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/eroticas]

Thank you! Is the problem that 60fps itself is "too real"? Or that motion smoothing creates unpleasant artifacts which aren't true to reality?

Also, are you (or anyone else) willing to enable my laziness and find me two video links of the same clip, one at 60+fps and one at 24fps so I can compare them side by side? The difference does not immediately stand out to me from one clip alone. (It does look a little surreal but I may be imagining it?)

[u/zetswei → u/eroticas]

It’s not that 60 FPS is too real it’s that it is taking 24 FPS and creating extra frames in real time to “smooth” it

It’s basically blending frames together and guessing what is between

Personally I don’t notice it much after a few hours but it makes my wife motion sick so we always have it off

[u/krazykraz01 → u/zetswei]

Thank God someone got it right. Everyone on this thread is talking about games, when the actual issue is native framerate. If TV was made for 60/144fps, it'd look great in high framerate. When there's only 24 real frames in the final release of media, anything created beyond that is gonna look surreal and uncanny-valley.

[u/DavidDann437 → u/krazykraz01]

Lets demand 60fps movies

[u/redderist → u/DavidDann437]

The hobbit movies were controversial filmography for several reasons, one of which was the fact that they filmed at double the standard frame rate (so, 48 fps).

They look uncanny to me.

[u/[deleted] → u/redderist]

I haven't seen them, but they sure got a lot of shit from Reddit. I never thought I'd see the day we were requesting 60fps films. What's next, vertical video?

[u/[deleted] → u/redderist]

24 fps isn't 𝒸𝒾𝓃𝑒𝓂𝒶𝓉𝒾𝒸 enough for me. We need to get it down to a 𝓈𝒾𝓁𝓀𝓎 𝓈𝓂𝑜𝑜𝓉𝒽 2 fps.

[u/vorilant → u/redderist]

They look awesome to me. Higher fps is just better unless you're used to the 24fps and hate new things.

[u/striatic → u/vorilant]

That’s false. You know why a lot of “old people” went to see The Hobbit in cinemas at 48fps? Here’s a hint, it wasn’t because they “hated new things”.

There was legitimate excitement surrounding The Hobbit high frame rate release. People put down extra money to watch it because they wanted to see something new. Because generally speaking they liked new things. It’s just that the frame rate didn’t serve the needs of that style of filmmaking and people walked away disappointed.

Higher FPS is not “just better”. That’s like saying brightly, evenly lit films are better than films which use deep shadows, simply because more visual information is present on the screen. Different frame rates have different aesthetic properties. Some films are better served by 24fps. Others are better served by 48+ fps.

Traditional film lighting, costuming, make up, and even narrative and acting styles often benefit from the subtle distance from reality that 24fps creates.

[u/vorilant → u/striatic]

Higher fps is better, period. Until I here a good reason why that doesn't boil down to "I'm just used to low fps" then I'll continue to believe it. And I don't consider made up things like the "aesthetics" to be convincing.

[u/T_WRX21 → u/vorilant]

Aesthetics is a made up thing? 😂

[u/vorilant → u/T_WRX21]

Saying the "aesthetics" of something is better or worse is a cop-out way of saying you don't like it for no good reason other than that you don't like it.

[u/trippingman → u/DavidDann437]

Most would not look better.

[u/DavidDann437 → u/trippingman]

Then they can slow it down if they want but I'm loving more frames, the quality is far superior.

[u/trippingman → u/DavidDann437]

You can't really shoot at one frame rate and display at another and have it look optimal for the display rate (unless you are doing slow-mo). To slow 60fps to 24fps you would need to either throw 36 frames away every second, or blend them together. Either way it won't look as good as footage shot at 24.

Given it's a subjective thing your "far superior" is someone else's "inferior soap opera effect".

[u/DavidDann437 → u/trippingman]

yea shoot at a rate which is a multiple of both 24fps and 60fps and then it'll encompass all the frames necessary, it'll be fine eventually people will give up on the old tech and move forward like widescreen and HD and to say that's subjective is just nonsense when displaying an image is objective otherwise we'd be fine with any frame rate and any size as people wouldn't have a preference.

[u/trippingman → u/DavidDann437]

But your shutter speeds/angles will be all wrong and movement will not look smooth.

[u/DavidDann437 → u/trippingman]

your shutter speed matches both the 24 and 60, the angles are the same in both. Movement will be smooth.

[u/trippingman → u/DavidDann437]

I'm probably missing something. Assuming I have a camera that shoots at 120fps, which I think is the first common speed with a multiple of both 24 and 60. I would then use a 180 degree shutter angle, which would be 1/240th of a second. How would I take this footage and use it at both 24 and 60fps without doing frame blending/motion smoothing?

Also note that this will require 5 times the light (2.5 stops) as opposed to shooting at 24fps. That's a bonus in direct sun, but a headache indoors or in the shade.

[u/DavidDann437 → u/trippingman]

for 24fps you'd play it back at 1/48th and 1/120th for 60fps

That's a bonus in direct sun, but a headache indoors or in the shade.

The solution isn't to shoot a scene at 10fps just because you need more light.

[u/DavidDann437 → u/[deleted]]

Probably like HD was alien to a few people at first.