
I hate the wording of the headline, because it makes it sound like the consumers’ fault that the industry isn’t delivering on something they promised. It’s like marketing a fusion-powered sex robot that’s missing the power core, and turning around and saying “nobody wants fusion-powered sex robots”.
Side note, I’d like for people to stop insisting that 60fps looks “cheap”, so that we can start getting good 60fps content. Heck, at this stage I’d be willing to compromise at 48fps if it gets more directors on board. We’ve got the camera sensor technology in 2025 for this to work in the same lighting that we used to need for 24fps, so that excuse has flown.
The only complaints I’ve ever heard about 60fps are from gamers who prefer higher refresh rates. Does anyone advocate for framerates to be lower than 60??
Yes, movie people complain that more than 24 fps looks like soap operas (because digital TV studio cameras moved to 60 fps first).
Yeah, I love when the camera pans slowly and everything is a blurry mess. Pure cinematic excellence.
I do prefer it, no /s
Thing is, I suspect you’ve been conditioned to it, rather than it being inherently good.
Well, that is possible. But it doesn’t change the result. When I watch something with higher fps, I suddenly see all the film work. The way the scene is lit artificially, the way the set pieces were placed, the way the actors were directed to first look here and then turn there… It’s like looking at a magician show and seeing and understanding all the tricks he’s doing. It is interesting in some way, but not for long if you’re not into the technical side. You can’t see the intended result - the magic.
So let’s force them to up their game. Don’t let them get away with half-assed lighting or shit acting just because it worked in 24fps.
Yeah, also as I alluded to earlier if you shoot at 60fps you get a shorter max exposure time per frame, which can translate to needing more light, which in turn leads to the studio lighting soap opera feel. But that was more of a limitation 15 years ago than it is now.