it does if you don't set up your tv properly first
-
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?
- Thread starter Symphonic
- Start date
it does if you don't set up your tv properly first
but I heard on gaf that more numbers always means better.
Captain Tuttle
Member
I think you're right, I'd probably get motion sickness playing an fps on a movie screen.
bloodforge
Member
Wow, that looks great. No blurring at all. Would love to see it in 1080p though.
Gahiggidy
My aunt & uncle run a Mom & Pop store, "The Gamecube Hut", and sold 80k WiiU within minutes of opening.
I don't think its possible to add motion blur to moving game images (viewpoint not stuff in scene)... though It would be interesting to see prerecorded gameplay simulated with motion blur.
----
Maybe with, like, an insane 300-fps you could calculate motion blur by sampling 30 motion frames fro every output frame. I don't know.
----
Maybe with, like, an insane 300-fps you could calculate motion blur by sampling 30 motion frames fro every output frame. I don't know.
Eight Diagram Bat Fighter
Banned
I love how he has the example footage I shot on the website and links it to dvxuser who stole it from GAF. dvxuser stealing all the credit in every instance I've seen so far.
It does look like a soap opera?!
Some of the motion blur techniques available to games today do a pretty damn good job approximating the look, but we still have a ways to go.
UnluckyKate
Member
I really can't understand that. 60 dps is basically everything better than 30 dps. It's a more fluid. It's easier for the eye to catch
Just as sound, color and 3D. Technical advancements aren't needed to make good movies, but they allow to make different movies, and that's good.
Motion blur is a kludge. I'm waiting for the day when we get everything at 120 FPS.
Really, it's hard to scientifically test this theory, but I'm certain that if you showed a 30 and a 60 FPS clip to someone who has never seen a movie before there would be no question as to which is preferable.
Really, it's hard to scientifically test this theory, but I'm certain that if you showed a 30 and a 60 FPS clip to someone who has never seen a movie before there would be no question as to which is preferable.
Gahiggidy
My aunt & uncle run a Mom & Pop store, "The Gamecube Hut", and sold 80k WiiU within minutes of opening.
Yes, just watch those few, later episodes of the Twilight Zone at 30fps. It looks weird unnatural for story-telling.
Sadly that is motion interpolated version of the 24fps trailer, the artifacts of the process are very easily noticeable.
A proper 48fps source should look a lot better.
exmachina64
Banned
Thank you! Without that list, I wouldn't have found a theater that has 48fps in my state.
33 to 16 ms doesn't change much considering my reaction time is 200 ms.
Nappuccino
Member
This is a large part of the reason why I'm not excited for 60 fps. I feel like properly viewed 24fps does a damn good job of not having judder.
Maybe 48 and 60fps will change my mind but I doubt it's going to given the samples we've seen in this thread.
Because 60fps is useful in games because you're controlling it. Higher framerate equals higher response and a more nuanced level of interaction.
Movies are not interactive, they are a story told through the illusion of motion. They aren't supposed to look like you shot them on a Canon VIXIA on your way to the store.
24 fps was originally chosen because it gave the most cost-effective result with synchronized audio, but it has remained a standard because it works. The only reason 48 fps is even being toyed with now is because the studios want a new thing to charge you an extra fee for now that 3D is on the way out. It's a cash grab, not a presentational improvement.
Movies are not interactive, they are a story told through the illusion of motion. They aren't supposed to look like you shot them on a Canon VIXIA on your way to the store.
24 fps was originally chosen because it gave the most cost-effective result with synchronized audio, but it has remained a standard because it works. The only reason 48 fps is even being toyed with now is because the studios want a new thing to charge you an extra fee for now that 3D is on the way out. It's a cash grab, not a presentational improvement.
PjotrStroganov
Member
24fps on a computer monitor really does 24fps a disservice.
I must say, the 48fps trailer looks inconsistent. Panning and steady shots look great. But action sequences look off.
