Comment on How are 144hz screen possible?
MeanEYE@lemmy.world 7 months agoThey are related. Black and white TV was fine and running at 30 frames for obvious easy timing since USA grid is 60Hz, but then introduction of color caused interference between chroma channels. So signal became backwards compatible, luminance channel was black and white while color TVs used two additional channels for color information. Whole 29.97 was a result of halving 60/1.001≈59.94. That slowing down of 0.1% was to prevent dot crawl, or chroma crawl. So all of today’s videos in 29.97, even digital ones, are in fact due to backwards compatibility with B&W TV which no longer exist and certainly pointless when it comes to digital formats.
On the other hand 24fps was just a convenience pick. It was easily divisible by 2, 3, 4, 6… and it was good enough since film stock was expensive. Europe rolled half of their power grid which was 50Hz, so 25… and movies stuck with 24 which was good enough but close enough to all the others. They still use this framerate today which is a joke considering you can get 8K video in resolution but have frame rate of a lantern show from last century.
TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 7 months ago
“But when I saw The Hobbit with 48fps it looked so cheap and fake!”
😑
MeanEYE@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Because it was fake. :) It’s much harder to hide actors inability to fight when you see things moving instead of blurry frame. Or poor animations when your eyes have time to see details. Watch a good fighting movie like Ong Bak or anything by Jackie Chen and you’ll be fine because they actually know how to fight. No faking needed.
TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Yep! Not the only issue with it, but certainly one of them.
We also have everyone associating smooth motion with soap operas because of cheap digital television cameras (IIRC).
I like higher framerates. Sweeping shots and action scenes in 24fps can be so jarring when you’re used to videogames.
kadu@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Specially using modern displays, too. I don’t particularly care about cinema, but on a modern OLED panel seeing a scene shot at 24 FPS can straight up give me a headache, the stuttering motion is so bad. I’ll take 60 FPS everyday.
Staying at 24 FPS because that’s a “cinematic experience” would be like trying to develop Grand Theft Auto 5 as a SNES game because sprites are the “videogametic experience”
can@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
it did
TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Of course it did, Weta had no lead time at all. They had years for the original LotR trilogy. They were set up for failure.
But unfortunately it ruined the industry perception of 48fps movies for years. To the point that when the new Avatar came out last year they were like "it’s 48fps but we promise we double up frames for some scenes so it’s only 24fps for those ones, don’t worry!”
can@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
I forgot about that. It’s true I didn’t notice any problems in Avatar 2.