It looks AMAZING!

More Trance Music Videos & Live Shows 4K 60 fps on this guy channel:
https://www.youtube.com/@MakeTiestoGreatAgain

You know more like this?
Please share!

 

I have read about this thing some time ago but forgot about it. I think most video guy knows about how to do it, it's equivalent to downsample, apply effect and then upsampling it back in audio but for video it gets the benefit of the modern pixel prediction algo in video editing. If im not mistaken it's the same technology being used in the high-efficiency X265 video codec to minimize disk space needed to store video. The data only partially stored and the rest of the surrounding pixels are predicted during decoding by the video player. The prediction algo is so good it can recreate something that wasn't even there almost accurately, hence the 4k video of video that never being recorded 4k.

 

Topaz Video AI gives great results.

 

60 fps looks terrible ..

 

I remember when I watched first time 60fps video on youtube in 2016.
It was video with gameplay of Mario World 3D.
It feels weird.
And later I watched WRC Car Racing live stream in 60fps.
And it feels super weird.

60fps is not common in videos.
Software and games runs at minimum 60fps very often in normal conditions.
It is normal for software not for videos.
We are used to 25/30 fps in videos that's why it feels weird.

 

For comparision here 30fps video 4K (Starting at 0:58)

And again 60fps video 4k

 

yes the human eyes don't register movement like 60 fps that why it looks so bad .. 24 fps is much much better and natural for the human eye..
specially in movies and videos the other side.. Detail is great too much not.. it looks unreal too... 60 fps looks terrible still no matter what

 

Shooting in hi framerate is necessary when the plot needs a slow motion: for this reason there are cameras that records video in 120 - 240 or more frames per second. Play video in hi framerate instead is not common pratice, generally we use 24p, 25pal, 29.97ntsc or 30p. That's why playing video in 60p seems weird

 

nothing new I believe,
I've used Mirillis Splash for maybe about 10 years, it's free now at version 2 and can do 60fps realtime playback,
Smooth Video Project (SVP) for maybe 3 years, it's paid but can do multiples of fps, 120fps realtime playback just fine on basic M1
LCD TVs have that almost since they originally launched maybe 15 years ago,

frame motion interpolation makes such "soap opera" effect, looks really cool on computer-game-like stuff, action scenes especially with fast camera movements, it's also very noticeable on rolling/sliding subtitles/credits...

I disagree with comments saying 60fps looks bad, it looks actually very natural and I think sweetspot is somewhere around 100-120fps, and also it's fine if the framerate fluctuates and is variable depending on motion of the content on the screen (afterall that's what nVidia's G-Sync, AMD's FreeSync or Apple's ProMotion does),

what looks bad is inconsistent optical flow - when you interpolate additional frame between two frames, you need to calculate preceding and following motion, it's absolutely not a simple average between frames


see my comparisons, used AviSynth+InterFrame+MeGUI+MkvMux
60fps:

original:

 

The point isn't whether 60p is good or bad (60p is perfect). Thing is that our eyes are accustomed to motion blur for moving images: high framerates eliminate this effect and therefore the resulting video becomes artificial, unnatural, culturally unacceptable.

 

Last edited: Jan 9, 2024

that's not accurate, eyes are made to focus on what they want to look at, watching "still" "flat" screen is artificial to begin with,
simple example - you can jump in front of your screen reading my post, and you'll still be able to read it perfect - but create a wobbly 30fps video from this screenshot, and it will be unreadable completely

 

Not really. Nature works with ~ 5,4 · 10⁴⁴ frames per second. So far we're doing quite well with it.

Additionally from https://www.seh-check.de/seh-maerchen/wie-viel-fps-sieht-das-auge/ translated with deepl.com

What is the maximum number of images per second that the eye can see?

Neither gamers nor experts really agree on how many FPS the human eye sees. As our visual perception varies from person to person, there can be no absolute number. In addition, it makes a big difference whether we recognise static images without moving, for example when reading a comic, or whether we look at moving images, as in the cinema, or whether we look at moving images while moving ourselves at the same time, as when cycling in the city. Although brain research suggests that 60 Hz produces a better image than 30 Hz, neither neurologists nor psychologists can conclusively judge whether movements appear more fluid at 120 or 180 Hz.

How high does the frame rate have to be to match the frequency of the eye?

Unfortunately, there is no patent answer to this question either. Our viewing habits change with technological progress. This is easy to understand when we look at the history of film: Silent film classics in their day, with only 12 frames per second, caused their viewers such excitement that individuals fled the screening room when the Lumière locomotive ran towards them - in black and white, mind you.

The aim of developers is to make animated images feel as if they were real visual experiences. In figures, this means that for most people in 2021, a frame rate in the medium range, between 90 and 120 FPS, is comfortable. For experienced gamers, it can be significantly higher at up to 240 FPS.

Or from https://www.pcgameshardware.de/Moni...-Fps-kann-das-menschliche-Auge-sehen-1219025/

Some people can see when a lamp is still flickering at 50 or 60 hertz, but not much more is said to be possible. Much more is possible when it comes to movement: under the right circumstances, even at 500 fps, brief deviations can be detected - but then as artefacts rather than a clearly recognisable image.

 

forget about books.. ... just go outside in the sun light and move your hand FAST.. you will see what i mean..60 looks un real and really bad.. in fact unreal like 8k.. the eye does not see so many detail.. all extremes are bad analog movies look much much better.. 200 times or 1000 better than 60 frames digital 8k cameras

 

I think the big innovation was the HDRD, not the high FPS,