Rally Croatia 2022

**J-Records** · 2nd May 2022, 19:23

Opinions that the movie is speed up are simply ridiculous. I've seen such opinions on other videos in the past.
Out of curiosity, I opened up some raw camera shots today and I did not see difference in speed to what you can see on youtube.

The opinions that the movies on youtube are speed up are as real as the fact that the sun goes around the earth.

Greetings to everyone and I am not taking part in further discussions.

**Kenneth** · 3rd May 2022, 13:21

Originally Posted by WRCStan

Maybe the narrow field of view and camera movement creates that illusion? Looks fine to me.

Yes, this is definitely the correct answer.

**the sniper** · 3rd May 2022, 15:35

If it were field of view, wouldn't it be noticeable on standard 1080p uploads too? For me at least, it's exclusive to 60fps uploads on You Tube. Could this be a hardware issue on some viewers end? I'm not sure what it'd be though, as I've noticed exactly the same thing watching on a phone, high spec and low spec computers...

**flat_right** · 3rd May 2022, 16:28

I also don't think it was sped up, it's just that with higher frame rate, we see less of the blur in motion with the fast-moving subjects than we normally expect. Back in the day, when the video was "invented", it was determined that 24fps to be the minimum speed needed to capture video while still maintaining realistic motion. For many decades, it was the standard and our brains have gotten very used with it. But now, when basically any phone can shoot 60+ pfs, when we watch the videos, then we see 60 frames every second and our brain senses this motion as incredibly fluid and smooth, which is why videos in 60fps look so weird and surreal, especially when we see fast moving objects like rally cars. This is actually the same reason why movies are still in 24 fps. Studios probably record movies 4k 120 pfs, but what we see in the cinema is 24 fps as anything higher feels unnatural and bizarre for us. So to sum up... it's the brain.

**WRCStan** · 3rd May 2022, 16:39

I love how much coverage this is getting.

There's an identical pass on each video, needs a skilled editor to analyse and settle this:
Bunnings https://youtu.be/SjXb0z2XWuI?t=23
J-Records https://youtu.be/FmsPBG3FgNU?t=15

**the sniper** · 3rd May 2022, 18:51

Originally Posted by flat_right

So to sum up... it's the brain.

A hardware issue then, kind of...

**wyler** · 3rd May 2022, 19:28

Originally Posted by flat_right

I also don't think it was sped up, it's just that with higher frame rate, we see less of the blur in motion with the fast-moving subjects than we normally expect. Back in the day, when the video was "invented", it was determined that 24fps to be the minimum speed needed to capture video while still maintaining realistic motion. For many decades, it was the standard and our brains have gotten very used with it. But now, when basically any phone can shoot 60+ pfs, when we watch the videos, then we see 60 frames every second and our brain senses this motion as incredibly fluid and smooth, which is why videos in 60fps look so weird and surreal, especially when we see fast moving objects like rally cars. This is actually the same reason why movies are still in 24 fps. Studios probably record movies 4k 120 pfs, but what we see in the cinema is 24 fps as anything higher feels unnatural and bizarre for us. So to sum up... it's the brain.

technically the limit of motion is 10/12 fps. classic animation (like disney) is made "on 2" so 2 frames per drawing, so 12 fps. silent cinema (hands cranked), was anywhere between 16 to 24 depending on the operator, super 8 was 16/18, and so on...

on cinema: directors like peter jackson or james cameron shoot at 48/60. american standard cinema is 24, europe is 25 as for tv, because of ...electricity. fps are related to the Hz frequency of ac. then it's true that cinema people prefer motion blur over fluidity so is very rare to have overcranked (more than 24/25 fps) movies.

**Kenneth** · 3rd May 2022, 21:00

Originally Posted by WRCStan

I love how much coverage this is getting.

There's an identical pass on each video, needs a skilled editor to analyse and settle this:
Bunnings https://youtu.be/SjXb0z2XWuI?t=23
J-Records https://youtu.be/FmsPBG3FgNU?t=15

I'm not skilled editor but I study film. Imo the biggest and main difference is the lens. Bunnings video have zoom lens that is unzooming as car is passing, also the camera is moving. J-Records have static lens (cannot tell exactly what type of lens but looks really good to show the speed), also camera is almost static.

Imo the video is not speed up, but J-Record is really good at capturing the speed.

**DoN_cz** · 4th May 2022, 08:26

Or one could pick a longish section from the video and measure how long it takes for car to reach from point A to point B. Then do the same with onboard and compare.

**SubaruNorway** · 4th May 2022, 15:12

I know you can mess it up if you mix clips with 24fps and 25 fps for example if you added some gopro clips at 25 to a 24fps project but it would be so little you can't tell. 60fps can look faster because you will see shaking easier on a hand held camera also. Just check that you always have the same FPS on all your cameras to avoid any issues like matching up a face cam to onboard even if the editing software will do frame blending it won't always match up. I use 25fps for reference.