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

[function]

COD dwarfs all of the others in sales, so those are in the minority.

There have been more CoD games sold than all other shooters? I honestly didn't know that. I guess it is a pretty huge big franchise now if even Halo, Gears, Battlefield, Killzone et al combined get dwarfed by it.

I'd happily expand the "30 fps cinematic" to include anything like Uncharted, Tomb Raider, Oblivion, Final Fantasy etc though. It's all stuff you've never seen except in the movies, while driving is something you mostly do for real. Experiencing games like Skyrim at 60 fps (kind of) is one of the best things about the PC, and I value it more than 16 x aniso or 2659 x 292929 or something sugary but missable like that.

 

[ERP]

I agree Mike's study, is "flawed", all studies are to some extent, but it shouldn't be discarded.
Insomniac were very pro 60Hz and looking at the data the conclusion they drew is it's hard yo justify the engineering investment and reduction in visual quality.

I've done lots of stupid little tests over the years, on the correlation on graphics and "feel", including having people play 60 and 30Hz versions of the same game. Though the sample sizes are way too small to draw conclusions.

IME very few people can quantify the difference, even when seeing it back to back, there is a tendency to prefer the feel of the higher framerate. But what you dont get is people exclaiming "wow that's so much smoother and more responsive".

Which is contrary to what I want to see and what I personally expected to see.

I've done the same tests with low levels of AA with similarly ambivolous results from people playing. Again go read a PC gaming board and you'd think it was the most important thing in the world.

Now draw a blocky shadow, or have an art style people don't like and you get a very immediate reaction.

I think it's much like compressed audio people grow up with it and get used to it, they aren't sophisticated (I don't mean this is in the snobbish sense) listeners (or viewers in this case).

Personally I want 60Hz games, I tolerated 30Hz games, through PS1 because the visual differences were dramatic.But a game being 30Hz doesn't stop me buying it if the rest of it is well executed.

 

[TheWretched]

Well... with PC gaming it's a bit different... you HAVE the option to get 60Hz, unlike on consoles, where you're ALWAYS hardlocked to what the developers deliver. On PC, you can fidged with the settings, overclock your machine, get new drivers and software and... oh upgrade the whole system to get "better" fidelity. Once to take away the choice, you also choke most discussion about it.

 

[fearsomepirate]

COD dwarfs all of the others in sales, so those are in the minority. Especially Killzone, Resistance and Crysis. COD is also, from what little I have experienced, a much "faster" game than the others. Without the higher fluency that would not have been achievable.

MW1 also came out pretty early in the console cycle, at a time when very little of the systems' potential had been reached, so it could simultaneously be the best-looking FPS anyone had seen yet while achieving 60 fps. Since then, they haven't really need graphics to be a draw, since the multiplayer is so deep that it's pretty well established a core fan base until something truly different comes along.

 

[function]

Well... with PC gaming it's a bit different... you HAVE the option to get 60Hz, unlike on consoles, where you're ALWAYS hardlocked to what the developers deliver. On PC, you can fidged with the settings, overclock your machine, get new drivers and software and... oh upgrade the whole system to get "better" fidelity. Once to take away the choice, you also choke most discussion about it.

Well that's certainly true. On the PC the people who care most about frame rate (and are aware of what it is that they like) have options to improve hardware (if CPU limited) or lower resolution (if GPU limited) while everyone else can chase nice looking screenshots or even just go with what's playable on their hardware (and just be happy). I don't envy any console developer that pushes for 60hz against a marketing department and upper management who don't play games themselves but take their kids to watch Michael Bay movies.

 

[antwan]

In movies, 48fps will feel very cheap.
the screening of the hobbit reflects this.

however, If you are one of those people who enjoy the super smooth natural motion plus ++ settings on their hdtv, then you will probably love it!

 

[function]

Real life is smoother than 24 fps and doesn't "cheap". When I read a book I don't image everything being blurred and jumpy.

I'm pretty sure Tolkien didn't image everything in middle early being blurred, flickery and jumpy.