Very true. Watching 24fps movies on my plasma (at 72hz) looks great. I go through great lengths to have movies play at the exact framerate to ensure no frames get dropped or repeated, and it looks brilliant. Of course, it doesn't look anywhere near as smooth as proper 48fps material, but at least it's consistent as opposed to watching 24p material on a 60hz monitor.
I'm looking forward to watching the Hobbit at 48fps, and the discussions that will follow. As of now I believe once people get used to it, higher frame rates will become preferable.
Gahiggidy
My aunt & uncle run a Mom & Pop store, "The Gamecube Hut", and sold 80k WiiU within minutes of opening.
I saw the Hobbit trailer a couple times in the theater recently and I must say it looked weird, but.. I'm not sure if it was running at native 48fps. It could have been down sampled which would produce a "video game" look of very little motion blur in movement.
Shadow Hog
Member
That's because, to my understanding, it's using the same technology those "smooth motion" filters on HDTVs use. It's not actual 48FPS footage, it's 24FPS footage made to look like 48FPS footage.
Sentenza
Member
It's because they don't know better.
CamHostage
Member
Yeah, I've seen that. And have you ever watched a low-budget (shot on video) documentary released for theaters, then watched the outtakes from the original source material? In the edited movie, even 4:3 handicam footage can have a cinematic quality when processed for pulldown, but that same camera reel played back in its natural state doesn't present in the same way and looks like a TV show.
You'd get that a little bit back in the day with trailers that ran cutscenes smash-cut into PS2 or Dreamcast in-game footage, and all the gameplay just looked off and computery and bad ... although there were a ton of other factors in there too, like lossy recording codecs and insufficient game capture devices that wrecked the game footage in a way that the renders usually weren't subject to.
Or maybe the motion is too lifelike and they are subconsciously expecting to feel the motion they are seeing, thus motion sickness?
maquiladora
Member
That trailer is the 24fps trailer which someone has processed to double the frames. It is not 48fps footage from the film.
maquiladora
Member
The motion sickness quotes came from one newspaper article (Sunday Times - News Corp) which threw out a couple of quotes by "fans" without giving any names and mentions at least one of them as a tweet, but none of the quotes can be found on twitter.
There are plenty of reactions on twitter to people who have seen screenings now, and while not everyone liked 48fps - nobody, not one person, complained of sickness from seeing it.
Here's native 50fps from that other topic
SD
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363419986/bluedress_(1).mp4.html
HD
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363420053/bluedress_(EDIT).mp4.html
SD
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363419986/bluedress_(1).mp4.html
HD
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363420053/bluedress_(EDIT).mp4.html
Pixel Pete
Member
That 48fps trailer looks amazing and it's interpolated! I can't wait to see the real thing with full recorded data in 3D 
the reason it doesn't look like a soap opera is because, well, it isn't a soap opera. They have different production methods and values.
the reason it doesn't look like a soap opera is because, well, it isn't a soap opera. They have different production methods and values.
Castor Krieg
Banned
Just becaue you don't see the obvious when you are staring right at it doesn't mean other people don't. 30FPS vs 60FPS is for me as night and day. And no, 30FPS is not acceptable.
Some people can notice the difference easier than others. There is a pretty big difference between 30 and 60.
That's because it is unnatural, it's just faking it and it looks worse than the real thing.
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
The 60 FPS action shot is fucking sweet, the 60 FPS panning shot didn't make my head or stomach feel as good.
Zyrusticae
Banned
Ohmigawd, this thread is making me SO SAD!
Okay, folks, first of all, a physical camera is nothing at all like the rendering done inside your PC.
Learn about how a camera works. For starters, changing the shutter speed is what allows cameras to go up to 48 FPS. When you change the shutter speed, you change the clarity of the image. This is not always preferable. You don't always want a clearer image because it changes your ability to perceive motion in the scene. For some applications, that's good. For others, that's not so good.
