Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2013]

For game play, 60 fps is obviously always the better choice. 60 fps game is more responsive to player input. Less input lag is always better for game play. Some game genres are almost impossible to play if the input lag it too high. 30 fps improves graphics quality, but it's always a trade off: Game play suffers. Movies do not have this same problem, since there's no user input. User reaction time doesn't matter to the movie watching experience.

The key factor to the "movie look" isn't 24 fps, it is the motion blur (caused by the long 1/48s frame exposure time). It makes movies feel "dream like", and many people like that. However nobody would like that same feeling if they had to perform constant quick eye movements and instant reactions based on what they see. Many activities in real life require that. Real life is a infinite reaction loop. Many games try to simulate real life actions, and thus are similar in this matter.

There's no hard technical limitations in bringing similar looking motion blur to 48 fps movies (just exposure by the full frame length). At 60 fps, similar motion blur would however require some extra trickery (as frames would overlap if we wanted to have a 1/48s exposure time). If people like this look, then I don't see a reason why couldn't we achieve a similar look with a higher frame rate (for the positive things). The higher frame rate would get rid of all the problems with judder in fast (sideways) movement. Nobody loves the 24 fps movement judder, not even the hardcore movie fanatics. It's the dreamy motion blur they love.

 

Yeah, you have a good point. I read that this was the primary challenge for the Hobbit with the new cameras. Post-processing also wasn't always up to the task (some parts of it weren't post-processed at full resolution) - I actually noticed this while watching.

 

There is no such thing as unlimited hardware capabilities, therefore when designing a game you choose artificial limits then build your game around it. You'll always be able to get better pixel fidelity at 30fps vs 60fps so then it is indeed a choice.

So live action is CG?

Since it got mixed reviews it wasn't better or worse...

That's a silly argument because CRTs have existed for what more than 50 yrs now? Why didn't PC games back then target more than 60fps? So again I ask is 60fps a hardware limitation or a choice?

 

Logically it is you who did not understand because every moron knows there's no such thing as unlimited hardware....so blame yourself for arguing that "easy pickins" point. It's like saying I could fly if I had wings which is a universal concept and nothing to do with English.

The relevant question isn't how but why. You first have to show that higher frame rate is better for movies. Not everyone agrees they are.

 

They did. The rise of TFT and DVI\HDMI put paid to that though. So it's a hardware limitation through choice of technology.

 

I don't think PC games ever "targeted" more than 60fps back in the day, that was just what some people were able to get with certain game settings and hardware. Today we have 120Hz and 240Hz LCDs so why only 60fps?

 

I think that the majority of panels out there convert incoming signals to 60Hz anyway. The only reason for such high refresh rates was to kill the CRT flicker effect. You don't get that with TFT. 60Hz is as high as you need to go.

I used to use a 19" CRT running games at 75Hz(fps). But it was the size of a small car and used as much electricity as my entire setup does today.

 

Based on your posts here I am inclined to believe you are such a person to actually believe in unlimited hardware.

 

If you can not show high frame rate movies it is kind of pointless how much better they are. Nobody would spend the extra cost in making high frame rate movies if people were not able to see them.

 

It's decidedly not besides the point because the legacy of film has engrained responses from viewers. And there are plenty of reasons to stick with 24 Hz still instead of any arbitrary framerate - projection, capture, editing and FX costs, limitations on lighting and motion blue due to shorter exposures.

Film really shouldn't be a reference point for games when it comes to talking about framerate.

 

It really depends on the focus of the game. If they are trying to emulate a cinematic experience, then making it in line with movie experience at 24-30FPS will give you something cinematic and that translates by experience to what you expect from cinema. Obviously it doesn't apply to all games genres. Games are artistic choices; people don't generally question an artist's motives, just the end result via critique.

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...ware-balance-actually-means-for-game-creators

Have to say I was disappointed by this feature, found it boring and not worthy of anonimity - nothing controversial was written here, nothing revealing NDA info.

 

If your intention was to push the argument that 30fps+more detail can be better than 60fps then you presented it rather poorly. It's also a kind of redundant argument since I don't think anyone would disagree with that. That's always going to the be tradeoff and the cost/benefit ratio of it will vary depending on the game and the individuals personal preference.

Let's look at what you said in the post I replied to:

First you cite The Hobbit in support of your argument. Since there is no visual difference between the 2 framerate versions of the The Hobbit this was either a very poor comparison or you were in fact trying to say that low framerate can be artistically better than high framerate regardless of what other impact it has.

Next you specifically say that a developer may make a choice - independant of hardware limits (which is the only reason to trade framerate for pixel quality) - to run the game at a lower framerate for artistic reasons.

Now if I've misunderstood your argument then I apologise but really, it's easy to see how your argument could be misunderstood from the above quotes.

 

The general consensus is that it is just Richard Leadbetter pretending to be a dev so he can promote his agenda. Nothing noteworthy anyway.

 

Sorry if I say it but the frame-rate debate is getting nowhere.

 

Thanks for the explanation. What's the possibility of something like 48 fps working as a compromise for console gaming?

 

General consensus by what idiots? Seriously. I have little respect for anyone who claims Richard (gamesmaster on these forums) has an agenda, other than to promote Digital Foundry, which is one of the rare initiatives there are out there that actually try to uncover information that we are generally interested in on these forums.

 

They already did a public test of 48fps with a big name movie and the results were mixed. There is no need to force the whole industry down an unproven path.

 

I have no idea really... The level of noise and vitriol crashing around the internet at the moment is immense. Just check out the comments section of the article!

Personally I think it's well written, but it just doesn't tell us anything.

 

This is incorrect. Films and games work differently so 24fps filmed footage is not comparable to 24fps rendered gameplay. See sebbbi's post further up for the explanation as to why.