If you think that's what they are talking about you are completely missing the point.
-
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.
Developers Discuss Benefits Of Targeting 720p/30fps Next Gen, Using Film Aesthetics
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
What's the advantage in aiming for 30 FPS?
sixteen-bit
Member
You must be psyched that they're catering to you.
ScepticMatt
Member
Current film release prints look softer than BluRay releases watched on a nice Monitor/HDTV. Heck, you can even see the difference between color subsampled BluRay and full RGB RED clips.
I find it funny that game devs want to mimic current film framerate and resolution when on the other Sony and RED are pushing for real 4K and/or 48fps+ releases (Avatar 2, The Hobbit, Spiderman etc.)
I find it funny that game devs want to mimic current film framerate and resolution when on the other Sony and RED are pushing for real 4K and/or 48fps+ releases (Avatar 2, The Hobbit, Spiderman etc.)
Always said 1080p60 next gen was a pipe dream.
Also people can't be using current gen techniques as a basis to how things will evolve and develop next gen. The FXAA we use now on the ps3 and 360 will be different than the FXAA used on the 720 and PS4.
I'm all for a prettier 720p30 game than a sterile 1080p60 game.
If you're talking about aiming for 1080p, that was more marketing speak than a legit aim.
Also people can't be using current gen techniques as a basis to how things will evolve and develop next gen. The FXAA we use now on the ps3 and 360 will be different than the FXAA used on the 720 and PS4.
I'm all for a prettier 720p30 game than a sterile 1080p60 game.
If you're talking about aiming for 1080p, that was more marketing speak than a legit aim.
nincompoop
Banned
If developers think that PSX framerates are "good enough" then they're missing point.
I thought the idea was to make games that look "immersive" and realistic. How can you be immersed in a game when the framerate automatically prevents it from even remotely resembling what you see in real life?
plagiarize
Banned
oh, is Amazing Spider-Man 48fps? i didn't know that. i knew The Hobbit and Avatar 2 were going to be. the sooner we get 48 fps into cinemas the better. lets kill off this 'cinematic framerate' nonsense.
only if my TV has an appropriate refresh rate. on my current set, no. i know that at some point in the future i will buy a 3DTV that can take 1080p/48 and 1080p/60 in framepacked 3d. i haven't been following CES, but they don't look like they'll be showing up anytime soon.
I'm just the opposite. I don't have a problem with 30fps (rock-solid), but I do have a problem with 720p.
no, because they just spend that on prettier pixels/more sparks. There is a limit to the fillrate which means tradeoffs are a necessary evil.
The Omega Man
Member
it seems developers prefer to use the extra power on new generation of consoles for textures, shaders and maybe resolutions, 60 fps on consoles as a standard is never going to happen, with a new console the circle will start again.
so the question is, with next-gen consoles:
a) Do you want your games to look like current-gen games but to run at silky smooth 60 fps (and 720p) or
b) Do you want your games to look better than curent-gen games at the expense of fps and resolution.
I choose A but I might be in the minority here
so the question is, with next-gen consoles:
a) Do you want your games to look like current-gen games but to run at silky smooth 60 fps (and 720p) or
b) Do you want your games to look better than curent-gen games at the expense of fps and resolution.
I choose A but I might be in the minority here
Genesis Knight
Member
Why?
Haunted
Member
Not sure what the fuck is going on, but if they can somehow make a 720p image look as clean and sharp as a 1080p image while using less rendering power (that is what they're suggesting, right?), then sure, go for it. I was under the impression that it was easier on performance to just render at higher resolutions (like 1080p) to get a clean and sharp image without the need for excessive post-processing which would eat a lot of power.
60fps as a standard is not happening because the direction gaming is heading is that visual fidelity takes precedence over gameplay smoothness (easier for marketing) and the way things are going developers won't have enough processing power available next gen to fulfill their artistic and qualitative vision while maintaining 60fps.
plagiarize
Banned
i don't think you know what final offer means. i'm going to throw you a bone though:
you can have post process 60 fps.
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1837047&dl=ACM&coll=DL&CFID=61684698&CFTOKEN=95828674
Auto_aim1
MeisaMcCaffrey
That was fine for this gen, but it seems pointless targeting the same 720p/30fps next gen as well, especially when the hardware is more powerful and capable of more. 30fps will allow them to do a lot of things, but I hope they at least target 60fps for shooters and racing games. I guess I can live with that.
PSX framerates? What exactly does that mean? The performance of software across the systems library varies quite heavily.
I will always prefer 60 fps and certain types of games will always benefit, but a proper locked 30 fps with filmic motion blur can look absolutely incredible in motion. What I'm talking about looks very different from the 30 fps you're probably thinking of.
You assume that what they are saying is going to be a standard. There is never such a thing and developers always do whatever suits the project or their capabilities. The idea presented here is simply suggesting that some developers might attempt to produce visuals that more closely resemble a CG film using the extra horsepower saved from rendering at a lower resolution and framerate. The results sure as hell wouldn't resemble what we currently see on consoles at 1280x720.