Furthermore, cameras, and our own eyes for that matter, see things in shapes, not pixels. This is one reason video games look so unrealistic in motion without motion blur as a post-process. When a video game is being rendered, every single frame is the equivalent of a camera running at 1/20000 shutter speed - that is to say, an impossibly high shutter speed that shows everything in the scene at absolutely perfect clarity. It's completely different from a movie running at the exact same FPS because of this.
As for why your monitor can't just produce motion blur on its own, that's because the pixels on your screen changing rapidly involves no physical movement whatsoever. The streaks left behind by a fast-moving object requires actual physical movement to occur. Changing the color of a pixel on your screen, no matter how quickly you do it, isn't going to produce that kind of blur.
Furthermore, there is one very obvious difference between movies and games - interactivity. The reason you generally want a higher frame rate in games (besides the fact that most don't have good motion blur) is because a higher frame rate reduces the perception of input lag (the delay between when you press a button and when you see that action reflected on the screen). Of course, the problem is that sustaining 60 FPS requires enormous amounts of power and compromises in visual fidelity. The same game running at 30 FPS vs 60 can actually double the amount of load it's putting on the processor and GPU. That's huge.
So no, higher is not always better. There are trade-offs, and a LOT of it is subjective. There are a lot of movie directors who simply will not film at anything other than 1/24 shutter speed, both because they want that particular look and because it's a lot less expensive, since you have to double the amount of frames you record to run at a 1/48 shutter speed. By that same token, a lot of developers will settle for 30 FPS so that they can improve the look of their game that much more. For competitive, e-sport type games this would obviously be a problem, but there's a reason most of those run at 60 FPS (and, indeed, they have no problem whatsoever compromising their visuals to attain it). For everything else, 30 FPS is just the better choice.
Edit: Okay, I have to make a correction. The shutter speed has nothing to do with the frame rate of a camera. I was wrong.
For perceptual smoothness, then, higher frame rates are always better. I still have a bone to pick with the idea that motion blur is bad, however. Motion blur is necessary for the perception of fast motion. Too high a shutter speed just looks unnatural.
Okay, folks, first of all, a physical camera is nothing at all like the rendering done inside your PC.
Learn about how a camera works. For starters, changing the shutter speed is what allows cameras to go up to 48 FPS. When you change the shutter speed, you change the clarity of the image. This is not always preferable. You don't always want a clearer image because it changes your ability to perceive motion in the scene. For some applications, that's good. For others, that's not so good.
Furthermore, cameras, and our own eyes for that matter, see things in shapes, not pixels. This is one reason video games look so unrealistic in motion without motion blur as a post-process. When a video game is being rendered, every single frame is the equivalent of a camera running at 1/20000 shutter speed - that is to say, an impossibly high shutter speed that shows everything in the scene at absolutely perfect clarity. It's completely different from a movie running at the exact same FPS because of this.
As for why your monitor can't just produce motion blur on its own, that's because the pixels on your screen changing rapidly involves no physical movement whatsoever. The streaks left behind by a fast-moving object requires actual physical movement to occur. Changing the color of a pixel on your screen, no matter how quickly you do it, isn't going to produce that kind of blur.
Furthermore, there is one very obvious difference between movies and games - interactivity. The reason you generally want a higher frame rate in games (besides the fact that most don't have good motion blur) is because a higher frame rate reduces the perception of input lag (the delay between when you press a button and when you see that action reflected on the screen). Of course, the problem is that sustaining 60 FPS requires enormous amounts of power and compromises in visual fidelity. The same game running at 30 FPS vs 60 can actually double the amount of load it's putting on the processor and GPU. That's huge.
So no, higher is not always better. There are trade-offs, and a LOT of it is subjective. There are a lot of movie directors who simply will not film at anything other than 1/24 shutter speed, both because they want that particular look and because it's a lot less expensive, since you have to double the amount of frames you record to run at a 1/48 shutter speed. By that same token, a lot of developers will settle for 30 FPS so that they can improve the look of their game that much more. For competitive, e-sport type games this would obviously be a problem, but there's a reason most of those run at 60 FPS (and, indeed, they have no problem whatsoever compromising their visuals to attain it). For everything else, 30 FPS is just the better choice.
