I don't really see the difference, do you?

I don’t see a difference between the two...

Is that legal?

@@winterwolf7175 we will make it legal.

@@MaxwellAerialPhotography take a seat

Winter Wolf Forgive me Master.

It is

It is

It is

It does

It is

Year's of being subjected to 24 frames per second conditions the mind on what to expect. Things like motion blur for example is massively reduced, removing that Cinematic look. It's silky smooth, but all those extra frames drastically alters the information captured... The best way to see this is to scroll to points where an object is moving fast, relative to the camera and pausing the video. The objects being tracked by the camera won't change much, but the motion blur of what the objects are passing by will different in 60fps than 24fps. This is why certain shots look wrong. The blur effect is lessened that we are accustomed to.

@Cosmic Ascendancy the 60fps feels as if its moving at slight faster rate.

That's exactly how my dad feels. He likes it when it's in a scene like this, but when it's some thing like a lightsaber fight, or the news, he doesn't like feeling like he's right there in the room it's happening in. He doesn't want to feel like he's in the movie scene, otherwise he doesn't feel like he's watching something.

This is just garbage interpolation with all the original post-process for CGI like blur and stuff linked to 24fps. Watch frame by frame and they will look like ass. Proper 60fps looks good to me, but it ain't this. Same reason why TV motion interpolation looks wrong on 30 fps console games, so much so when they can't lock the framerate. If the comparison isn't between two proper 30 (24) and 60 (48, or heck, 120) fps streams then what are we talking about anyway?

yeah, sometimes 60fps to me feels like someone recorded the footage in slow motion first and then sped it up, it's weird

I think that's ep 5, but that's me

nah ep 8 is the best (im obviously joking)

@@crook7493 no, your right

...best?

Christopher Bolanos i rewatched it last week, it grew on me

🧢

You are just used to games being played at 60fps thats why it feels like that. I would prefer movies in 60fps

Right looks like the old republic cinematic

i thought about that too :D

Well if the video game looks better than a movie, I will gladly take video game.

@@venturoes1912 it doesn't look better

@@ALeo98 How? Left literally looks soo choppy

Stutter?

I was gonna say that myself. Higher frames definitely seem to make CGI things look better and more realistic.

@@jacktheflash8478 *STANLEY HUDSON HAS ENTERED THE CHAT*

yooo gottahaha okay?

@@jacktheflash8478 it's a reference to Stanley Hudson in the office. and his famous "did I stutter?"

Nah, it's smoother IRL

As an owner of a 240hz monitor, I can tell you to come even close to real life you would need atleast 480hz and also the current standard for VR is 90hz, because people tend to get headaches bellow it

palpatine like unnatural

That way of thinking is old fashioned and should be wrong. All movies and TV shows should have varying standards of frame rate depending on the genre: Sci-Fi or Fantasy like Star Wars should always be kept in 60FPS because almost everything on screen is 100% CGI. And as we all know, space battles with lasers and star destroyer's are not real and are thus not immersive the second we see them. Reality movies and TV shows such as ones set forth on a suburban street on Earth might do better in presentation in 24FPS because it's already realistic enough anyway.

NotLessOrEqual what are you going on about?

I agree, because the original 24 fps footage was re-edited to be 60 fps, they actually both looked the same to me. Normally, I can see a difference, especially if it is originally a 60fps footage edited to only show 24 fps.

Example at 0:58 the explosion effect on the right is much smoother than the original one on the left. All cinema films use a 30 frame-per-second filming standard to give the 'cinametic look' as seen on the left, whilst an image modification on the right doubles the amount of frame, making it appear slightly more realistic and immersive.

You need to watch above 720p to see 60fps content.

If this entire movie was rendered in 60fps, it would've been more visually dynamic.

Best way to spot the difference is to pause when an object is moving quickly past the camera... But that said, was this footage upscaled? Smooth linear motion blur seems fractured, as if the shot was composited a few pixels to far in one direction. And When I paused Obi-Wan's fly by as he tried to escape a missile, you can see the artefacting of the blur of his ship.

James Roberts try upping KZfaq’s automatic resolution mine was auto 480p so I had to turn it up to 1080p@60

The whole "cinematic view" argument is just simply bullshit.

@Daddy Max You're right. I want my movies to be choppy and headache inducing.

Borkborknomnom 9000 have you ever watched a movie?

@@jacktheflash8478 3 months and still no answer, a real shame...

TheAnimationStation / Aurora well they don’t have to reply

Stratowind he mostly means ep 3, but he’s got a point though, you’re saying they are overall better, which could be true, but the sequels really lack! When people say they’re not to appealing to the fans anymore, theyre right! There’s no big goosebump scenes like this in their movies as well as the creativity George Lucas put into making a universe that could stand on its own two feet, and a kickass finale like ep. 3 to thrust us into the junky FUTURE that is somehow more junky then here in the clone wars! Like you said, they’re “overall” but they’re not appealing to fans and so we don’t get goosebumps and get HARD for a universe like this that turns us on, instead of Disney trying to appeal to new people with disacknowledgement of this prequel magic and callbacks to what we want to see. We get star wars in a universe that’s like ours with parking and casinos just like us and capitalism hate just like us and fuck I come to Star Wars for action and fun and fan service and PASSION! There’s no passion in what Disney’s doing, force awakens was an ok start but the Last Jedi is painting the picture for an uninteresting future as if were never going to see the charm of the prequels ever again. Like you say, they are on a technical “better” but they don’t have charm, and they never will at this point. Let’s have a debate.

