Cizeta-Moroder
Banned
Finally someone who's not afraid of sheer progression.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
60fps is preferable for games, but what about music videos?
- Thread starter scitek
- Start date
Get used to it man, 95% of the content out there is shot digitally. Every music video is shot digital and most commercials too. Only projects with a nice budget an some artistic clout are shot on film.
Even if it is shot film (like a Wes Anderson or pt Anderson film) you will most likely be seeing it digital anyways as film projection is becoming more rare by the day.
I'm literally typing this on my phone as I'm on set lol
OFFIS
Member
60>48>30>24, "cinematic" 24fps is just old technology limited bullshit imo.
Looks horrible.
DAREALGUMMY
Member
I thought I had a chance to post wrestling videos I've done but I guess it wasn't meant to be 
I do regular NTSC fps.
I do regular NTSC fps.
60 FPS, or more.
24 FPS is a crazy thing to do, and is only held onto for historic reasons.
Move to high frame rate, it is just better. Motion is more fluid and there is less blur slapped all over the frames, as at 24 FPS, you need to do artificial motion blur to trick your eyes into thinking it looks smooth, where as higher frame rates need less or indeed none of that trickery.
24 FPS is a crazy thing to do, and is only held onto for historic reasons.
Move to high frame rate, it is just better. Motion is more fluid and there is less blur slapped all over the frames, as at 24 FPS, you need to do artificial motion blur to trick your eyes into thinking it looks smooth, where as higher frame rates need less or indeed none of that trickery.
Do you only watch doucementaries and homemade films?
There is a lot of ignorance in this thread...
Yes I bet they would.
Higher fps does not make a movie movie. It's not comparable to games.
I suppose the thinking behind this thread was, I know people prefer 24 or 30fps for video, but with gaming, it's possible to capture true 60fps video natively, so it should look much better than the interpolated crap people see on TVs.
At this point, I think I'll likely do it at 60fps. The point was made that YouTube or whatever other place I put it will just ruin the IQ anyway.
At this point, I think I'll likely do it at 60fps. The point was made that YouTube or whatever other place I put it will just ruin the IQ anyway.
60FPS is objectively better, if people don't like it then it is their problem.
Judder NEVER looks nice!
The Hobbit looked great at 48FPS, much nicer than 24FPS films!
Saying that the OP should master at 24FPS for something that will be mostly be played back on 60Hz monitors is completely stupid!
If the only way or main way that people will be seeing the music videos is through Youtube, there's pretty much zero reason not to record at 30fps because that is the highest frame rate Youtube supports (barring some very weird outliers). They will see absolutely 0 benefit from you recording at 60fps.
IF they will be viewing on youtube, I'd suggest you record at 30fps 1440p or 24fps 1440p.
Viewing in 1440p on youtube actually has a lot of visual benefits.
Here is a Youtube clip of DiRT Showdown at 1440p so you can see how it looks. It's a nice quality boost over plain 1080p.
Well we can agree to disagree, but there is a reason 99% of videos are mastered at 24 and it's not 'stupid' or 'ancient'.
People here need to realize every single Hollywood movie they see us shot and mastered, and displayed in 24. Hobbit is the rare exception, and was only projected in 48 in select theatres.
I think most in this thread know that. The only 'problem' is that I, and I guess many others, vastly prefer the 48fps of The Hobbit.
The more native FPS the better, regardless of content. People have gotten too used to seeing 24-30 fps as normal, despite all of the strobing and loss of resolution when objects on screen move or the camera pans around.
Here is an idea.. shoot everything native 60fps or higher and then put 24 fps filters in TVs so those who love the archaic cinema effect can have it on whatever they want.
Here is an idea.. shoot everything native 60fps or higher and then put 24 fps filters in TVs so those who love the archaic cinema effect can have it on whatever they want.
What is the reason they are mastered at 24fps?
