I’m the opposite. I take videos with 24fps, the standard for film. Lower frame rate gives me that film-like look which suggests sophistication, but 60fps feels like unedited screen grab or raw footage from a camcorder. I can’t explain it: it could be a case of acquired taste.
Movies are made by professional videographers that take care to limit the downsides of low fps, such as stuttering (still, sometimes movies will pan too fast and the stuttering makes it painful for me to watch). YouTube is very different, there are lots of amateurs and many of the videos don't need to make people feel like it's a movie. It doesn't seem the soap opera effect really applies when it's just a guy showing…
Right. And if a person knows they are shooting at 24fps they will take greater care to ensure they won’t pan too quickly. Panning too quickly is just bad video, whichever fps you choose.
> HFR stands for "High Framerate", which means up to 60 FPS, whereas non-HFR is limited to 30 FPS Personally I find most ((almost?) all?) >30fps generally unnecessary and just chews through bandwidth, monthly (mobile) data caps, and processing/batteries. Are there specific cases where "HFR" videos are really improving the viewing experience of particular (types of) content? (Note: in the table it's about support for…
I'll take 60 over 30 any day of the week, assuming the original was mastered that way (interpolation is fake and bad). Even for just talking head videos, 60 looks better to my eyes. The lower frame rate of films and most other content looking better seems to be nothing but a (sub)conscious 'that's the way it should look' attitude to me.
I'd personally rather watch 480p60 than 1080p30. There's a lot of material in which spatial resolution is mostly irrelevant (e.g. presentations, which involve people talking and slides designed to be legible from a distance), but low framerate always looks unnatural and distracting, even after speeding it up by 1.75x or 2x. 60fps should be considered a bare minimum, not "high framerate".
I’m the opposite. I take videos with 24fps, the standard for film. Lower frame rate gives me that film-like look which suggests sophistication, but 60fps feels like unedited screen grab or raw footage from a camcorder. I can’t explain it: it could be a case of acquired taste.
yeah
strangely 50-60fps feels "unnatural" In a way? like uncanny valley sometimes?
I think many people would consider 60fps to be a minimum and 30fps to be almost disorienting, even for casual games. Gamers often go for 120-240Hz monitors even.
40 fps could be a much more workable minimum, it looks quite smooth, wish it was more commonplace of a target instead of 30.
40fps is probably 30fps with poor frame pacing. Most displays are 60Hz so there’s no benefit to being any non fraction of that, and you are likely to have issues with pacing if you are at a non standard frame rate.
> HFR stands for "High Framerate", which means up to 60 FPS, whereas non-HFR is limited to 30 FPS Personally I find most ((almost?) all?) >30fps generally unnecessary and just chews through bandwidth, monthly (mobile) data caps, and processing/batteries. Are there specific cases where "HFR" videos are really improving the viewing experience of particular (types of) content? (Note: in the table it's about support for…
Sports is a good use of HFR. Sadly, when HD broadcast came out, most broadcasters choose 1080i59.4 to remain compatible with the interlaced HD CRTs that were around. One of them chose 720p60 for sports. As cool as HD was, it still had interlacing as a boat anchor chained to it. 4K finally saw the elimination of interlacing, but that's veering way off topic. For talking head/creator type of stuff, 24fps is probably wa…
12/15 fps is actually insane, thankfully nobody saying that is gonna be in a position to make those kinds of decisions. (and there are some things that do stream in 15 fps, like 1seg ... which broadcasts tv on a mobile phone screen, and not a smartphone, a tinier flip phone, like 3-4 inches. and it's really more of a technical limitation for a technology and phones from 20 years ago. and youtube can serve 12 fps ...at 144p.) Even for literally just watching someone sit and move lips, 24/30 is gonna look much more natural and believable, and not be jarring unlike going down to that low fps. Like, have you actually watched any 12/15 fps footage of people talking recently? Cause it's not gonna be giving what you think it's giving. It's not gonna look "fine" even at crystal clear 1080, making it feel like a shitty zoom call that might as well be in 240p. Unfortunately there is a reason why it's not a cool and totally useable life hack to just crank it down to 12, because it just looks bad. Some people in these comments really seem to be just saying things before they even try and see them with their own eyes.
12/15fps is way too low even for talking heads. 20fps would be the minimum for me, and 24fps fits better with the standards (30fps fits better with most displays).
yeah, it was more of a way of showing my disdain for said content and wasting of electrons pushing bandwidth
There's this thing called video compression, and it's gonna work pretty well for something that's mostly a still image with just a mouth moving. If anything, it'll compress that kind of thing the best compared to other kinds of content, like sports or games. Like, gameplay recordings are probably the worst type of content in that regard, needing the most bitrate and bandwidth to reach any kind of fidelity, and always looking bitrate starved with h264 (and likely even with newer codecs if it's at lower streaming bitrates). And due to how video compression works, lowering fps is not actually gonna yield any substantial space savings for talking head type of videos, if all that's gonna do is just cutting off inter frames that are already gonna be pretty small. It's quite literally the case with the least amount of any possible benefit from doing that.
Sports is a good use of HFR. Sadly, when HD broadcast came out, most broadcasters choose 1080i59.4 to remain compatible with the interlaced HD CRTs that were around. One of them chose 720p60 for sports. As cool as HD was, it still had interlacing as a boat anchor chained to it. 4K finally saw the elimination of interlacing, but that's veering way off topic. For talking head/creator type of stuff, 24fps is probably wa…
12/15 fps is actually insane, thankfully nobody saying that is gonna be in a position to make those kinds of decisions. (and there are some things that do stream in 15 fps, like 1seg ... which broadcasts tv on a mobile phone screen, and not a smartphone, a tinier flip phone, like 3-4 inches. and it's really more of a technical limitation for a technology and phones from 20 years ago. and youtube can serve 12 fps ...a…
> HFR stands for "High Framerate", which means up to 60 FPS, whereas non-HFR is limited to 30 FPS Personally I find most ((almost?) all?) >30fps generally unnecessary and just chews through bandwidth, monthly (mobile) data caps, and processing/batteries. Are there specific cases where "HFR" videos are really improving the viewing experience of particular (types of) content? (Note: in the table it's about support for…
Gaming footage/videos, some games are so fast they are noticeably better to play at (and watch at) 60fps over 30fps.
Playing at low framrates is a lot worse than just watching though.
Improve software? It's job is to serve video editors, not the other way around. And it's a fun task, I bet there might be a dev or two who's working on that right now. And if someone is ready to pay for them, even better.
There is absolutely no reason for any sane video editing software to be able to read VFR files. It should, however, reject them gracefully but positively.
40 fps could be a much more workable minimum, it looks quite smooth, wish it was more commonplace of a target instead of 30.
40fps is probably 30fps with poor frame pacing. Most displays are 60Hz so there’s no benefit to being any non fraction of that, and you are likely to have issues with pacing if you are at a non standard frame rate.
> Most displays are 60Hz
This was true even a couple years ago, but these days, most mid-range and above TVs [0], phones [1], and monitors [2] support 120Hz, which is a nice integer multiple of 40Hz. But lots of these devices default to 60Hz (or slower), so you can't really rely on most people having this enabled.