Does 30fps feel more "cinematic" than 60fps?
- Thread starter blip
- Start date
Oh, hey, wow, anyone catch that latest Michael Bay movie? It was great!
All games should try and look like cinemeratic like that! It was great! Then they could be art too, like at the cinema! But make it look like Broakeback Mountain too, because that was art, and it had a emotions. Games can do emotion too, because they can do look like cinemas.
Hhhhhhhhnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn film grayn.
All games should try and look like cinemeratic like that! It was great! Then they could be art too, like at the cinema! But make it look like Broakeback Mountain too, because that was art, and it had a emotions. Games can do emotion too, because they can do look like cinemas.
Hhhhhhhhnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn film grayn.
It is possible to improve it with cameras and post processing, a worse offender would be trying to play that 24fps content @ 30fps with pull down. Part of the reason I waited a while before I bought an HDTV.
Most films have little real Chromatic aberration, it is used sometimes but they mostly want to elimnate it from live action.Sometimes its used on underwater CG because people associate it with underwater footage using incorrect (air) lenses (which is not common these days in properly filmed underwater footage). Still it often makes stuff look a bit more real, but its often OTT
Colour correction, or colour grading in films is in my opinion is awfully used and uncreative at the moment. I really would prefer if games didn't go the same way.
I was watching "The Rock" the other day, which is not the best film but I was actually suprised how good the lighting is in many scenes. This was Michael Bay pre-digital correction.
Now you look at many films these days and they have orange-teal grading - which was fine once or twice. But now nearly every action film contains it. This was something that would have been very difficult or impossible with standard stock chemical film.
So sometimes I dont think we should look towards Hollywood
I used to think that, until Laa-Yosh showed his Assassin's Creed trailer. A very slight amount of CA seems to help realism, such that I expect it has an effect in cinematography. It's certainly present in every camera lens to some degree even if not to the extent of clearly separate colour fields.
I just Googled an Avatar screenshot as we know Cameron was going for all-out photorealism, and you can see they've added CA to the rendered parts. Zoom in on the left hand supporting the gun.
I never really got the separation of graphics from framerate.xedi said:
60fps IS eyecandy, regardless of the impact (or lack of thereof) on gameplay.
60 isn't sacrificing visuals, it's trading off for a different visual effect - that can't be shown in screens... now which other visual buzzword does that remind me of...
It is a big trade though with current hardware, working inside 16ms is much much harder than 33ms.
I wasnt saying it doesnt exist or is not used (it is added to CG a lot), my point was its something they wanted to eliminate from real cameras. But I guess the same could be said about grain, flares and distortion.
These things need to kept under control, if you go too far they can give bad results. (in cinema as well as games). There is a tendancy to, if you paid for it - faunt it in games.
Of course...they add it in post.
It serves its purpose well, which is to make characters pop. Lots of things people do in film (and games) are for that same purpose.
The trick with CG is that you often have to add those little imperfections to the shot to make it look "real". The more perfect it looks, the less real it looks.
The problem with CA in particular is that you shouldn't really notice it's there, even if it's been added intentionally. Most of the time, it's a very subtle effect that requires zooming down to the pixel level to see if it's even there, but can give CG that little extra push that it needs. Gaming graphics are nowhere near the level where a subtle push of CA will make a difference.
For me, the biggest thing about the framerate argument is how smooth the motion is. Whether it's done through a higher framerate, or by simply adding motion blur to help blend the frames together. Since nearly all games lack motion blur, when you get the framerate down into the mid 20s, it looks like a stuttering mess. But for a game like Crysis at über-max settings, which for me runs at around 30fps, it still comes across as being very smooth because of the motion blur.
But that's a whole other thing, since a lot of people simply don't like motion blur of any kind. Even if they started implementing it in console games, I think they'll need an option to turn it off for the people that don't want it there. You won't be able to please everyone, I'm afraid.
I liked the film grain option that Capcom added in RE5, it made the campaign mode more cinematic. When turned off the game looked too clean though it helps when playing competitively in VS mode because you could see more clearly at distant targets.
I'm guessing this is due to a new generation of cinematographers coming up. In the early digital age, you got people taught on film trying to recreate what they knew digitally. Now you start getting people who have done mostly digital shoots and/or post all their careers, and are employing the (currently somewhat limited) bag of tricks that are the current "state of the art" of what they were taught.
As for games, I'm in the "I like the cinematic feel" camp. Framerate be damned...!
Though, I expect that by the time consoles have the power to recreate the look and feel of film, clever people may have found a better use for those resources as our perception of what looks good/right will have shifted.I'm guessing this is due to a new generation of cinematographers coming up. In the early digital age, you got people taught on film trying to recreate what they knew digitally. Now you start getting people who have done mostly digital shoots and/or post all their careers, and are employing the (currently somewhat limited) bag of tricks that are the current "state of the art" of what they were taught.
As for games, I'm in the "I like the cinematic feel" camp. Framerate be damned...!
If you look at film colour grading, it was a very fine art and somewhat limited in results - lighting would play a bigger role in bringing colour into the film. The problem with digital colour grading is that people higher up than the cinematorgrapher know how easy it is now to change the colour. I don't know for sure, but I suspect the decisions are being made higher up the chain (producers), which is bad - they shouldnt be making artistic decisions. Its a bit like in games where a publisher says GTA sold loads, we gotta make a GTA.
Personally I think 60fps makes a game more intense to play, as I mentioned in another thread - experiments where made by Douglas Trumbull which convinced him 60fps was better to stimulate the viewer.
I think games can be cinematic and run at 60fps, just it's harder with current consoles
digitalwanderer said:
No!
Truth be told, my pals at Weta say they aren't really worried about it.
Haven't personally seen any footage at 48fps yet, so I don't know how it'll compare, but it might not be such a big issue on the content creation side. It really is more about every theater having to upgrade their equipment.
Then again there might be two versions of the Hobbit - 3D at 48fps and a regular 2D at 24fps for the rest of the cinemas.
I'd say that it's about digital grading making it far too easy to do bad stuff. Back when they did all this chemically it was a different question, but I don't know enough about cinematography to get into a discussion about it
While I don't necessarily agree with everything you wrote, I also wonder why we'd want games to look more cinematic... they're not meant to be movies after all.
Similar threads
