Poll: Do you like the smoothness of high refresh gaming and/or 60 FPS YouTube videos?

[Space Lynx]

I'm just curious. I met someone today who can't stand 60 FPS YouTube videos... but to my eyes they look so much smoother when watching them... I don't see why anyone would not want them...

I'm just doing this poll for fun.

 

[EzioAs]

Duh....

I even use SVP (which uses motion interpolation) to watch any local videos on my PC at 144 fps. Been doing that since 2011 (60 fps back then)

 

[Space Lynx]

Duh....

I even use SVP (which uses motion interpolation) to watch any local videos on my PC at 144 fps. Been doing that since 2011 (60 fps back then)

never heard of SVP, can you give me a link?

and I have been enjoying high refresh since 2013 or so with one of those imported overclocking Korean 1440p monitors. that's why I find people like this who even watch a 60 fps youtube video and say they hate it... I just don't get it... I really don't, it looks so smooth in comparison. very odd.

 

[EzioAs]

never heard of SVP, can you give me a link?

SVP – SmoothVideo Project – Real Time Video Frame Rate Conversion

www.svp-team.com

 

[Sybaris_Caesar]

I generally like it but also understand the dislike for it. Lower fps (24, 30) and motion blur generally makes our brain fill in the gaps of information for us. But I think action heavy media NEEDS 60 fps.

Here's an example:
Original 30 fps:

Interpolated 60 fps:

 

[Solaris17]

I actually didn’t the first time I saw a TV doing 120hz . The flow made me feel odd and it looked as if was a crystal clear VHS in fast forward.

it took some time to get used to it

 

[erocker]

I have no idea why this question needs to be asked.

 

[wolf]

I can't fathom why anyone would say no to this

 

[Liquid Cool]

I'll be the outlier(as usual...). I voted no and have blocked them since day one with h264ify. Why? Health reasons. They make me sick.

How sick? The same nausea(from motion sickness) you feel when a video game doesn't agree with you, just throw in some dizziness, the urge to vomit and a splitting headache...and there you go.

Best Regards,

Liquid Cool

 

[EzioAs]

Maybe a good follow up question/poll would be, "Do you like watching films/shows at frame rates higher than 24fps?"

People have gotten so used to 24fps videos (anything presented on cable TV and films) so I would think it'd be interesting to see the percentages of people who would watch at higher than 24fps vs people who prefer to stay at 24fps.

 

[xkm1948]

Most 360 VR video are nauseating at 50 or 60FPS. And yes I can tell the night and day difference between 100FPS VR video versus 60FPS VR video. I will take high refresh for sure. Pancake gaming/video does not bother me that much with low FPS though

 

[Rithsom]

For me, it depends on the type of media that I'm watching. For games, I want the most FPS possible, hands down. On the other hand, I prefer watching my favorite film at its original 24 FPS.

Films that are boosted up to 60 FPS look cheaper, in my opinion. It's kind of hard to explain, like maybe they were produced by an inexperienced indie studio or something.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
I suppose so but I'm off googletube.

 

[Space Lynx]

I can't fathom why anyone would say no to this

this

answers this:

I have no idea why this question needs to be asked.

I want to show my friend this poll. to show he is in the minority.

For me, it depends on the type of media that I'm watching. For games, I want the most FPS possible, hands down. On the other hand, I prefer watching my favorite film at its original 24 FPS.

Films that are boosted up to 60 FPS look cheaper, in my opinion. It's kind of hard to explain, like maybe they were produced by an inexperienced indie studio or something.

I never said films though. I said youtube in a general sense. for films I am ok with the way they were intended, though for some films I do like 60 fps yeah, but they need to be designed for it... there are some movie producers now specifically making high refresh movies... they are not out yet to my knowledge, I am looking forward to them though.

 

[robot zombie]

Some people have it down that the typical FPS for film and broadcast are more appealing. I can actually see that with smaller, more 'typical' motion. When I am looking at an actor's face as they are making expressions and speaking, it does register to me as wayyyyy more natural than native 60+. Well, the few times I've had any reasonable comparison.

