Why do so many people still shove anime through interpolaiton AI?

@JaniSIr
Just cause a movement is smoother doesn't mean it better. What kind of an argument is that?

Whether motion in animation is fluid and smooth vs choppy and rough is a stylistic or practical choice, not a matter of one being better than the other. A good example of this is spider-verse, they animated a lot of the movie on 2s, intentionally lowering the frame rate to give it more of a crisp and graphic feel, making it feel more like a comic book. And they do this to great effect.

And while 60fps animation can look great. It looks great when done intentionally. Taking something made at 24fps can interpolating to 60 has the opposite effect of seeing "more details in the movement." Take any interpolated animation clip on youtube and take a look at some of the individual frames. It completely ruins any sense of good, readable, and accurate movement. You can see what a terrible replacement an ai is for a real in between animator who actually understand how animation works.

And think about this,
every animation studio could increase all there animations to 60fps with little to no effort, they could,
BUT THEY DON'T

@Akuya Of course it's better, 60 is a bigger number than 24...
Spider-verse is one movie where I can confidently say that they made the objectively bad choice, because getting your audience nauseous is something you just never do.
Interpolation is obviously not perfect, but since it has become a selling feature in TVs it became much better. But what can you do if interpolated is all you can get...
There is really no good reason not to make everything 60fps or more.

I'm sorry, but this is the dumbest thing you've said in this thread so far...


The fact that you personally didn't like Spider-verse's style doesn't make it objectively bad


There actually is, 60fps works well with certain filming/animation styles, but not so well with others

There's also a lil thing called variety, you can have innovation without completely dismanteling what came before
Making everything the same is the dullest, most mundane, boring thing one could do


Also just realized i read this wrong

Thought you were saying bout finding creative ways to hide potential errors that come with 60fps, but you instead seem to be saying having creative problem solving skills is bad?

I think AI is just an epic fail. I cannot see a greater epic fail than it.

It was a reference to this.

It was supposed to be a straw man, but like it's not actually wrong.
Big FPS is great.
We talked like 60fps were a lot, but 4k HDR 120 would be ideal.
Since film is a non-interactive medium, it will reach diminishing returns long before games, where 360hz (or higher) monitors are a perfectly reasonable purchase.

That wasn't a matter of liking, but actually feeling nauseous.

Improving visual fidelity doesn't really have a downside.
Live action movies just point a camera at the actors anyway, there is no real stylistic choice to talk about...

I mean that they should just not make those stupid errors, like if they do a fight scene they should do a proper choreography, instead of the camera man swinging the camera like the sword, and then putting the film through a blender so that the audience has no chance to see what's happening.
Like if you have a good choreography, wouldn't you want to showcase it with high fidelity? Few cuts, steady camera and high fps even.
24fps technically does cover up some mistakes, but that's because the action is just inherently harder to follow. It's sort of like "cleaning" a bird poop from your windshield by covering it with mud.

@Akuya Of course it's better, 60 is a bigger number than 24...
Spider-verse is one movie where I can confidently say that they made the objectively bad choice, because getting your audience nauseous is something you just never do.
Interpolation is obviously not perfect, but since it has become a selling feature in TVs it became much better. But what can you do if interpolated is all you can get...
There is really no good reason not to make everything 60fps or more.

And yet you ignore the fact others have said that interpolated 60fps made them nauseous, made their heads spin, but 60fps is still superior cuz it's a bigger number...


No it doesn't, but having higher frame rate isn't always an imprvement


You really should pay more attention when watching movies if you want to debate about them...

@DigiCat Well yes, big number is better for obvious reasons. As far as interpolation, it's probably bad quality, somebody mentioned SVP, and that's full of artifacts, and there are way better ones built into TVs.

And like there was one movie I watched once with SVP where they used bad fps and shaky camera to indicate that the character had a concussion, where my room mates commented how bad it looks, as SVP just couldn't handle that.
Well, the failures of that program aside, I hope that stylistic choice explains why normal scenes should not be at a choppy 24fps.

Oh and how do people exist in real life, where the thing they see is analog...

