No more 50fps/60fps videos?

[Stonent]

I haven't seen a 50fps Eevblog video in quite a while.  720p50/60 looks better to me than 1080p30.
It has a "real" look to it that 30fps doesn't do.

[coppice]

Dave's update rate for videos has definitely been getting a lot slower lately. 

[SteveyG]

Maybe the processing and upload is taking too long.

[EEVblog]

Maybe the processing and upload is taking too long.

Yup.

[dexters_lab]

not surprised, 50fps takes ages to render and makes massive uploads

i'm selective with mine, only use 50fps when the content needs it

[Halcyon]

I haven't seen a 50fps Eevblog video in quite a while.  720p50/60 looks better to me than 1080p30.
It has a "real" look to it that 30fps doesn't do.

I much prefer increased resolution at the expense of frame rate. Yes, 50 fps looks nice, but there have been many times where 1080 lines of resolution has come in handy. If you watch YouTube through most TVs these days, they have varying degrees of frame interpolation to make 25 fps video look like higher frame rate (called 'Clear Frame', MotionFlow, Digital Natural Motion etc...). Of course this digital image "enhancement" isn't better than the real thing, but on the lowest setting, it actually does quite a decent job on my Philips LCD (any higher and it starts get annoying and artificial).

For the EEVblog, it was a nice experiment, but not necessary.

[Brumby]

+1

Fluid motion isn't a priority.  Resolution is.

I want to be able to see right down the throat of the vias, which means a steady camera and good focus.  Sometimes I'll even freeze frame to have a longer look, so a basic framerate is more than good enough for me.

[rx8pilot]

I prefer surreal over real for most videos.

24fps(23.976 on some playback systems) Is great for almost everything. Use the extra bandwidth for resolution and the images are sharper - easier to see details. Temporal resolution does not help. Spatial resolution does. Taking the temporal resolution away creates more of a surreal story telling look. This is why pretty much all features and TV shows are shot 24fps. If there was a lot of motion that was critical to the story being told, maybe 30fps. 60p is high resolution 60i and looks like the nightly news - blah! Too much information.

I don't watch these videos for an immersive and realistic experience, I watch them for the education and the entertainment value.

[EEVblog]

I much prefer increased resolution at the expense of frame rate. Yes, 50 fps looks nice, but there have been many times where 1080 lines of resolution has come in handy.

Are you saying that 1080p30 on Youtube has better resolution that 1080p50?

[Halcyon]

I much prefer increased resolution at the expense of frame rate. Yes, 50 fps looks nice, but there have been many times where 1080 lines of resolution has come in handy.

Are you saying that 1080p30 on Youtube has better resolution that 1080p50?

No. I meant in relation to the original post...

720p50/60 looks better to me than 1080p30.

Sorry, I probably wasn't very clear.

[wraper]

I much prefer increased resolution at the expense of frame rate. Yes, 50 fps looks nice, but there have been many times where 1080 lines of resolution has come in handy.

Are you saying that 1080p30 on Youtube has better resolution that 1080p50?

It certainly is. But probably it is not because of youtube but because of using your camera in limited lighting conditions. Probably it uses more noise reduction at 50 fps and therefore washes out the details.

[EEVblog]

It certainly is. But probably it is not because of youtube but because of using your camera in limited lighting conditions. Probably it uses more noise reduction at 50 fps and therefore washes out the details.

Nope, sorry. I still shoot at 50fps. I just render at 30fps. So it's not the camera.

[EEVblog]

I much prefer increased resolution at the expense of frame rate. Yes, 50 fps looks nice, but there have been many times where 1080 lines of resolution has come in handy.

Are you saying that 1080p30 on Youtube has better resolution that 1080p50?

No. I meant in relation to the original post...

I'm still a bit confused. All my content, be it 50fps or 25/30fps is and has always been 1080p resolution.

[wraper]

It certainly is. But probably it is not because of youtube but because of using your camera in limited lighting conditions. Probably it uses more noise reduction at 50 fps and therefore washes out the details.

Nope, sorry. I still shoot at 50fps. I just render at 30fps. So it's not the camera.

I didn't watch your newest videos. But it certainly dropped when you moved from 30 to 50. Will check them now.

[EEVblog]

I didn't watch your newest videos. But it certainly dropped when you moved from 30 to 50. Will check them now.

FYI I have never shot at 30, my main camera can only do 25 or 50.

[wraper]

So I briefly watched your latest videos and the quality is about the same as previous 50 fps ones. Moreover they have some artifacts, like barely visible blocking which is especially noticeable on the uniform color of your bench. They are visible on 50 fps videos too but a bit less noticeable.

[wraper]

I didn't watch your newest videos. But it certainly dropped when you moved from 30 to 50. Will check them now.

FYI I have never shot at 30, my main camera can only do 25 or 50.

I just thought it was 30, didn't actually check what they have been. Lets say low fps.

[EEVblog]

So I briefly watched your latest videos and the quality is about the same as previous 50 fps ones. Moreover they have some artifacts, like barely visible blocking which is especially noticeable on the uniform color of your bench. They are visible on 50 fps videos too but a bit less noticeable.

That is likely Youtube. I believe the 50/60fps youtube videos are allocated more bandwidth than regular 25/30fps videos.
Nothing has changed in my transcoding process. In fact I use constant quality mode in Handbrake transcoding, so both version should be the same in terms of compression. If anything 50fps should be a bit worse because I do render a more compressed version that I do with 25fps/30fps before transcoding.

In both cases the quality you see on Youtube is lower quality (more compression/artefacts) than the version I upload.

[wraper]

And those artifacts are actually just horrible on the black Astro compass in #839 - Mailbag starting from the 4th minute.

That is likely Youtube. I believe the 50/60fps youtube videos are allocated more bandwidth than regular 25/30fps videos.

Dunno, my own camera shoots 50fps significantly worse that 25fps.

[SteveyG]

And those artifacts are actually just horrible on the black Astro compass in #839 - Mailbag starting from the 4th minute.

That is likely Youtube. I believe the 50/60fps youtube videos are allocated more bandwidth than regular 25/30fps videos.

Dunno, my own camera shoots 50fps significantly worse that 25fps.

I don't see any artefacts here. 

[EEVblog]

And those artifacts are actually just horrible on the black Astro compass in #839 - Mailbag starting from the 4th minute.

I don't see any artifacts either. 1080p or 720p

[wraper]

And those artifacts are actually just horrible on the black Astro compass in #839 - Mailbag starting from the 4th minute.

That is likely Youtube. I believe the 50/60fps

I don't see any artifacts either. 1080p or 720p

I switched the monitor into sRGB color space (my monitors are wide color gamut) and it becomes much less noticeable but still is there.

[george graves]

Is firefox able to play 50fps videos yet?

[Delta]

50/60fps for a bloke standing at a whiteboard or poking at a PCB is just daft.  It really is pure technology snobbery for the sake of it...

[EEVblog]

50/60fps for a bloke standing at a whiteboard or poking at a PCB is just daft.  It really is pure technology snobbery for the sake of it...

Well, no. Many people say they like the look of it better. It's very tangible to them. There is a noticeable difference.