Michael Jackson Motown 25 in 60FPS

RockOrBluesInNorway

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2014
Messages
654
Points
18
Since YouTube now support 60fps, I thought it would be cool to see Michaels first Billie Jean performance in '83. So here you go, enjoy :) :

 
Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you!!!!!!
 
That's not really 60fps. Hell, it wasn't even shot in 60fps! What you're seeing is the effect of motion interpolation (also nicknamed 'the soap opera effect').
 
That's not really 60fps. Hell, it wasn't even shot in 60fps! What you're seeing is the effect of motion interpolation (also nicknamed 'the soap opera effect').

Thanks for posting RockOrBluesInNorway

But I don't like this effect/interpolation, in my eyes it just looks cheap that way and somehow unreal-real (not in a good way.). I call it "slime-mode" :)
On my TV, I turned all this interpolation stuff "off". It has it's advantages for very fast camera movements. Maybe this generation will be perfectly fine with it, but for people who grew up with 24/25 fps for movies it's just meehhh :-/
 
60fps just makes 30fps video look as fluid as it would watching on an old vcr and old tv (i mean that in a good way).

As for video ACTUALLY shot in 60fps, that makes video look damn near like you're staring at real life.
 
Thanks for posting RockOrBluesInNorway

But I don't like this effect/interpolation, in my eyes it just looks cheap that way and somehow unreal-real (not in a good way.). I call it "slime-mode" :)
On my TV, I turned all this interpolation stuff "off". It has it's advantages for very fast camera movements. Maybe this generation will be perfectly fine with it, but for people who grew up with 24/25 fps for movies it's just meehhh :-/

It all comes down to personal preference, which for me, I like it. I also grew up on movies with 24/25. But I'm, what should I say, "adapting" in a way. I don't like all new stuff that comes out. But I really liked this. Anyway, as stated above, all comes down to personal preference :)
 
That's not really 60fps. Hell, it wasn't even shot in 60fps! What you're seeing is the effect of motion interpolation (also nicknamed 'the soap opera effect').
Not sure about that, actually. Motown was shot for TV, which broadcasted almost entirely interlaced video until recently. If this is from an interlaced DVD source, it could just be fields separated, stretched to fit the whole frame, and put in sequence. "Real" 60FPS is pretty possible.
 
Not sure about that, actually. Motown was shot for TV, which broadcasted almost entirely interlaced video until recently. If this is from an interlaced DVD source, it could just be fields separated, stretched to fit the whole frame, and put in sequence. "Real" 60FPS is pretty possible.

Hmmm... I'm not entirely sure? Perhaps you could clarify on what you mean by separating the fields and then stretching it to fit the whole frame (especially that last part)? I've been reading into it for the past while and everyone is very adamant on the fact that 60 fields per second is not 60 frames per second.

8lfOAmy.png


To essentially describe how this was shot (for anyone else following) in layman terms, think of a video picture as a venentian blind.
If you have all the slats, you have one frame.
If you remove every other slat you have one field.
If you put two fields together, you have one frame.

So for every two fields you can make up one frame. Therefore 60 fields per second divided by 2 = 30 frames per second

If you were to separate the fields as you suggested, surely you'd only half the picture? I read this one article here where the author talks about it, and then gets into even more detail in the comments. So I'm not entirely sure how you'd get it up to a 'real' 60 frames per second. Mind clarifying please? :)
 
I LOVE watching this. It just shows what a perfectionist he was at trying to get his new moves right. You can see his personality when he sings and dances. It was truly what he was meant to do.:clapping::clap:
 
Back
Top