• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

48 movies fps vs 60 game fps?

S

Symphonic

Member
Alright so with The Hobbit coming out I've been curious. Why are people panicking so much over 48 fps in The Hobbit if games and other mediums have been running at 60 fps+ for years? I guess you could argue the 3D aspect but games run in 3D as well and even the 2D version of The Hobbit has been getting backlash.

Is it just because people are used to 24 fps movies? But then why is it making people phyaically sick when games don't?

There might be an obvious answer, I'm just completely clueless here. Help me out GAF
 
W

wrowa

Member
Some people dislike change.

I'm curios to see The Hobbit, though. I'm getting motion sick quite easily, but it's never been related to FPS for me, at least in games. I doubt that it will be different with The Hobbit and even though I'm inclined to say that some people just aggressively dislike 48fps because of "lol soap opera", I'll remain open-minded until I've actually seen the movie.

However, that's for the 2D version. I can definitely see that high fps in combination with 3D makes you motion sick easier.
 
L

Luminous_Reaver

Neo Member
I'm okay with 30fps games to be perfectly honest. There was once a time where I couldn't really tell the difference without a side-by-side comparison. People must be making noise for the sake of having something to talk about.
 
P

Pooya

Member
I think it might be screen size problem;

some people get car sick for example, when you're watching something with fast movements on a giant screen it can create the same feeling.

You usually don't play games on a cinema screen, maybe those people get sick of that too.

In games you're in control too so it might create a different feeling than a movie to the brain.
 
E

Elsolar

Member
It's literally only because people are so used to 24 Hz that they become angry and confused when they're exposed to something smoother. People are more receptive to high-frequency games because of their interactive nature - responsiveness is important.
 
N

Nappuccino

Member
Slamtastic said:
You have to react to things in games, not in movies.
Click to expand...

This is a large part of it for me. 60fps helps my ability to respond faster higher.

This is something I don't need at all when I'm watching a movie.


loblaw said:
So it's just what people are used to? I mean at SOME point movies have to up their fps. Games are constantly doing it.
Click to expand...
Why do they "have to"? I don't really get this logic.
 
M

Mit-

Member
Movies don't "look like movies" when they aren't 24fps. It's weird. Different. It somehow makes them look lower quality. It's like seeing a home movie or a soap opera. It's dumb but that's how it is.

I'm looking forward to seeing how it's handled in The Hobbit.

Games are different though. I cannot back this up in a way that is any more verifiable than what I just posted about movies, except that you are in control of the camera, and you need to be able to see things.

When I pan a camera around in a first person game, the lower the framerate, the blurrier everything gets. If it's 60fps+, it doesn't get blurry. I can focus on things that are moving across the screen, instead of only being able to focus on what is stationary. And it's not even an issue of ghosting or refresh rates, the objects are just jumping very far across the screen between frames.

Try watching a movie and looking for moments when the camera is panning or something is moving fast. It's nearly impossible to focus on it, or the camera pan is very slow to prevent this.
 
E

Eideka

Banned
I don't mind 30fps at all but 60 will always be preferable no matter what. I don't understand why some people say Uncharted or story-driven games would not benefit from 60fps.
 
O

Orayn

Member
Games need the higher framerate to look natural to us - They don't have the same lighting, blurring, and other optical phenomena that our eyes are used to, so a high framerate compenstates.

With film, you don't need as as high a framerate for it to look right, but the claims of nausea are probably overblown. 24FPS on film is low enough to look worse than real human vision for things like fast-moving objects, so it's not like 48 is "realer than real."
 
2

2+2=5

The Amiga Brotherhood
In a game the number of fps don't rise the costs because they are generated, a movie with double fps needs double storage and post production work.
 
D

dmr87

Member
It's because people thinks it will look like you are filming with a handcam and getting the soap opera effect, like turning on the 100hz/intelligent fram creation/whatever it is called on your TV setting to make it look more fluid.

I've never seen what 48 fps looks like myself but if it's anything like the TV settings, then it's shit.
 
A

androvsky

Member
Generally the player has a lot more control over the camera in games, which probably helps a lot with motion sickness. Movies tend to have a lot of shaking cameras, fast pans, quick cuts, sudden closeups, and other disorienting effects. A higher framerate would probably make the pans and shaking camera more disconcerting for some people. Plus, theater screens tend to fill the viewer's field of view more than a computer monitor or home TV.