It's not ignorance, just because 24.976 has been the hollywood standard for quite some time doesn't mean it's ideal. You might not be able to perceive the judder and loss of resolution that occurs on everything but the most minor of on screen movement at 24p, or you might think it somehow enhances the look and feel for a particular movie. The fact is you are losing resolution when things are in motion or if the camera pans too quickly unless you have a high enough FPS to compensate.
Have you ever used VirtualDub?
I'm using that for this example.
I recorded some Fez at 60fps (I plan to make a GIF of it later)
I used Virtual Dub to cut the frame rate to both 30, and 24fps and exported it.
Then I used Adobe Premier to put all the images side by side for comparisons sake.
Top left 60, top right 30, bottom left 24.
Video Link
From what I'm seeing, there's no weird side effects to converting 60fps to 24fps but it does still look like 24fps footage.
Well, in this particular game, downsampling gives me input lag which I don't like, but it has an option for 2 or 4xSSAA in the menu, and I can keep a locked 30fps with 2x enabled, so it's a toss-up between 2xSSAA ad 30fps natively, or 60fps and just the FXAA it's stuck with by default.
Personally, I think having a 60fps version available will make more of a visual difference for those who wish to view it, but it'll be an optional download. The IQ will be ruined by YT compression regardless, so I don't think a bit of aliasing will matter much.
Most movies are shot at 24FPS because that is what the slow moving, dumb as bricks movie industry got use to and do not want to change, that plus the fact most projectors in cinemas do not support any higher than that.
You need to realize that displaying 24FPS video on a 60HZ monitor will give you pulldown judder and that your argument is nothing more than an appeal to tradition fallacy!
I guess the biggest question is how many people will really be downloading the 60fps version? And is it enough that would make 30fps+glitz that the vast majority will be seeing worth it?
You've gotta keep in mind that 60fps video's are also going to be pretty large files.
I wonder if the reason for why a lot of people think anything above 24 fps looks weird is because they are so used to 24 fps. 60 FPS basically just makes everything much more cohesive and gives it a "smoother"/"realistic" look, so I find it odd that a lot of people think it's so weird. I can't think of any examples, so I don't know how it looks. But 24 FPS has been the standard for so long, so it makes sense that people are used to that, and a shift to 60 FPS would look weird.
velociraptor
Junior Member
I know 60FPS is ideal, but I don't think it should be shoehorned in every single game.
I'm playing Dark Souls on PC and I actually prefer the game at 30FPS. I've tried running it at 60 and the entire game looks janky. I don't like it at all.
For slow paced games, 30FPS is fine. The problem I have with most games is that their 30FPS isn't actually 30FPS at all. It's more like 25fps.
I'm playing Dark Souls on PC and I actually prefer the game at 30FPS. I've tried running it at 60 and the entire game looks janky. I don't like it at all.
For slow paced games, 30FPS is fine. The problem I have with most games is that their 30FPS isn't actually 30FPS at all. It's more like 25fps.
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
All I'm reading is "my opinion is right! you're stupid for thinking otherwise".
Relax, man. People have preferences, maybe?
Are you sure you were at a locked 60? You should play around with the settings a bit and got a solid 60 locked and see how it feels. Play it for a while and get used to it.
I honestly can't imagine going back to 30 on Dark Souls, 60fps suits it all too well.
velociraptor
Junior Member
There are no settings to play around
I disabled the FPS limit and it just didn't look nice to me. This is coming from someone who will happily tone down the graphic options (to a reasonable degree) to obtain 60fps.
But I personally find 30 perfectly aceptable in DS.
There are no settings to play around
I disabled the FPS limit and it just didn't look nice to me. This is coming from someone who will happily tone down the graphic options (to a reasonable degree) to obtain 60fps.
But I personally find 30 perfectly aceptable in DS.
There are definitely settings to play around with!
SSAO is pretty intensive, there's SMAA, and your rendering resolution, those can all have a big effect on your framerate.