 

[jlippo]

In movies, 48fps will feel very cheap.
the screening of the hobbit reflects this.

however, If you are one of those people who enjoy the super smooth natural motion plus ++ settings on their hdtv, then you will probably love it!

I'm sure that people who do hate 3D with 24fps being almost unwatchable in some scenes like the improvement as well..

 

[Acert93]

I cannot stand panning scenes in 24Hz moves. It drives me *nuts* as not only is the screen all blurry it appears choppy. All those "cinematic enthusiasts" are really just "I hate change! Different is bad!" folks

That said, a higher frequency image will lose out no a bit of blur in some situations which is often associated with "cinema" and some consumers may revolt against the idea, especially in an action film.

 

[tuna]

In movies, 48fps will feel very cheap.
the screening of the hobbit reflects this.

however, If you are one of those people who enjoy the super smooth natural motion plus ++ settings on their hdtv, then you will probably love it!

Are you trolling or are you just ignorant?

 

[antwan]

lol, 'truer to life' does not equal 'cinema' in any way.
natural motion ++ or similar settings make the image smoother, more fluid, more lifelike, hence "natural motion".
It also turns every BD i own into crap.

again, if you enjoy this kind of thing, then you will love the hobbit in 48fps.
If you don't enjoy it, then you will probably also not enjoy the 'true to life' smoothness of the hobbit.

I understand people hate 24fps motion judder with long pans or similar shots, but i would not sacrifice a whole film just to have smooth pans.
People who are hyped for 48fps hobbit are probably also the people who get off on android phones: they are sold on specs, never on quality or user experience.

 

[antwan]

In regards to games; 30fps movie has object based motion blur. Games usually lack this. So most 30fps games are not more cinematic, they are just more choppy

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That said, a higher frequency image will lose out no a bit of blur in some situations which is often associated with "cinema" and some consumers may revolt against the idea, especially in an action film.

That's should be addable in post though, We could ahve the same amount of motion blur with 2x the framerate.

I'd like to see someone run a proper test with 120Hz source videos (shutter speed 1/250th of a second) shown at different framerates and with different blurs, from 24 fps with a blur spanning 1/24th second blur, through 60 Hz and 1/24th to 1/120th blur, up to 120 Hz, 1/250th second blur. I'm pretty confident that viewers would most prefer the highest framerate, greater blur.

 

[sebbbi]

There was some debate in this thread whether 60 fps is a commercially viable option, or just a niche.

Here is the most recent top 20 most played games list on Xbox 360 (based on unique users). These are the most popular games currently, and the list hasn't changed much in the last months.

LIVE Activity for week of May 14th
1. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3
2. Minecraft: Xbox 360 Edition
3. Call of Duty: Black Ops
4. FIFA 12
5. Battlefield 3
6. Halo: Reach
7. Modern Warfare 2
8. NBA 2K12
9. Skyrim
10. Gears of War 3
11. GTA IV
12. Forza Motorsport 4
13. Max Payne 3
14. Trials Evolution
15. Mass Effect 3
16. NHL12
17. Madden NFL 12
18. Halo 3
19. Red Dead Redemption
20. Saints Row: The Third

In total 9 of top 20 most played games are running at 60 fps. Top 4 has only 60 fps games: MW3, Minecraft, Black Ops and FIFA 12. Other 60 fps games are: NBA 2K12 in place 8, Forza 4 in place 12, Trials Evolution in place 14, NHL12 in place 16 and Madden 12 in place 17. When you compare the top 20 list to all games released on Xbox 360, the percentage of 60 fps games is much higher in the top 20 list. Thus we could conclude that 60 fps is a contributor to game's long time success, not just a niche feature.