Still prefer youtube videos at 60fps for the most part. Something about the effect doesn't translate there. But then, I don't watch a lot of stuff where people just talk in front of a camera.

Any fast action is so much better at higher frame rates. That has actually bugged me about movies my whole life. The amount of stuff you could barely make out between intense lighting dynamics, everything happening on the screen, and the amount of blur. Sure, I can imagine. But it's much more impactful when you truly SEE it. In real life, I understand it would be chaos but movies with action are supposed to have more "oomph" than real life... show you things as you would never be able to see them.

There's a thing where animations done in lower frame rates (as is often the case... sometimes for practical reasons, even) are artificially boosted up to higher frame rates. Lotta hype around it for a while. I think it looks awful. If you pay attention it grossly distorts movements, making them uncanny and robotic. However, animation MADE at those frame rates are SO much more engaging to me. Oh good lord. I have so much respect for people who do even the shortest anime stuff at over 30fps. It's an insane thing to do, from their perspective. But it brings results that always stand out.

Any of the boosting stuff... sucks. I hate it. It has to be natively done at that higher frame rate. There's no making up for that presently. Maybe one day.

Games? Man... higher is definitely better. Less strain trying to see what's happening. Many of the animations can be short, really only consisting of a few frames to begin with. You cut that down, you almost lose the trajectory of things. Not to mention the physical connection to what you're seeing. It's hand-eye. It makes sense that more 'complete' information would benefit this dynamic. You see it and feel it. I swear, I even feel the difference on my desktop. I know this because when I play FO4 I cap my monitor at 60hz. When I come back out and tick it up to 165hz it's just like "Ahhhhh how did I not notice? This is so much nicer to look at."

It actually bothers me now. There's a fatigue that sets in at the lower frame rates. I get headaches and tired eyes.

 

[Space Lynx]

Some people have it down that the typical FPS for film and broadcast are more appealing. I can actually see that with smaller, more 'typical' motion. When I am looking at an actor's face as they are making expressions and speaking, it does register to me as wayyyyy more natural than native 60+. Well, the few times I've had any reasonable comparison.

Still prefer youtube videos at 60fps for the most part. Something about the effect doesn't translate there. But then, I don't watch a lot of stuff where people just talk in front of a camera.

Any fast action is so much better at higher frame rates. That has actually bugged me about movies my whole life. The amount of stuff you could barely make out between intense lighting dynamics, everything happening on the screen, and the amount of blur. Sure, I can imagine. But it's much more impactful when you truly SEE it. In real life, I understand it would be chaos but movies with action are supposed to have more "oomph" than real life... show you things as you would never be able to see them.

There's a thing where animations done in lower frame rates (as is often the case... sometimes for practical reasons, even) are artificially boosted up to higher frame rates. Lotta hype around it for a while. I think it looks awful. If you pay attention it grossly distorts movements, making them uncanny and robotic. However, animation MADE at those frame rates are SO much more engaging to me. Oh good lord. I have so much respect for people who do even the shortest anime stuff at over 30fps. It's an insane thing to do, from their perspective. But it brings results that always stand out.

Any of the boosting stuff... sucks. I hate it. It has to be natively done at that higher frame rate. There's no making up for that presently. Maybe one day.

Games? Man... higher is definitely better. Less strain trying to see what's happening. Many of the animations can be short, really only consisting of a few frames to begin with. You cut that down, you almost lose the trajectory of things. Not to mention the physical connection to what you're seeing. It's hand-eye. It makes sense that more 'complete' information would benefit this dynamic. You see it and feel it. I swear, I even feel the difference on my desktop. I know this because when I play FO4 I cap my monitor at 60hz. When I come back out and tick it up to 165hz it's just like "Ahhhhh how did I not notice? This is so much nicer to look at."

It actually bothers me now. There's a fatigue that sets in at the lower frame rates. I get headaches and tired eyes.

very high action paced movies like some of Liam Neeson movies, the frame blur/skipping has ruined some action scenes for me, I wish I could watch those in 60 fps lol

 

[Rithsom]

for films I am ok with the way they were intended, though for some films I do like 60 fps yeah, but they need to be designed for it... there are some movie producers now specifically making high refresh movies... they are not out yet to my knowledge, I am looking forward to them though.