By the way, even if you don't like how 60fps looks, you should still enable the fix and lock it at 30fps. That will prevent the 30 to 15 jump whenever your framerate dips below 30 in more heavy areas.
velociraptor
Junior Member
I have SSAO, SMAA and 1080p. It's fine - my FPS counter has remained fixed at 30.5.
I have not noticed a single dip in framerate, except when I go to the bonfires.
Senor Kami
Banned
Shoot in 24. 30/60 will make the video look like it was done by some dudes on a camcorder. If you're on some Blink 182 shit and want to make it look goofy, crappy and low budget on purpose, well go with 30/60. If "goofy, crappy, and low budget" aren't visual qualities you're looking for, stick with 24.
There's a difference between real-world video and video game footage.
60fps video game footage definitely does not look low budget or crappy.
OldAsUrSock
Banned
It (24fps) was/is stupid. Give me 60fps or give me death!
That should be my motto.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Trust you? No thanks, I do believe I'd rather trust my own preferences, and I know I sure as hell enjoyed The Hobbit at 48fps more than I did at 24fps. It looks better.
You read wrong.
He is passing his preference that is backed up by nothing off as a fact.
30 and 60 FPS are objectively better than 24 FPS, it is also stupid to do anything in 24 FPS if you are targeting it to display on monitors, the vast, vast number of which are 60 Hz (and thus will suffer judder)!
Yeah, file size is an issue. I don't know which to go with. If I'm going to do 30fps, I want to downsample from as high a res as I can and still keep a solid 30fps.
Honestly, I think it's the right move.
I'm a huge supporter of 60fps in all mediums, but if the way people are going to be viewing it is forcing it to be 30fps anyway, recording at 30 and getting all the extra benefits you can add on along with it is the right way to go.
It's funny how I'm concerned with things like this now. Used to be that I'd just put some video together and throw it online, but screenshotting has bled over to the video side of things for me.
Stabby McSter
Member
i watched a 60fps porno once
went on a search for other 60fps pornos for about a minute
went on a search for other 60fps pornos for about a minute
It's funny how I'm concerned with things like this now. Used to be that I'd just put some video together and throw it online, but screenshotting has bled over to the video side of things for me.
The same thing happened to me except instead of leaking into videos it funneled its way into GIF's. It still irks me when I can't get a decently sized 50fps GIF!
I hope there's no problem with linking to some of my stuff, it's just the best reference I have for the sort of question OP asks. Recently we had to put up a trailer that kinda went through something similar.
All the source footage was:
- 60 FPS
- 1080p with no AA
Our main goal was Youtube, but we did provide a separate 60 FPS video. However, since I wanted some of the smoothness from 60 FPS to show up in the 30 FPS Youtube version, we used some frameblending. After Effects has some frameblending options, but it kinda depends on the footage. IQ takes quite a hit when using it tho, since there's just other frames in there.
Since our footage was very fast-paced, the frameblending we did was kinda manual. Overlay the same video some frames behind with different levels of opacity (It was something like 75% 15% 7%).
There's ways to actually get the "Filmic blur" effect some people mention here out of game footage if the framerate is high enough and you use software/plugins for it. I have some experimental 240 FPS footage downsampled to 60 FPS with that, and it looks ridiculously good. (Download the file, don't use the embedded player)
If you really want to do an ugly cheat tho and have a way to play 60 FPS videos on Youtube, you could go for what this guy did (Use the HTML5 player and put 2x speed). But your audience will be more limited as the result of that, and the audio will get ruined. Including it as an optional different version seems a bit pointless since you could just link people to the 60 FPS video file instead. 60 to 30 FPS should look fine as well.
As for the AA, I think H264 makes it look pretty good regardless of that in motion. If you have a capture card that supports it, you could try downsampling to 1080p and record with the capture card instead, as long as it has a good bitrate. That should help take off the load quite a bit. Only problem is that 60 FPS @ 1080p is something a bit hard for a capture card on a budget.
Youtube at 1080p caps at 5k bitrate AFAIK. If you want more bitrate, you'll have to upscale it from 1080p to something higher and upload that instead, so the quality option "Original" shows up.