It is an generally accepted fact that 60 fps is very important for sports games and reaction based games (such as fighting games). However many disregard first person shooters. If you play similar real life shooting games such as Paintball (in closed industrial buildings) or Megazone/Lazerzone (popular in Finland, Sweden and Australia at least), you know that good reaction time is most important thing you need to have in order succeed in these games. I know some hardcore PC players who played Counterstrike competitively, and those players had 120 Hz displays just to get their reaction times down by a few milliseconds. If you shoot your enemy one frame earlier, he cannot shoot back. Simple as that. Reaction time is everything in these games. As all Call of Duty (incl. Modern Warfare) games are 60 fps and are the most popular first person games around, I don't see how a similar game that runs only at 30 fps would survive in a long run. Hardcore players automatically compare all new first person games to COD, and if the new game runs at 30 fps it will feel inprecise, unresponsive and generally not right compared to COD. I wouldn't personally feel comfortable in releasing a competitor for the most successful game series ever, if my game ran at half the frame rate. First person shooters are highly reaction based games after all.

60 fps improves gameplay, but at at cost of some graphics fidelity. Or the other way around: 30 fps improves graphics fidelity, but at the cost of gameplay. For me personally, gameplay always wins over graphics. This might seem a pretty odd statement coming from a graphics engine lead programmer

Sure 24 fps is more cinematic than 60 fps. But the sacrifice in gameplay isn't worth it. Movies are not interactive, so the reaction time doesn't matter. Movies can also be scripted to overcome visual issues in 24 fps film (judder in sideways movement for example if you try to follow the moving objects with your eyes).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I downloaded my free copy of R&C:Quest for Booty last night. At 60fps it did look smooth, but it wasn't consistent with frequent judders, and the visuals aren't particularly pretty. I guess that's a significant issue - what's the point of seeing super-crisp images if they aren't anything you want to look at? I'd like to see that game with motion blur. Starhawk's blur makes it feel very smooth and natural, while it's actually around 40fps. I really think that's key. The right amount of blur makes something feel natural. The higher framerate makes it feel smooth and responsive. You need them both.

 

[TheWretched]

That's a bit of an unfair comparison, though. I mean QfB is like... half a decade old (in gaming terms), whereas Starhawk was JUST released. And it's a cheap DL title, too. There are several 60fps games that look good. I'd say Mortal Kombat for example (well... not really fair either, as it's a fairly "self contained playing area etc). Driver SF might be a good example.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It wasn't a comparison. Just a couple of observations, one very relevant considering Insomniac went on record as saying 60fps wasn't important to consumers when their 60fps was lacking in other areas. I raise SH as it surprised me that to learn it wasn't 60fps as it felt very smooth, which it turns out is because it has excellent motion blur. So lower framerates can feel smoother with blur, and a lack of blur in The Hobbit and other higher framerate programmes make them feel 'cheap' or unrealistic. If I were set a target for a game, I think at the moment I'd be picking 30fps eyecandy + motion blur, unless it's a game that specifically benefits from the higher framerate (football, tennis, some shooters, racing games).

 

[antwan]

I really think that's key. The right amount of blur makes something feel natural. The higher framerate makes it feel smooth and responsive. You need them both.

qft.

imo, movies don't necessary need to feel smooth and responsive. That is why to me (and 99% of everyone who saw true 48fps footage of a new movie) the added smooth and responsiveness are not needed.

3d (which I don't like for movies) could benefit from more fluid framerates, this I agree on

 

[Shifty Geezer]

imo, movies don't necessary need to feel smooth and responsive. That is why to me (and 99% of everyone who saw true 48fps footage of a new movie) the added smooth and responsiveness are not needed.

I very much disagree. The judder in pans and lack of resolution in action scenes drops the viewer out of the experience. I firmly believe movies need to increase framerate, but they have to do so artistically and preserve the motion blur of long shutters afforded by the lower framerate. This may not be possible in the camera, but could be achieved in post. In fact I believe post blur would be even more natural, as you could accumulate several frames for a more natural movement, whereas existing captured blur has discrete steps of blurred images. A 24 fps film has twenty four images of 1/24th second blurred image. A 60 fps film could have 60 frames of 1/24th second blurred images, with the motion blur trails moving naturally.

 

[tuna]

qft.

imo, movies don't necessary need to feel smooth and responsive. That is why to me (and 99% of everyone who saw true 48fps footage of a new movie) the added smooth and responsiveness are not needed.

3d (which I don't like for movies) could benefit from more fluid framerates, this I agree on

When and where did you see the trailer?