Why don't they use 60 fps for movies?

wfbberzerker

Lifer
Apr 12, 2001
10,423
0
0
movies already use huge amounts film for just 24fps. not only would doing 60fps use almost 3 times as much film, it would be much more expensive, with only a negligible increase in film quality.
 

godmare

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2002
5,121
0
0
Originally posted by: wfbberzerker
movies already use huge amounts film for just 24fps. not only would doing 60fps use almost 3 times as much film, it would be much more expensive, with only a negligible increase in film quality.

Exactly.
Do you want to pay $25 to see a movie?

 

Walleye

Banned
Dec 1, 2002
7,939
0
0
Originally posted by: BCskunk
Originally posted by: Angrymarshmello
I thought the human eye can only discern 40fps and less - everything above is a waste.

i thought it was 60fps

depending on the medium, it is between 70 fps and 24 fps. when you're referring to CRT monitors, it's 70 fps. but in case of tv's, theaters, and things like that, it's 24 fps. it's the difference in how the image gets to your eye. the monitor needs higher frame rates, and tv's dont.


ask someone else, im sure they'll give you a more technical explanation. this is all i remember from another discussion on much the same topic. at least the same things were discussed.
 

thomsbrain

Lifer
Dec 4, 2001
18,148
1
0
film already has motion blur, which is why it already looks plenty smooth. actually, i can tell the difference between film and video just by the frame rate, but for some reason i actually prefer the slower look of film... video games need 60+ FPS to look smooth because there is no motion blur.