All other things being equal, 1080p looks better than 720p, but there's no such thing as all other things being equal when you're rendering something in real-time with limited computational resources. If you increase the resolution you have to scale back somewhere else, and I was simply saying that for a game like LA Noire developers would be better off at 720p with really nice DoF, accurate filmic motion blur, etc. than at 1080p with any of those absent.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Developers Discuss Benefits Of Targeting 720p/30fps Next Gen, Using Film Aesthetics
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
All other things being equal, 1080p looks better than 720p, but there's no such thing as all other things being equal when you're rendering something in real-time with limited computational resources. If you increase the resolution you have to scale back somewhere else, and I was simply saying that for a game like LA Noire developers would be better off at 720p with really nice DoF, accurate filmic motion blur, etc. than at 1080p with any of those absent.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
I don't get this obsession with 60 fps. I'll take 30 with improved effects + good motion blur over 60 any day EXCEPT for racing, sports, and fighting games. It doesn't even look real. Move your head around the room, what do you see? Motion blur. What do you see when moving around in a game like COD? A static, unrealistic looking image. Outside of games where 60 fps is a crucial cog of the gameplay (the genres mentioned above), I don't see the need for it and will gladly take better graphics and good motion blur @ 30 fps.
This.
I honestly wish Sony and Microsoft had stayed focused on SD resolutions for a generation longer than they did. The current crop of machines would produce some mind-blowing graphics if they had. That said, I'd much rather devs wait another generation for the hardware to support a proper jump to 1080p than do it prematurely and have no-AA/choppy framerates all over the place again.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
LCDs all have ghosting, so you get free motion blur anyway.
Motion blur as we know it isn't a very good representation of how the visual field looks with fast head movement. It's approximating film, not real life.
Miggytronz
Member
damn that Rendered shot of Wall-E is amazing. :O
AcceptableGhost
Member
Looks like I will have to stick with the platform where I have some control over the IQ.
"Tons"? Haha. Less than 10% is "tons"? You do know that Beyond3D tracks this, right?
*highfive*
Foliorum Viridum
Banned
Hahaha. Fuck THAT.
If every game isn't 1080p next gen then everyone has failed. It's fucking 2012. On my PC I've been playing games at a higher res than 1080p for two years.
Jesus Christ what an awful idea.
I don't expect all games to be 60fps but it should always be what's aimed for.
If every game isn't 1080p next gen then everyone has failed. It's fucking 2012. On my PC I've been playing games at a higher res than 1080p for two years.
Jesus Christ what an awful idea.
I don't expect all games to be 60fps but it should always be what's aimed for.
I don't get this relaxed attitude to sluggish ass 30 FPS, do you move about in syrup all day long?
Yeah the amount of sub-HD games out there is greatly exaggerated. Out of my PS3 collection only two games are sub-HD(MGS4 and Vanquish).
I dislike how the discussion now conflates the temporal and spatial resolution issues.
The argument that spatial resolution in games could take some hints from film is a good one, because it's very hard to eliminate flickering with complex effects at 1080p and beyond.
The argument that the temporal resolution (framerate) of film is sufficient, on the other hand, is nonsense. It completely disregards the fundamental difference between movies and games (interactivity).
The argument that spatial resolution in games could take some hints from film is a good one, because it's very hard to eliminate flickering with complex effects at 1080p and beyond.
The argument that the temporal resolution (framerate) of film is sufficient, on the other hand, is nonsense. It completely disregards the fundamental difference between movies and games (interactivity).
Fine Ham Abounds
Member
I'm all for an attempt to have an accepted industry-wide benchmark of minimum consistent performance, but I'm not sure I'm fully behind the angle being discussed here. When I'm consistently no longer experiencing input lag and texture pop-in, I'll start listening to their ideas regarding ideal resolutions and performance.
I think a better goal would be to make a commitment to eliminating the overuse of bloom for all eternity.
I think a better goal would be to make a commitment to eliminating the overuse of bloom for all eternity.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
Move your head quickly around the room with any light source (a lamp, a window, your computer screen, anything), what do you see? Motion blur. That light source moving around with you then fading away. What would you see if this were 60 fps like COD? A static, unrealistic looking image. Does anyone get what I'm saying? It's hard to put into words.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
60 fps doesn't necessarily prevent proper motion blur from being implemented. I've seen it work at double that framerate or higher (and at > 1080p resolution) in various render tests at the office.
