On Youtube the highest 60f / s you can play is as far as I know. With my ps4 I was able to stream on 720p60 and you can also see a good difference in the fluidity of the video transmission to 720p. The resolution is of course miserable… But that's not the point.
I have seen how some people record with the PC via OBS at 120fps in order to cut the videos at the end and upload them to YouTube. How so? Because the maximum is 60fps… STILL, the video and especially the video parts played in slow motion look much more fluid. Does the frame rate while recording still have an impact on the frame rate when playing the video on Youtube, although it is limited to 60f / s? Or is it maybe just the better resolution (1080p or even 1440p), which may only make it appear smoother in the end, even though you are watching at the same frame rate?
Slow motion, that is the keyword. You do Slowmo by displaying the countries in the individual frames. So if you record in 120 FPS you can play the video at half speed and still have a 60fps video
This is how it is done when cutting video and audio and has proven itself. Cut with high quality and only transfer to the target quality at the last moment.
Then the losses are minimal. Sound is cut in 48KHz and transmitted in CD quality 44KHz.
Of course that makes sense…
You have more frames to work on.
If you record in 60 FPS. Do you have 60 frames per second where something happens.
if you record in 120 FPS you have 120 frames per second where something is happening.
That means you have twice as much data in the same time.
Imagine you see a hand move.
The first frame is like she stands still. The second is how she is 1 cm crazy.
That's a bit choppy then. At 120 FPS. If the second frame would not be 1cm away, let's say half a centimeter. Now the picture is much smoother.
And because of slow mo. If you have 120 frames you can of course make slow mo more fluid. Imagine you do one second in slow mo and the end video is 2 seconds. Now you pull apart the 120 frames, so to speak.
and now it's 60 frames per second in slow mo.
The whole thing with 60 FPS would be that you only have 30 FPS with slow mo.
this video also has a part about frames and HZ. It puts it all there very well:
Sometimes you're going in the right direction.
Many codecs use a method that makes the picture appear smoother. The so-called motion blur. As a result, it usually appears more fluid to the eye, since a still image already seems to be moving "in the direction of the next still image". This also has the effect that a 30 FPS video, downgraded to 25 FPS, can appear smoother than a natively recorded 25 FPS video (without motion blur).
You also have more options on average. The most obvious of these is of course being able to slow down the video by 50% afterwards, and at a full 60 FPS. You have more individual images in the video editing timeline on which you can set an edit or start effects.
In the end, it doesn't make a huge difference if you don't want to take slow motion pictures. But as long as the software catches up with the recording and can record it without jerking, I would probably do it that way. Assuming I can record at the same resolution and bit rate.
I'm sorry, but that's not right.
What you mean in terms of quality is correct, but it is about compression of the images / sounds and not the number of them. The amount of images / samples has nothing to do with a quality level.
But you're so on the wrong track
? This question is only about the number of images. Quality is independent of this. Where's the wrong track?