@JaniSIr Seriously, before trying so hard to sound knowlegeble on the matter, try and make a movie, try and find actors who can act, look the part, and are skilled in everything the characters are, and try and make everything they do look good with the camera angles and frame rate you want, see how many takes and how much budget it'll take you to get there, when you have acomplished that, then you can complain all you want about the laziness of using trick shots and lowering detail to get around potemtial errors

But higher numbers = better right?
See the Atari Jaguar. It's 64 bits so it's obviously better than most consoles ever made.
(It actually had two 32 bit custom processors and one 16 bit 68k but was marketed as 64 bit due to the 64 bit internal bus used by the custom processors)

@DigiCat Much of modern movie's budget goes to overpaid actors, and excessive CGI, that doesn't even look good.
In the fence example, if they didn't insist on milking the Taken franchise for a 4th time, they could have hired an actor who actually can jump a fence, and then sell the movie with its original plot and good fight scenes. But of course that won't happen, because Hollywood is all out of creativity.
You can make good movies on a really low budget, the real world sets the stage for free, it's not like video games where making a large and detailed world takes a lot of effort.

Ok, but would that actor have been able to embodie the character as well as Liam Neeson did?

Not to say recasting never happens, but it's generally only used as a last resort or when there's reboots, and even then it's one of the hardest things to pull off, cuz you aren't only taking into account the actors abilities, but the audiences expectations


And what the heck does recasting have to do with creativity?


This is very turue, but you seem to not realize low budget doesn't mean low effort

@DigiCat So like here's the thing, Liam Neeson was a perfect choice for the first movie, and by the 4th not only the writers ran out of any original idea, he got too old for the role, so arguably the whole movie was a mistake, and I would assume that's reflected in their finance records for they made no 5th one. They clearly banked on the franchise and the actor's name to carry the movie, but just ended up with an example case of milking it to death. And the "one guy beats up an army for no reason" is still a popular genre, like John Wick 4 was a success because there the action was still good, even if the bulletproof suits kind of made it really silly at certain points. And yes, effort is something that's lacking in choreography department but especially among the writers... This was a long tangent, but basically with a different plot reason to beat people up and an actor that can still do it well, the action would immediately look good with a still camera in 60fps.

@Akuya People think a higher number always = better. There's a reason things are still filmed at 24 fps. A simple search will tell you that.

@JaniSIr While i do agree the writing in hollywood movies has declined over the years, you still have a very simplistic view on how movies are made

You say action will immediately look good in 60fps with the right choreograpgy, writing, and actors, but realistically, how many actors (regardless of age and gender) can pull off an action scene like you mention without cuts and stunt doubles? Narrow it down even further if you want only top quality acting

Not everyone is good at everything, different people will have different streangths and weaknesses

@DigiCat I mean Tom Cruise does the stunts himself, so it's not without example.
And for how overpaid actors are, they sort of should be better at their job.

@JaniSIr Yes, and how many Tom Cruise's are there?

And now this might be my personal opinion, but i think his stunt work is better than his acting


I feel like the more this argument goes on the more your brain flatlines...

@DigiCat He is like okay. I won't skip a movie just because he is in it.
I would excuse using stunt doubles for dangerous stuff, but a fist fight should be reasonable expectation.

@JaniSIr I'm not sure how common it is to use stubt doubles for a simple fist fight, more complicated hand to hand combat sure

But fist fights can also go wrong, does Dolph Lundgren punching Sylvester Stallone in the chest so hard his heart almost exploded ring any bells? (and this was on Stallone's request)

Although a lot of actors do want to do their own stunts when possible, production companies don't always have the funds to pay the extorcionate amounts of insurence it'll take to cover an A list actor, yes those Tom Cruise stunts are expencive AF, and production companies only pay for it cuz they trust in his ability to draw in an audience without getting hurt in the process (and notice these are all massive blockbusters)

@DigiCat How many actors are as strong as Dolph Lundgren, and how many would actually would want to get punched by such a person? ><

@JaniSIr The point isn't that it was Dolph Lungren doing the punching, it's that things can go wrong, of course this doesn't mean actors should be kept in bubbles and never do anything remotely risky, but weighing the pros and cons of a situation is common sense

I mean would you let Adam Sandler leap off a building the same way you'd let Tom Cruise?

@DigiCat Non issue really, because I don't think he'd take anything but comedies that are not funny.