One last thing, developers need to get over their inferiority complex regarding movies. Or they just need to stop making games and make movies instead. Games are games. Movies are movies. Use the inherent advantages that being a game gives you and make the best video games you can. Stop trying to make your game into the best movie you can. Gaming is legitimate now. You can let go of your complex with movies now. The more you chase after it, the more pathetic you look.
If motion blur was an artifact of your vision we wouldn't have to simulate it. It would naturally occur simply by showing the animation on the screen.
AcceptableGhost
Member
No, you watch too many films. You can have motion blur at 60FPS as well, I usually turn it off because I would rather see the game world than a shitty blur (although some games motion blur is alright).
This. I am tired of this film-love shit. I pretty much actively dislike movies, it pains me whenever I hear this shit from devs.
If you are trying to imply that you get that same completely overdone motion blur in real life, as is used in games when you move your head, something is very wrong. That "static, unrealistic looking image" you keep referring to is a lot closer to reality. The only time you'd be correct is when you've had an excess of 10 beers, then "game" motion blur starts to kick in. Plus motion blur isn't 30 FPS exclusive. Motion blur just takes a toll on performance, so it's being left out of games like Call of Duty to maintain 60FPS.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
[Nintex];34185902 said:
At 720p @ 30 fps they'll do better than Samitaran on the next gen consoles.
Wonko_C
Member
I agree!
Give me this at 720p and 30 fps.
Now it doesn't have to be GT6 or GT7 in particular, but if they can make the shadows look this good next-gen at 720p and 30 fps I'd LOVE it!
And this is how the 720p game is going to end up looking when blown up to your 1080p TV (dramatization):
That's how most current-gen games look in my eyes, Forza 4 especially because I have to sit even closer to be able to play with my wheel.
iamshadowlark
Banned
Given the sales of the cinematic games, you seem to be in the minority.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
I'd still; say 1080p not to make LCD's ruin the image. Blu-Ray movies are 1080p generally
.Still, I agree that anti-aliasing, edges and most of all surfaces anit-aliasing (this generation has horrible surface/shaders induced aliasing), and higher fidelity over-all could be a good thing for next-generation game consoles.
I'm in agreement for everything except multiplayer (and certain genres like fighting games), where I still feel 60fps is a must. 30fps keeps that 'movie' feel, and if it's locked and if it's a SP affair it'd draw me in much more than something with compromises made going at 60. Every time I go to an electronics store and they keep the frame interpolation stuff turned on I'm absolutely disgusted by the magnitude of the soap opera effect. They could certainly do 1080p at 60fps movies, but doing so will turn them into the likes of reality game shows.
It'd be interesting to see what these devs can accomplish at 720p/30fps though. The recurring theme I saw on the other thread was that something like Uncharted 3 is an unfair comparison because it had tons of money thrown at it. Which is to say, the same money should allow the next gen to look even better than what we're getting with the likes of BF3 PC / TW2.
It'd be interesting to see what these devs can accomplish at 720p/30fps though. The recurring theme I saw on the other thread was that something like Uncharted 3 is an unfair comparison because it had tons of money thrown at it. Which is to say, the same money should allow the next gen to look even better than what we're getting with the likes of BF3 PC / TW2.
And this is how the 720p game is going to end up looking when blown up to your 1080p TV (dramatization):
That's how most current-gen games look in my eyes, Forza 4 especially because I have to sit even closer to be able to play with my wheel.
You forgot the important blur step.
AcceptableGhost
Member
Barack Lesnar
Banned
To the above replies to my last post:
I'm really confused. How can you have motion blur with 60 fps? I'd like to see a video of that or a good game example. When I play a 60 fps game like COD all the objects on screen are static when looking around. In real life they move around with my head and then fade away. This is all very confusing for me, to be honest.
I'm really confused. How can you have motion blur with 60 fps? I'd like to see a video of that or a good game example. When I play a 60 fps game like COD all the objects on screen are static when looking around. In real life they move around with my head and then fade away. This is all very confusing for me, to be honest.
That's not motion blur. That's image retention.
Look at a spot for long enough and the image stays burned-in for a short period of time.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
Lmao, dude play any game that has a "motion blur" option at 60 fps with the setting first off and then on.
Real life 30 fps confirmed.
Real life 30 fps confirmed.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
Do we have that in games?