I definitely agree that a film needs to be designed around a certain frame rate in order to look nice. Brand new nature documentaries with drone footage are excellent candidates for 60 FPS, in my opinion. In contrast, I dislike watching movies that were originally produced at 24 or 30 FPS like Harry Potter, Toy Story, Titanic, etc. with a 60 FPS algorithm. They were clearly made for lower frame rates, and it really shows when you try to watch them at frame rates any higher.

For YouTube videos, if I had to pick an option, I would choose 60 FPS over 30 for the same reason stated above. 60 FPS YouTube videos were originally created at 60 FPS, so they don't look unnatural to watch.

There's a thing where animations done in lower frame rates (as is often the case... sometimes for practical reasons, even) are artificially boosted up to higher frame rates. Lotta hype around it for a while. I think it looks awful. If you pay attention it grossly distorts movements, making them uncanny and robotic. However, animation MADE at those frame rates are SO much more engaging to me.

Any of the boosting stuff... sucks. I hate it. It has to be natively done at that higher frame rate. There's no making up for that presently. Maybe one day.

Good description! That's precisely what I see, too. Movies that are algorithm-boosted up to 60 FPS look so cheap...

 

[EzioAs]

Good description! That's precisely what I see, too. Movies that are algoritm-boosted up to 60 FPS look so cheap...

Give SVP a try if you haven't done so yet. Sure it's not 100% perfect, but for most scenes, it looks so good that you don't notice the imperfections/artifacts. As I've said before, I've used it since 2011 or so and will continue to use it to watch any videos.

 

[eidairaman1]

Smoothness can be 30 fps too.

 

[oobymach]

Most movies are still 24fps, telivision is 29.9fps, but you definitely notice the difference between a 24fps film and a 60fps one. Gemini Man starring Will Smith was shot in 60fps glory, I hope all media adopts 60fps as the new standard. It's just so fluid, motion does not judder and retains detail.

 

[Space Lynx]

Most movies are still 24fps, telivision is 29.9fps, but you definitely notice the difference between a 24fps film and a 60fps one. Gemini Man starring Will Smith was shot in 60fps glory, I hope all media adopts 60fps as the new standard. It's just so fluid, motion does not judder and retains detail.

I'm going to go watch this movie now... ty...

 

[thesmokingman]

Most movies are still 24fps, telivision is 29.9fps, but you definitely notice the difference between a 24fps film and a 60fps one. Gemini Man starring Will Smith was shot in 60fps glory, I hope all media adopts 60fps as the new standard. It's just so fluid, motion does not judder and retains detail.

24fps was an evolved standard that was more about cost. Remember celluloid film cost a lot of money. The industry gradually went up from 10-12fps. But yea today with so many shooting on digital and the resolution has gone up crazy digital editing wise, there's not a technical reason to stay at 24fps or 30fps. But old habits die hard... it's kind of ironic though that a lot of these traditions are from fifty years ago and they still adhere to them. While some special effects houses are editing in realtime at 4k or 8k with 64 core threadrippers... crazy ass juxtapositions.

 

[Space Lynx]

24fps was an evolved standard that was more about cost. Remember celluloid film cost a lot of money. The industry gradually went up from 10-12fps. But yea today with so many shooting on digital and the resolution has gone up crazy digital editing wise, there's not a technical reason to stay at 24fps or 30fps. But old habits die hard... it's kind of ironic though that a lot of these traditions are from fifty years ago and they still adhere to them. While some special effects houses are editing in realtime at 4k or 8k with 64 core threadrippers... crazy ass juxtapositions.

seems like the best youtubers always have high rez high fps as well. especially the travel ones. so there is money in it for sure. if you want the viewers.

 

[nguyen]

YES if the source is actually high refresh (Gaming) and
NO when the source is 24fps and interpolated to 60fps (Youtube video), it looks unnatural.

 

[Jetster]

When I am at work I need to keep the bandwidth down