So in conclusion, movies should switch to 60fps and directors should stop with the hyperactive filming already. :)
 
S

Sethos

Banned
Khold said:
It's probably just the fact that "real" films have been 24 fps for forever.
Click to expand...

Indeed it is, most people got used it it while low-rate productions and stuff like they tend to have a higher framerate thus the bad assocation. Most people, instead of giving it a chance and getting used to it are already screaming "SOAP LOOk, IT'S SHIT" - Change is bad etc.
 
O

Orayn

Member
dmr87 said:
It's because people thinks it will look like you are filming with a handcam and getting the soap opera effect, like turning on the 100hz/intelligent fram creation/whatever it is called on your TV setting to make it look more fluid.

I've never seen what 48 fps looks like myself but if it's anything like the TV settings, then it's shit.
Click to expand...

It's not, since it actually contains more recorded information and doesn't involve adding what a computer thinks should be the "correct" transition between two frames.
 
1

1-D_FTW

Member
Who knows.

BTW, 3D becomes magical at 60fps. 1080P @60fps has such amazing animation. IMO framerate is even more beneficial to 3D than 2D.

Then again, I seem to remember reading stories where people have made the dizzy claim with every tech advance Hollywood has tried in the past 100 years. So it seems par for the course.

I don't really get the size thing either. People sit so far away, the typical movie theater has a smaller FOV than sitting 2 feet from a monitor. So I suspect these people would be having the same issue with 3D games on a small monitor 2 feet away.

EDIT: Yikes at all the errors. And that's why you preview a post.
 
A

angular graphics

Banned
androvsky said:
Generally the player has a lot more control over the camera in games, which probably helps a lot with motion sickness. Movies tend to have a lot of shaking cameras, fast pans, quick cuts, sudden closeups, and other disorienting effects. A higher framerate would probably make the pans and shaking camera more disconcerting for some people. Plus, theater screens tend to fill the viewer's field of view more than a computer monitor or home TV.

So in conclusion, movies should switch to 60fps and directors should stop with the hyperactive filming already. :)
Click to expand...

Logically (or IMO at least) the higher framerate would actually help all those "disorienting effects" appear smoother than they currently do and more easy on the eyes/brain/stomach.
 
G

Guerrillas in the Mist

Member
2+2=5 said:
I didn't know this, but in a game the number of fps don't rise the costs because they are generated, a movie with double fps need double storage and post production work.
Click to expand...

I'm sceptical of that, because it's surely just a matter of doubling the needed hard-drive space and extra render-time when it comes to editing footage (granted, I have no idea how editing works in professional films). While there will be a cost increase, I think it'd be a drop in the ocean when it comes to a big-budget film.
 
F

FinKL

Member
Treythalomew said:
The 2D version is 24 fps, 48 fps is only available on in 3D.
Click to expand...

This is correct. I wanted to see 48fps 2D, but no theater is equipped with this tech or they didn't want to send it out. I'm not sure why (cost?). They went all in with the 3D 48fps so if you want to see 48fps, you better be ready for the glasses.
 
C

ColtraineGF

Member
It's hard to say - really, I'm used to movies/TV dramas/etc. being at 24fps, and stuff like soap operas, some talk shows, and such being at 60fps. It's just what I am (and almost everyone who's watched TV/movies are) used to, I guess.

I'm still interested in what the experience will be like in 48 though, so I'm anticipating watching it.
 
L

Levyne

Banned
Hmm I didn't know that 48 fps in 2D wasn't an option. I don't really care much for 3D but maybe I'll give it another try.
 
A

alr1ght

bish gets all the credit :)
Sports are 60fps, so I'm guessing people are whining due to the massive screen size they're seeing the Hobbit on.
 
S

SapientWolf

Trucker Sexologist
Games are chasing reality, film is an escape from it. The reality of a film is people acting on a set. But people have no problem with 60fps in sports, probably for this same reason. I think 60fps CG and cartoons would be received a lot better.

As for physical sickness, the viewing angles are a lot wider. Who's to say that a lot of people wouldn't get sick when VR gaming becomes mainstream?
 
O

Orayn

Member
angular graphics said:
Logically (or IMO at least) the higher framerate would actually help all those "disorienting effects" appear smoother than they currently do and more easy on the eyes/brain/stomach.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Smoother shaking/jostling will generally feel more real, and that's what potentially could make someone feel sick.
 
P

Perkel

Banned
it is because films look like recorded via handcam. cheap.

It is a weird feeling but that how it goes. In long time people won't like 24fps and they will change to 48fps.