Just reminds me how flat panels fucking suck when it comes to handling non-native resolutions (ignoring the fact that your dramatization is wildly inaccurate rather than just a bit off).And this is how the 720p game is going to end up looking when blown up to your 1080p TV (dramatization):
That's how most current-gen games look in my eyes, Forza 4 especially because I have to sit even closer to be able to play with my wheel.
A great flat panel can overcome these issues to a degree, but man, I would love to find a display technology that can actually handle a multitude of resolutions once again. If you were to throw up that 1280x720 image on, say, the Sony FW900 or something it would look absolutely fantastic.
On a shitty LCD, though, it turns into a mess. Unfortunately, a lot of people here DO own shitty LCDs. Heck, a lot of pretty good LCDs suffer from scaling issues as well.
No, thank god.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
Please developers, do not side with the 30fps apologizers. If next-gen is 720p/30fps I'm skipping it entirely because my PC has run better games for years.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
Why? If they are trying to make realistic looking games it seems like a fundamental visual feature. I wonder if any game has tried it. It must be incredibly difficult to implement in a way that it's realistic and also not a huge annoyance when playing.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
I can't think of any specific examples but there are games that have used image retention as a special effect...like if there's a large explosion right in front of your character or if they're hit very hard. I want to say Half Life 2 has done it but I may be wrong. If it was something that was always there it'd be annoying as shit.
I don't see any benefit to mandating anything with respect to framerate or resolution, if it's even possible.
We saw all the tricks developers used to come in below the supposed 720p mandated this generation. Trying to mandate a specific framerate as TRC is more slippery.
Some games are going to be 1080p (as some were this gen). Some games will be 720p. If Sony wants to push some Bravias, a few games might even do 4K.
Framerates will be all over the map, as usual.
Developers are going to have to decide based on art and technology considerations. No dev wants their game to look/run like crap.
The only mandate we *might* see on the next consoles is 3D. I could definitely see Sony requiring that. But if 3rd parties flat-out refuse to support 3D, what can the platform-holder really do? Pass up on a major 3rd party franchise? Seems unlikely.
We saw all the tricks developers used to come in below the supposed 720p mandated this generation. Trying to mandate a specific framerate as TRC is more slippery.
Some games are going to be 1080p (as some were this gen). Some games will be 720p. If Sony wants to push some Bravias, a few games might even do 4K.
Framerates will be all over the map, as usual.
Developers are going to have to decide based on art and technology considerations. No dev wants their game to look/run like crap.
The only mandate we *might* see on the next consoles is 3D. I could definitely see Sony requiring that. But if 3rd parties flat-out refuse to support 3D, what can the platform-holder really do? Pass up on a major 3rd party franchise? Seems unlikely.
iamshadowlark
Banned
Would on god's green earth would make you think every developer would change to 30fps? Different games will have different needs, same as this gen.
Well, it'd technically be striving for it in like 2018-2020 as well unless this generation is replaced very quickly.
Because it would look terrible. Do you want it so that when you look at the sun you have a big white spot in the center of your screen for 5 minutes?
ii Stryker
Banned
If the trade off is having and inconsistent 60fps versus a constant 30 I’ll take the 30
What this is telling me is perhaps the differential gap in next gen IQ, when compared to the current, isn't worth the price of entry. Plus I think this line of thinking will keep the cost down for the consumer.
plagiarize
Banned
if you have a half decent PC you could download the RE5 benchmark and run that with motion blur at 60 fps. if you can hit 60 fps in Crysis or Crysis 2 both let you use motion blur at those speeds.
all motion blur SHOULD do is disguise the fact that a frame in a game is an instant of time, making it look like a short moment of time exposed on film.
your frame should only contain motion blur for the length of time it's going to display on screen for. motion blur is meant to disguise frame rate, but it makes stuff blurry.
motion blurred 30 fps may look as smooth as motion blurred 60 fps does to you, but it's not going to look as blurry, and it shouldn't and you shouldn't want it to.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
For us in real life it's not annoying, though. We don't even think about it or realize it, it's just natural. If they could find a way to implement it in a non-annoying way it would be incredible.
Motion blur in games is a graphical setting, just like anything else. It's definitely less pronounced due to faster framerate, but it's still noticeable.
If you happen to have any Valve games on Steam, you can enable motion blur in just about all of them to see it in action.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
Yeah I have HL2 and TF2 of course. I'll give it a shot, thanks.
Don't ruin his hyperbole trip.