next »

[Cobralad]

I think its got more to do with the fact that 90% of movies today are cynically crafted adaptations.
Some animus are 9fps. 60 fps in fps games is better because of camera tied to players sight. In movies highter framerate creates a feeling of unnatural camera. We see static shot anyway, its not a concern until real 3d movies exist. Although you can always watch brazilian tv-novellas, they are filmed at highter framerate.

[s0]

In movies highter framerate creates a feeling of unnatural camera.

it creates a feeling of hyperrealism when used in a movie. that's what i hated about the hobbit movies. the higher framerate somehow makes it more obvious that it's a film. some scenes look like you're watching a recording of a LARP session lol (i mean ok the peter jackson tolkien movies all kinda look like that but u know what i mean ).

ive heard that this is nurture rather than nature tho: we've become so conditioned to associate lower framerates with cinema and higher framerates with cheap tv that even a well made movie in 48fps looks "cheap" and awkward to us. idk if that's actually true but its interesting to consider.

[Alevice]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_interpolation#Soap_opera_effect

[Schoq]

Movies are actually very restricted because of this. Any panning shot has to be glacially slow or it gets too blurry/choppy and it looks shitty. The reason you don't really notice choppiness in movies is because film makers have to work around it

Having an interactive medium suffer from that same restriction is obviously even more, eh, restrictive.

[oahda]

At least people like Jackson are pioneering higher framerates.

I didn't notice a thing of the stuff people complain about in Hobbit, that it should feel like a documentary or whatever.

[Schoq]

I found it a bit jarring to begin with but it was pretty cool to see it in such a high budget production. and the sweeping shots are noticeably clearer!

[oahda]

I just thought it looked nice and had nothing to complain about. Didn't think of it.

[Schoq]

spending some time evaluating how you perceive art and why is good introspective experience and the insights will benefit you as a craftsperson

(are you sure you saw it in 48fps btw? not all viewings were)

[oahda]

I already know, after indeed having thought about it, that FPS is not part of how I perceive or judge art (i.e. games or movies). I don't care much. I tend to to strive for 60 out of habit.

(are you sure you saw it in 48fps btw? not all viewings were)

Dunno TBH. But I'm pretty sure. Maybe someone I went with that viewing might remember.

[J-Snake]

I even see the difference between 60hz and 120hz in my own games running on different monitors. While the game logic is updating in 60 hz I interpolate the visual motion between frames. So the game always looks like running with the smooth refresh rate of the screen, even if I would decide to run the game logic at 30 fps or below.

[Schoq]

60hz feels really choppy in a game like quake if you try playing in 120 for a while, I think anyone would notice really.

[J-Snake]

Fast pace shooters are one of the best applications to notice the effect of update frequency. Driving simulations probably too, if someone can confirm.

[Dragonmaw]

changed thread title bc op is boring

[RJAG]

I remember back when I was just a kid (or some form of kid with the appearance of a young adult), people were insistent, even vehement in their belief that the human eye couldn't see past 20, 30, 40, 50 whatever fps. There were popular articles at the time those morons would link to to "prove it". This was the common belief. If you thought you could see past 30fps, you were considered by 'most' to be an idiot and a liar.

It only took a simple program showing an animation to see their "science" (article) was total bullshit. I didn't know it at the time, but I self-reported not being able to tell any difference beyond 60fps. (Little did I know how computer hardware / monitors worked and all that, or even what v-sync does. I knew nothing Jon Snow. More than likely my monitor was capped at displaying 60 for one reason or another.)

After I discovered how stupid those people were (and how blindly they followed random articles on the internet and believed with such fervor the most irrational of myths) was shortly after I began to get enough money to really build a nice computer.

It didn't take long for me to see the differences between 20, 30, 40, and 60. I'd shudder when people would tell me they couldn't tell the difference between 20 & 60. 30 & 60. I thought to myself, "They must be clinically insane." and just kept to myself. Fine with the lower rates? No problem. Couldn't tell though? "LIAR!" , "IDIOT!"

With the invention of the 'next-gen console' and the recent "30 vs 60" console gossip, I can do nothing but facepalm so many people. And although I don't facepalm or think lowly of others who simply don't care if they have to play at 30fps, I myself find that unacceptable. If I'm not getting 40 fps I am unhappy. 30 is unacceptable to me. Anything below 40 is unacceptable. Since I spent so much money on my new system in the past year or so- I am almost enraged if I don't get 60+. Then again, for my entire life I've tried to keep up with the best graphics hardware only to find out the games still lag if you try them on max settings. Then I fell for the whole 4K crap, only to discover how little content is 4K ready. Especially these A/AA indie studio titles where the GUI doesn't even scale. *shudders* Hell, even AAA games sometimes aren't 4K ready. So disappointing.