There is also this thing that 24FPS in cinema =/= 24FPS in game because cinema projectors work a bit different to TV or monitor screen. I don't know much but in summary there are more FPS than 24FPS because for a short period we see blackness or something like that in between shoots.
 
T

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
I think it's partly because when you record a movie, each frame gets pixel perfect motion blur 'for free', as it were. Whereas most games are just lots of single-frame, motion-blur-less images shown very quickly.

For instance, look at this screencap from the Hobbit trailer:

2rivendell-copy.jpg
Click to expand...
Although most things are moving slowly, the water in the foreground is still blurry. If you took a picture of most videogames, that would be static, like it was frozen in time.
 
Wonko_C

Wonko_C

Member
It will definetly not look like motion-interpolated shit at all. I think after watching it, a lot of people won't be able to go back to 24fps with all their flickering and strobing. Really this change should've become standard ages ago, at 24 fps it's impossible to capture very fast movement as it all becomes a blur. Imagine Bruce Lee's action scenes would've been a lot more watchable at 48fps at least.

Shame it's US/Canada only. :(
 
Y

yogloo

Member
The problem with 48 fps is that everything is so much clearer. Bad make ups and low quality sets stick out like a sore thumb.
 
L

Like the hat?

Banned
Overdoziz said:
For example?
Click to expand...
It's mostly when games switch around and it's only 60fps sometimes, like when there is less detail. A solid 60fps is generally fine. But when it's only sometimes 60fps it makes me feel dizzy and I have a hard time focusing during the 60fps moments.

There have been solid 60fps games that have made me feel sick though. Only 3d ones with fast camera movements though generally.
 
D

daviyoung

Banned
FPS makes a game play better, smoother. It's paramount to most people's enjoyment of a gem.

"Is it jerky?"

A higher framerate should be something all companies strive for, it makes your game run well and play responsively, it's a good thing. FPS in movies really doesn't matter that much since it's a very passive medium that can take higher artistic liberties with camera angles and editing.
 
Teletraan1

Teletraan1

Banned
They need to make a Y&R game, but wait till next gen or PC, it has to be 60FPS so it will look like a soap opera.
 
C

Cartman86

Banned
Tarantino on digital and fps

While this is an argument about the debate between digital and film and I think Tarantino is insane in his hyperbole about wanting to quit the industry when digital takes over (which will probably happen in the next couple years) he expresses the same argument many will use for staying with 24 fps. That film looks a certain way because it's an illusion. It's 24 fps for a reason, and that's where the "movie magic" comes in. I agree there is a look to it, but not only can that look be done with digital, but for me personally the digital aesthetic looks good as well. I personally have not seen a 48 fps movie so I am curious what my reaction will be to that. So far though films like Zodiac, The Social Network, Skyfall and Life of Pi have made digital look pretty fucking good, so I trust I will be fine with the "soap opera" look.
 
S

Shadow Hog

Member
Frankly, I'm just hoping that shifting the standard of cinema framerates will put an end to that bullshit "we're making our games more cinematic!" excuse for 30FPS. Just be honest and say "the hardware couldn't run our game with all our effects at 60FPS", seriously.
 
M

Mit-

Member
Read this article: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2403746,00.asp

Fantastic history and information about framerates in relation to The Hobbit. Even talks about video games.

The Hobbit is "limited release" because there are less than 500 theaters in the US that are even capable of displaying 48fps. There's a list linked in that article showing what theaters have it.

Not sure why it's US only.
 
B

Backfoggen

Banned
I could see some movies benefiting from a higher framerate but not every single one.
Games on the other hand all benefit from a higher framerate, even if it's just cause of the shorter input lag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

[Prima Games] Starfield Should Have a 60 FPS Performance Mode
Opinion News Drama 2 3 4 5 6
275
14K
Kenneth Haight replied
Red Dead Redemption can run at 60 fps on a hacked Switch
45
6K
Destruction-1002 replied
Atlas Fallen Will Run at 4K/30 FPS or 1440p/60 FPS on PS5 and Xbox Series X On Xbox Series S, the game will run at 1080p and 60 FPS
News
20
3K
SolidQ replied
Sony Is Reportedly Improving Reprojection Tech For PSVR 2 Games That Run At 60 FPS
News VR Hardware
7
1K
Crayon replied
Déjà Vu: Is PS5's Performance Mode a Rehash of the Early HD Debacle?
Opinion 2
53
3K
Gojiira replied
Top Bottom