All the source footage was:
- 60 FPS
- 1080p with no AA
Our main goal was Youtube, but we did provide a separate 60 FPS video. However, since I wanted some of the smoothness from 60 FPS to show up in the 30 FPS Youtube version, we used some frameblending. After Effects has some frameblending options, but it kinda depends on the footage. IQ takes quite a hit when using it tho, since there's just other frames in there.
Since our footage was very fast-paced, the frameblending we did was kinda manual. Overlay the same video some frames behind with different levels of opacity (It was something like 75% 15% 7%).
There's ways to actually get the "Filmic blur" effect some people mention here out of game footage if the framerate is high enough and you use software/plugins for it. I have some experimental 240 FPS footage downsampled to 60 FPS with that, and it looks ridiculously good. (Download the file, don't use the embedded player)
If you really want to do an ugly cheat tho and have a way to play 60 FPS videos on Youtube, you could go for what this guy did (Use the HTML5 player and put 2x speed). But your audience will be more limited as the result of that, and the audio will get ruined. Including it as an optional different version seems a bit pointless since you could just link people to the 60 FPS video file instead. 60 to 30 FPS should look fine as well.
As for the AA, I think H264 makes it look pretty good regardless of that in motion. If you have a capture card that supports it, you could try downsampling to 1080p and record with the capture card instead, as long as it has a good bitrate. That should help take off the load quite a bit. Only problem is that 60 FPS @ 1080p is something a bit hard for a capture card on a budget.
Youtube at 1080p caps at 5k bitrate AFAIK. If you want more bitrate, you'll have to upscale it from 1080p to something higher and upload that instead, so the quality option "Original" shows up.
Youtube actually says it can do at least up to 50,000k
Also, can you explain the method for this
That's just for uploading it to their servers for the processing. They don't stream 50k videos, you can check that by downloading the file with any of the many plugins available (that don't do any re-encoding and just grab the video file out of the player). The trailer I uploaded to Youtube was 55k bitrate (encoded from After Effects), and when I downloaded the 1080p version directly from Youtube later on, it was capped to 5k.
If you find a way to record the game at 240 FPS (Game has a variable time-scale, in the case of my video above, I slowed down the game to 1/4th), then you can use that footage as a source for any fancy effects you want. I say experimental because this is something that will only work with games that are pretty consistent when slowed down. In the case of my video, the physics and camera movement change slightly when slowed down, so it's not such a good method after all.
EDIT: Expanding on the explanation, if you have a way to slow down the game consistently, you can fake a much higher framerate as a source video as long as you have the patience to record it. (A full playthrough of a level took me nearly 15 minutes when it should take 3!). Just speed it up later on video editting and use it however you like.
Portugeezer
Member
Preferable and yet I don't give a shit.
I'm sorry I should clarify, I meant what method you used to get filmic blur when using 240fps source materiel. I've got some 120fps footage and I'd like to see how it would look at 30 with the effect you mentioned, compared to just cutting the frame rate straight down to 30.
Twixtor for After Effects. I don't know about any free alternatives at the moment. It has bugged out for me sometimes on very long footage tho.
Here's a test I did with Twixtor for 60 -> 30. Different amounts of blur work nicely for different games.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
24fps stockholm syndrome
Awesome, thanks for the info. I'm looking into it.
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
No, not really. He asserted his opinion as fact, but so did you, in a much more aggressive tone:
Both of you have no 'objective' information to stand on. Both of you are spouting preferences as indisputable facts. I was just telling you to relax, because you seem particularly adamant about it.
Technically, 60fps is objectively better because it provides you with more visual information.
You can't compare the frame rate from a video game and the frame rate of a movie/video. Video games need 60fps because they don't have the natural smoothing effect that video does.
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
And technically ultraviolet light is objectively better than visible light because it has a higher quantum energy by default. These points become moot, when given a specific reference point. In the case of light, it's the reference of all humans, in the case of framerate, it's from the reference of each individual.