Anyway, there is no debate.

Not only can anyone tell the differences in varying framerates if you actually sit them down and show them the differences- anything below 60fps is so....not smooth, I don't understand why everyone doesn't shoot for 60fps. Oh wait, I know why. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$omething to do with a greedy thirst for profit or a lack of refined tasted (unaware of the differences, so they THINK they don't care. If only they knew... then they could be super disappointed all the time like us!)

It's sad is how AAA will often push performance to the limits for very little gain. So much diminishing returns for nothing more than that tiny edge in shallow marketing. Then again, I don't even care if the game HAS graphics. Let alone if they are bleeding edge. (Although I still get pissed when I can't play bleeding edge games on max settings with the best hardware. Rawr!)

[RJAG]

I have to admit though. The Hobbit in high frame rate was a bit goofy on some parts.

I also don't know if it was the high frame rate, the 3D, or the result of both combined- but the amazing kitchen scene made me get a horrible headache. To the point that I wanted to leave the theatre. For a movie that was probably one of my favorites of all time. (Not the best movie, obviously, but one of my favorites because I love the Hobbit. Always have. Far more than even the LOTR Trilogy). I'm also huge on movies (the kind of jerk that hates you for talking during one, even if it's a private showing on the couch.) So leaving the theater is unimaginable. The headache was that bad though. And I very very rarely get headaches that bother me even a little.

Anyway, the high frame rate at times would make it look like a bunch of human beings in costumes swinging props around. It looked "too real". Broke the illusion and hurt the movie in those parts. Other scenes looked amazing because of it.

So I honestly don't know what to think about framerate outside of video games. I just know that in video games, I want that damn smooth 60fps damnit!

[RJAG]

ive heard that this is nurture rather than nature tho: we've become so conditioned to associate lower framerates with cinema and higher framerates with cheap tv that even a well made movie in 48fps looks "cheap" and awkward to us. idk if that's actually true but its interesting to consider.

Very interesting!

I'd be really interested in reading some of this research/articles.

Although I'm skeptical, it at least sounds like a reasonable possibility.

I'll probably just end up waiting until I have grandchildren and ask them (in their flying cars, jacked into the matrix) if high framerate looks fake to them. That way I can get some real answers whether or not we are conditioned. Although they are most likely going to just wonder what I'm talking about when I discuss movies (as opposed to BTL chips; Shadowrun FTW!)

[VDZ]

Personally, I want games to move beyond 60 FPS if at all possible. I can barely tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, but I can definitely tell the difference between different framerates, and to me games have always looked tons prettier at higher framerates, even at lower resolutions. I feel the never-ending quest for even higher resolutions and even fancier effects (seriously, screw bloom, and screw it especially when it notably came at the expense of the framerate) takes processing power away from more useful improvements like an increased framerate. As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, games used to be 60 FPS on early consoles - why the hell did they decrease the framerate?

I can play games at 30 FPS, though I much prefer 60+ FPS. Getting less than 30 FPS really bothers me, though. I recall that when Atelier Meruru had these fancy bloom effects resulting in 20 or so FPS (contrary to its predecessor's 30 FPS) it really made the entire thing 'feel' ugly despite the graphical improvements.

In movies and anime, the usual low framerate doesn't bother me at all because that's just what I'm used to. When it gets lower than that, though (as recently has been common with some CG in anime), it feels very jarring and really disrupts the experience to the point of me dropping the series if it's common enough.

[Dragonmaw]

i think the only major thing is consistency

make sure your game ALWAYS runs at 30. or 60. or whatever.

[RJAG]

i think the only major thing is consistency

make sure your game ALWAYS runs at 30. or 60. or whatever.

Is this even possible? Games are pretty dynamic. Some scenes lag so much more or less than average, it would probably be easier for them to target 60 (and let it dip to 30 at times, where it's less noticeable than a dip below 30) or provide a consistent 60 (no scene ever lags, with average being far greater than 60 without the cap) than to try to keep consistency throughout the entire game scene after scene, possibility after possibility.

Even with AAA console titles, I notice they mention "30 fps!" but that is average fps. It still dips to <10 in some instances. Disgusting and unacceptable, but people still buy in droves. Oi vei.

[Uykered]

Personally, I want games to move beyond 60 FPS if at all possible.

Hopefully at the end of this year, and next year, we'll be seeing a lot of people upgrading their computers for VR ( Vive, Oculus and so on) which use 90 or so FPS.