I've been told our eyes perceive fast movement at a level that's very similar to a camera running at 1/50 shutter speed - so 48 FPS would be ideal for true realism. 60 is going a bit too far, if you really must have that kind of smoothness.
Edit: Okay, I have to make a correction. The shutter speed has nothing to do with the frame rate of a camera. I was wrong.
For perceptual smoothness, then, higher frame rates are always better. I still have a bone to pick with the idea that motion blur is bad, however. Motion blur is necessary for the perception of fast motion. Too high a shutter speed just looks unnatural.
Higher framerate (like 48FPS means what you see on screen is closer to what you see away from a screen.
It is objectively more correct than lower frame rates like 24FPS, if more life like motion makes you sick, then just normal vision must make you sick and you should see a doctor.
It is objectively more correct than lower frame rates like 24FPS, if more life like motion makes you sick, then just normal vision must make you sick and you should see a doctor.
Higher framerate is objectively better than lower framerates. If there are some childhood diseases in the first ever 48hz movie, that still doesn't mean the format is bad. but most likely, people just aren't used to the look.
Framerate isn't quite as important as in games though, because a) no use input, and b) motion blur. But when watching movies on a big screen you can still see the choppy framerate in some scenes, and everything is extremely blurry whenever something moves even slightly, and freeze framing in an action sequence just doesn't work.
Framerate isn't quite as important as in games though, because a) no use input, and b) motion blur. But when watching movies on a big screen you can still see the choppy framerate in some scenes, and everything is extremely blurry whenever something moves even slightly, and freeze framing in an action sequence just doesn't work.
Zyrusticae
Banned
Think of it this way: The amount of movement that's going on inside the bounds of your monitor isn't anywhere close to the amount of movement that would be going on if you were recording that same scene with an actual camera.
To put it another way, if someone moves their arm 2 inches in a second inside the frame of your monitor, but actually moves it 4 feet IRL, the blur that will be created by these two situations is completely different. This is why video games need per-object motion blur to compensate.
There's simply no way to generate that kind of motion blur on a flat screen. And even if it were possible, it would require impossibly high frame rates to capture every bit of movement, which is completely impractical due to the amount of power you would need to play at such monstrously high frame rates.
Edit: And no, "light is light" is completely wrong. The light that's reflecting off of someone's body part is not at all like the light that's being emitted from your monitor. Why? Reflection. Your monitor is not reflecting light, it is emitting it. The motion blur is created by the reflection of light from the fast movement of the object. Your monitor is not reflecting anything, it's just changing the colors of pixels on a grid, which light is being pushed through.
A high shutter speed looks unnatural in a low framerate, because you loose the movement between the frames, which makes it look choppy. Ideally you'd want the shutter to be open for almost the enitre frame time. But with a higher framerate it's prefectly fine to increase the shutter speed and you get a clearer picture as well as smoother motion
ihearthawthats
Banned
lol what? faster fps doesn't mean faster reaction time, it means you get to see the thing that you have to react to at an earlier time.
if a signal takes 16ms to reach you, and it takes you 200ms to react to it, then the total time is 216ms. if a signal takes 33ms to reach you, and it takes 200ms to react it, then the total time is 233ms.
reaction time has nothing to do with it. if anything, it'll be limited by the max fps that the human eye can see. and i don't think that cap is 30fps.
It'll be a lot less blurry and lend itself better for freeze-framing
No,
It does not matter how much something moves in world space!
As long as it takes up the same amount of space in your vision, it will look the same!
Motion blur in games is just an artistic choice that makes lower framerates less hard on the eyes due to it blending past frames together with the current one, thus making the large jumps of fast objects between frames less noticeable.
The higher the frame rate, the less need for it.