@Stratowind I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Agree Branden. Sequels suck ass. It's funny because a lot of people who hate the prequels are the ones who complained about the amount of CGI used. Little do they know the Sequels did the exact same thing. On top of that they throw SJW feminist propaganda in your face and Kathleen basically said "Star Wars doesn't need more men". I can make a damn bucket list on why the Prequels are better then the Sequels but it would be to easy. The only issue I have with the prequels is probably the corny dialogue and Jar Jar. But then again the Originals had Ewoks lol. The music, lighsaber fights and the ties to the originals is what makes the Prequels vastly superior over the Sequels. In fact I do not own any of those movies and I refuse to see Last Jedi. They're either a rip off of Episode IV or it's utterly atrocious to watch. I've watched the prequels over and over again and I do in fact prefer the originals but Episode III is my favorite among the prequels. Though I did enjoy the Obi-Wan/Maul fight in Ep I and I always like Jango Fett and the introduction of the Clone army in Episode II as well as the battle in the Jedi Arena. But my favorite lightsaber fight is between Yoda and Emperor Palpatine. It was epic. Emperor Palpatine is my favorite villain in the Prequels. Ian's acting is the best. His role in the prequels was very good. And unlike Snoke, Emperor Palpatine has a backstory that ties itself to the originals not a charactor made up on the fly lol So yes I agree Prequels > Sequels.

@Stratowind I'd take Episode II over Episode VIII everyday and the Maul fight in Episode I makes for a better experience then Episode VII especially since that's a copy of episode IV quite literally. I will grant you the pacing in the first two prequels were a bit meh and almost a snooze especially the whole political scenes in the senate which was totally unnecessary. But no doubt Episode III got right back to the root of what Star Wars meant for all of us and actually felt like close to the Original Trilogy. But I prefer the charactors and the actors, music, fights, space battles and wars in the prequels. Something I just do not see the Sequels ever matching.

Prequels had a lot of flaws but they were passion projects with the best music, art direction & worldbuilding in the history of cinema. The Sequels are just a soulless cash grab.

La vitesse pour tous les films est 24fps

I set Optical Flow to 60FPS on Adobe Premiere Pro before I exported it and got this result.

@@SHADOWSTORM59 The description says the FPS is a comparison between 30 and 60fps. Do you mean you think the footage was up-scaled from 24fps to 30fps before going to 60?

@@mar-uv1ri This fixed mine. Thanks

@@mar-uv1ri 1440p 60 HD on a Macbook pro. I want to see a difference, but honestly they booth look identical. Even pausing on a motion-blurred frame like 1:43. Are my eyes broken?

@@mar-uv1ri Yea, I tried covering one side for like a minute, then I rewound a minute and watched the same footage on the other side of the screen... I think my eyes just see in 24fps hahaha

Normal looks smooth to me, 60 fps isn't noticeable different

Yeah, I see no difference between them.

There's actually something wrong if you can't see a difference.

I always did, it was hilarious when you realize that 99% of the Confederate ships were piloted by droids in a sector of space crowded by like 10,00 other war ships. Things like these are inevitable.

Where did that happen?

*fluid 'Fluent' means 'able to express oneself easily and articulately.'

I had to run it through Adobe Premiere Pro then set Time/Frame Interpolation to '60' (i.e 60 frames)

Unfortunately there isn't yet, but it is possible to make a 60FPS film version of this. I got the entire digital copy on MP4 then put it through Adobe Premiere with Optical Flow frame sampling to boost frame rate. It is possible to convert the entire film to 60FPS but it would be a really big file since double the frame rate means double the file size

If that were the case, then can't the file size be somehow compressed or simplified?

@@luckypaperclip Yeah I'm sure you could do that. Its unfortunate that the publishers didn't release a 60FPS version.

With this: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mMh7rct7y6yoZJs.html

Its the cinema purist boomers, that dont like change and call high framerate cheap and stuff

But basically 99% of this scene is already CGI so in essence it's really no different than a video-game rendered world anyway, but only in crappier 24 FPS instead of the industry standard 60

Try SVP, it renders it in real time.

This entire film sequence is almost 100% CGI so in essence it already resembles a video game rendered world anyway. The 60FPS change makes the film appear as it is now happening in real-time as you watch it and immerses you into the universe as if it is a real one even though we know it isn't. 60FPS works for some movies but maybe not for others. We might not ever know this since no Triple A film in recent time uses the 60FPS standard.

It's not actually 60fps. My guess he used a program for this.

chan kinhoi You need at least 720p for it to play in 60 FPS. Difference is very noticeable when the camera is panning around.

@@user-th3tj1zn5u Maybe my eyes are breaking. My macbook Pro is running the youtube video at "1440P 60HD" I seriously can't tell the difference, even in a blurry camera pan such as at 1:43 when the two background ships are suffering from motion blur.

BlueShit199 That’s the point Sargent

@@jorkkeker8097 my point is that I never noticed that it is so until it was put next to 60 fps footage

Lo estas viendo en telefono?

No its the lowest possible to achive a video that looks smooth enough to be watchable. Its not more cinematic

Big difference