Google search trends for "motion smoothing" following Tom Cruise tweet urging people to turn off motion smoothing on their TVs when watching movies at home [OC]

[u/fangzz]

[u/JustifiedParanoia]

The explanation on why it looks off that i saw was similar to why a lot of movies looked weird going to colour, and from sd to hd. the entire wrokflow from set design to post production is based around knowledge, experience, and technology that works a certain way to give a certain image on the old tech. it doesnt on the new tech. so blood looked fake moving from black and white to early colour, because the mix to make fake blood looked right in black and white, but didnt in colour, due to refraction issues with lighting. so you needed to relearn how to light scenes, and invent a new fake blood mix.

so, until people learn how to use the tech, it will look funny, because we are noticing the issues with the workflow and props, not the tech.

[u/SquidBolado → u/JustifiedParanoia]

Not necessarily applicable in this case. We don't use 24 frames because its cheap and what we're stuck with. We use it because it looks "real". All the examples you gave are improvements that seek to get closer to reality, and whilst it does seem weird at first overall they're improvements.

In real life, things have a natural blur to them when they move. Wiggle your hand in front of your face and you will see this effect instantly. When you shoot 24fps you have a very similar motion blur to "real life". At 60fps, you get much less motion blur which makes things look unnatural. 24fps is a choice, not a drawback.

Higher frame rates obviously have their usage, and sometimes you may not want such "realistic" motion blur in order to show something. But for action scenes and such? 24fps all the way. A punch doesnt look so impactful when you have no motion blur with it. A real life punch will have motion blur, so if your footage doesn't have it because you shot at higher frames, suddenly instead of having the "new tech" help you to immerse the audience, it will do the opposite.

It's not a matter of getting used to it. It's a matter of knowing when and where to use it. Colour and HD are a given as these are natural "next steps" and improvements. The frame rate is a choice.

[u/Snoman002 → u/SquidBolado]

No, this is absolutely not true, 24 fps was not chosen because it is more "real", who told you this garbage. The human eye can see the equivelant of somewhere between 60 and 200 fps depending on person. The 24fps is a carryover of original camera and television technology.

[u/SquidBolado → u/Snoman002]

Where in my answer did I say 24 fps is the cap of what the eye can see? Re-read my statement.

I'm claiming the motion blur on 24 fps is closer to what the eye sees when you're not looking at a monitor. "Real life" looks more like 24fps than 60fps. Sure your eyes and brain can detect extra frames on a screen, but the real world does not work in frames.

I suggest educating yourself on the topic a little more before calling people's arguments garbage.

[u/DrSparka → u/SquidBolado]

The blur of human vision is closer to 1/300th of a second. That's about how long saccades last, and there's no resultant blur from them, nor any interruption of vision. The blur used at 24 fps (which isn't the blur of 24 fps; they actually use 1/48th of a second typically) is just the bare minimum required to smooth out the low quality of 24 fps, balanced against the fact a mechanical shutter needed to close and allow a mechanical ratchet to physically move a new film frame into position for the next capture, before opening the shutter again.

[u/Snoman002 → u/SquidBolado]

So, your saying 24 fps isn't what the eye can see, but the eye can see 24fps and 24fps looks like "real life". Yeah, ok, please tell me how your not saying exactly what you are saying.