You must be pretty disappointed in the 3DS, though, as Nintendo has dropped the ball hard in regards to framerate and image quality. Games are very jaggy and 98% of the library runs at 30 fps.
That's the thing though, the thesis comes from films being blurry and soft relative to game images.
Exactly. Films look completely different from games, I'm sure everyone here can agree. The concept being discussed is targeting the look of a film rather than a game as we know today.
Haunted
Member
oh.
Well then, I'm definitely not a fan of this line of thinking. Clean and sharp imagery is what I want. We all want to eliminate jaggies, but vaseline filters are not the way, imo.
edit: I'm not sure I'm even understanding what their aim is. "Targeting the look of a film" and "getting gamers to accept that" just sounds like compromising image quality to me.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
720p games look extremely bad on a 1080p computer monitor, full stop. They have terrible upscalers. Anything better would introduce unacceptable input lag. Doesn't matter how much AA you rub on it. This is fine for the home market though.
Unfortunately this is quite true. Every monitor I've owned has produced absolutely awful results when native 1280x720 is fed to it. With the right display, however, 1280x720 can still look excellent.
If it were to look like film, it sure as hell wouldn't be a compromise.
Haunted
Member
Interactivity of games plays a part here as well. Vanquish looks great in motion because it's frantic, hectic, your brain can't take notice of all the little details because there's so much happening all the time and it's all very fluid. But stand still and take a detailed look around you and you see a lot of the weaknesses exposed - game makers don't control a player's viewpoint 100% of the time like moviemakers can.
Right, but if the image quality and motion blur quality were more "filmic" it would look both better in motion and in stills.
There is a bit more to it than that.
Note this quote for example:
There's even a suggestion that if you were to render at 1080p, you could use filtering to make it look like it's actually a lower resolution in an effort to achieve that "filmic" look.
AbortedWalrusFetus
Member
I definitely advocate for 60FPS. It just feels so much better to play at that framerate.
plagiarize
Banned
what the fuck is up with that? 4K 48/60 FPS... please SAVE US.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
I don't really know what they mean by "look like a film." Everything in film is downsampled. No one shoots or renders at 720p.
Better get to Specsavers....
Lostconfused
Member
This point has been brought up a couple of times but it is really important. You can only get so far with screenshot comparisons. You need to see the game running in motion to make any kind of judgement on the quality of it's visuals.
Why does "film look" mean "look like a lower resolution"?
We have movies on DVD, Blu-Ray, and we'll double or tipple dip when 4k televisions release. All have/will have the film look.
Tylahedras
Banned
fuck you asymptote, and your graph is a whore.
Haunted
Member
The very idea runs counter to everything I've learned/experienced about visual fidelity in the history of gaming.
I guess I'll have to see the end result of what they're proposing for myself?
Dorfdad
Gold Member
1080p 60fps needs to be the default for next gen not 720p which we have had for years! PC gamers are edging up over 2K now and more with 4K resolutions coming soon. 720p and I wont buy another system.
Why they serious cramp these systems is beyond me. If I can build a single PC for under a 800 that can do 1080p gaming and has 4 gigs of ram and notebooks are able to do it easily now there is no way they cant make a $300.00 console bought in the millions that can do this as well.
If they try to give us a nextgen system with 512mb ram and a 512mb video card and and ask me to pay $300 I hope the community totally takes a shit on them.
They need to also allow next gens to use a keyboard and sell one. So they can open up the market more and allow more types of PC games on the system. And for jumping lizard sakes lets get proper Shadows and AA!!!!!!!!!!!
Why they serious cramp these systems is beyond me. If I can build a single PC for under a 800 that can do 1080p gaming and has 4 gigs of ram and notebooks are able to do it easily now there is no way they cant make a $300.00 console bought in the millions that can do this as well.
If they try to give us a nextgen system with 512mb ram and a 512mb video card and and ask me to pay $300 I hope the community totally takes a shit on them.
They need to also allow next gens to use a keyboard and sell one. So they can open up the market more and allow more types of PC games on the system. And for jumping lizard sakes lets get proper Shadows and AA!!!!!!!!!!!
mclaren777
Member
I don't really care about resolution, but I really hope that all console games next gen are locked to 30 fps.
Not only that. The display the game is being played on matters as well.
No shit. Obviously the games wouldn't be "filmed", but the idea is to produce an image that looks similar to a film viewed at 1280x720.
Hah. I really hope they keep that naming scheme for the next Xbox. They can call it the Xbox 720p for posterity's sake.
Haunted
Member
I saw that but just assumed that I completely missed something there because shitting up a perfectly fine picture with a vaseline filter couldn't be their point.
Disregarding the difference in effects, the vaseline picture looks objectively, factually, worse.
edit: it would only make sense if the vaseline is the thing that allows them to go for those extra effects.