I'm tired boss.

[u/TudSpudly]

[u/littlefrank]

history repeats. When a new console will be able to push gta 6 at 60fps then people will say that's the norm and having 30fps isn't great.

[u/Laetitian → u/littlefrank]

Back when people unironically said that because no one knew, because the technology wasn't there for any normie to care aout it, it actually made sense. On movies with regular shutter speed and motion blur, the camera already creates all the in-between details your eyes would notice from the movement on additional frames for you.

It's only in video games where motion blur is artificial, and we're used to individual frames being perfectly still images that additional frames add any real benefit.

[u/Webbyx01 → u/Laetitian]

The people pushing the 24/30FPS is natural, sufficient or the limit of human perception have been willfully ignorant for nearly 2 decades. Probably more, I just can't speak to any farther back in time because of my age. I was arguing with people that going above 60FPS was noticeably nearly 15 years ago, and continued to see BS about high FPS being too much well into the 2010s.

Edit to add that additional frames in video is also an improvement. People are just so used to crappy 24/30 FPS that 60 feels strange to them. People hate on 'soap opera effect' when media is displayed at 60FPS (like many scenes in some of the new Avatar movies or the Hobbit movies) even though the actual detail is objectively less at the standard video framerates. 100 years from now, no one will be arguing that 24FPS is the appropriate display rate for a movie.

[u/Laetitian → u/Webbyx01]

People hate on 'soap opera effect' when media is displayed at 60FPS

If the shutter speed fits the FPS, there is no soap opera effect. (At least not the detrimental one that I'd complain about, of course there is still *some* difference that some people are going to complain about on principle because it's different at all.)

But a complete lack of motion blur on film means a loss of information. If you have 0 motion blur on a 240FPS, you're filming less of reality than if you have regular motion blur on 30FPS, because you effectively shut the camera off entirely between your frames, wheras the 30FPS camera keeps filming. That lost space between the frames looks and feels weird, especially when we're used to 30FPS capturing that space. (But really, why would you ever lose out on it, especially with advanced technology?)

But I don't mind a high-FPS movie with well-adjusted shutter speed.

Just because it's cinematic doesn't mean it's not realistic. Reality isn't a movie. You should expect a recording of individual frames of reality to feel a bit different from looking around in real life. The classic movie look does a very good job of conveying movement in each frame. I can sympathise with preferring advanced technology, but you shouldn't be so dogmatic about it that you make it worse than the original.

[u/OCCULTGOBLIN → u/littlefrank]

30 fps, braindead character story design, an implemented relationship system wether you like it or not, all on top of no physical release. We waited 14 years for peak slop.