Does 30fps feel more "cinematic" than 60fps?

[blip]

Is it just me or can 30fps give a game a more weighty, kind of "cinematic" feel as compared to the ultra-smooth "shot on video" feel of 60fps?

I realize this also has to do with like the engine itself and how movement is handled. The two games I'm playing right now are Modern Warfare 3 and Dead Space 2, which are locked at 60fps and 30fps, iirc. Dead Space is the more cinematic game to begin with but I also notice this in other games. Sometimes a slower framerate (but not too slow) can give the game a feeling of "weight" what do you guys think?

Or is it more about how motion/movement is dialed in, the same exact feel can be attained @ 60fps? I just really like the way some games feel @ 30fps... I don't think Dead Space would feel as good @ 60...

 

[digitalwanderer]

No.

 

[BRiT]

No.

 

[Rodéric]

No.

 

[blip]

No.

 

[swaaye]

Sure. Film at 24-30fps looks considerably different than video games (or film) at 60 fps. Considering how much the former is burned into our brains by TV and movies, I can see people considering it more "cinematic".

People also notice the difference between 24 and 30 fps film/video. Soap opera effect.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yes. It has that cinematic feel - crap, jerky motion that makes it harder to follow what's happening than a decent framerate.

 

[french toast]

Yes. It has that cinematic feel - crap, jerky motion that makes it harder to follow what's happening than a decent framerate.

Ha ha true. 30fps = black and white motion picture, complete with fuzzing,squiggles and lines

 

[xedi]

I never thought about that, but it is kinda ironic how in the camera world everyone was going crazy of how sony only implemented 30fps in the Sony A580, A33 and A55 instead of having the option of 24fps and in the gaming world everybody want 300000+ fps (ok, maybe a bit exaggerated, but you get my point)

I personally do not think that 24fps looks more cinematic but then again neither do I find 24p in movies that great...

And I am also one of those weird people who are fine with 30fps and prefer the better graphics over a faster framerate....

 

[blip]

I was just thinking about how movies are 24fps, and nothing else feels right for movies, that's why on the most high end newest tech digital cameras they all shoot at 24fps - because it looks like film.

So, in theory if games want too look more film like, they need to be closer to 24fps... I think 24 might be a bit too low for fast games but 30fps is fine for me.

I think it would be interesting if some next-gen games that are going for that cinematic feel would have a 24p mode.

Artists do all kinds of things to "degrade" the quality of something in order to get in the end what is a more "expensive" look, like how artists add noise to simulate detail in textures, they are purposefully degrading the texture so that it "looks better" I'm thinking the same logic can be applied to framerate.

I'm pretty sure Rockstar intentionally went for a low framerate on GTA 4 to give it a heavier, cinematic feel.

 

[Npl]

its also why most TVs nowadays allow de-crappyfying movies by scaling them up to 100Hz or more. Which aint working perfect and introduces artifacts, but heck, I like that still better than jerky 24frames/sec.
higher framerate movies are coming - "The Hobbit" and the "Avatar" sequels for example... I really hope Blurays will contain those higher framerates and not beeing gimped for compatibility reasons back to 24FPS.

sometimes I wonder how the movie industry ever made the change to colour, they are really holding on to technical issues which where solved decades ago.

 

[warb]

Not to my eyes.

The same goes for 24fps versus 60fps movies. Better motion detail beats blur and familiarity.

 

[zed]

I was just thinking about how movies are 24fps, and nothing else feels right for movies,

yes as npl points out the new films coming out, the first big one will be at the end of this year 'the hobbit' is shot @48fps.
the problem has been theatres need to be equipped to show these films (like 3d films) but I have a feeling the change over from 24->48 is gonna happen quite quickly, cause unlike 3d where is 'debatable' whether it improves the picture, practically everyone agrees 48fps is superior to 24fps

OT - james cameron has brought a farm near to peter jackson near to wellington this week, & apparently his familys going to emigrate here, Now since avatar was mostly done in jacksons wellington studio I see a few more collaborations in the future. Quite why anyone would want to live in the shithole that is wellington is mind boggling though

 

[Shifty Geezer]

And I am also one of those weird people who are fine with 30fps and prefer the better graphics over a faster framerate....

Been playing War In The North, and next to Kingdoms and Amalur it feels really rough. The 60 fps of KoA makes the action far easier to follow.

sometimes I wonder how the movie industry ever made the change to colour, they are really holding on to technical issues which where solved decades ago.

There are creative issues, as Laa-Yosh will tell you. It already takes an age to create all the effects for 24 fps footage. 48 fps footage requires of the order of twice the work for twice the frames; only so much can be automated. There have also been storage issues which may be solved now. Don't know.

 

[mikiex]

sometimes I wonder how the movie industry ever made the change to colour, they are really holding on to technical issues which where solved decades ago.

I think thats a naive view of the movie industry, if you look back you can see many reasons they could not move forward. Certain things have needed to be in place for mass adoption of tech.

As to the original question, I think it can look more cinematic if you introduce thing such as motion blur - which you can't really afford @60fps anyway. But even with motionblur I've never seen a game @ 30fps with motion that looks really smooth. A film can have very smooth motion as long as it is shown at the correct framerate.

Cameras record light over a period of time for a frame, games generate a single frame that is not over a period of time.A game is similar to a very high shutter speed camera, where you cannot tell there is any motion in a screenshot (before any post processing)

So really you could render a game at 300fps then generate a 30fps result that looks very smooth.

Personally I am a fan of 60fps for games, but it does put a lot of limits on what you can render with the current consoles.

 

[Npl]

48p is surely more work, but I really doubt anything close to 2x. Automatic algorithms quite possible work better with more information (smaller derivations between frames), and the time spent in "fixing" frames that need it will go up maybe 2x.. but thats only a part of the work spent on FX.

I think its rather fixed standards are the problem, you`d ideally want a standard thats a multiple of 24 and 60 to allow compatibility across devices. It took some time till TVs got the 24p feature, and 48p surely will raise hell on alot CE devices and studio/cinema equipment aswell.
Worst case would be Blu-Rays telecined to 30i.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

A film can have very smooth motion as long as it is shown at the correct framerate.

Only on small motions. Even with motion blur you can't disguise the discontinuity between one frame and the next on a pan. I'll never forget the juddering mountains in LOTR as the epitome of the illusion breaking framerate. We're supposed to be looking out over this mountain range, so why's it doddering along like a series of stills? Now if you extended blur across frames, so frame 2 included the motion from frames 1 and 3, then it'd look smoother, but that's not technically possible with cameras. It would be possible to create in a game however, and on a faster camera with fancy frame blending. Don't think anyone's tried it though, and it'd probably look pretty sloppy anyhow, kinda drunk or dreamy. Like too much reverb in audio.

 

[dragonelite]

When i hear cinematic my brain tells me the game will be non responsive.
But then im now used to 60 fps with pc gaming.

 

[Acert93]

No.

Unless by cinematic you mean jerky and a blurry mess. If that was your question the answer is a qualified yes.

 

[MJP]

Of course. The closer you get to 24fps with realistic motion blur the more cinematic it will look. This has nothing to do with responsiveness, or whether you like blurry/jerky/whatever, it has to do with whether what you see looks like something you'd see in a movie. Other things you could throw into this category:

1. Defocus (depth of field)
2. Chromatic aberration
3. Lens flares and glares(bloom)
4. Character lighting rigs (fill light, rim light, key light, etc.)
5. Unusually glossy/specular environments
6. Film grain
7. Color correction
8. Filmic tone mapping
9. Lens distortion (fisheye effect)