Just imagine those epic war movies that came out over the last 20 or so years (fantasy or otherwise) and given the same treatment. No blurry shots, shaky cam, out of focus people, smeary pan swings, no action slow downs/time stalls, just full speed the entire time throughout the whole thing with 100s to 1000s of folks just going at it.
In defense of the "filmic" look.
- Thread starter msdstc
- Start date
Just imagine those epic war movies that came out over the last 20 or so years (fantasy or otherwise) and given the same treatment. No blurry shots, shaky cam, out of focus people, smeary pan swings, no action slow downs/time stalls, just full speed the entire time throughout the whole thing with 100s to 1000s of folks just going at it.
I have no idea where this thread is going.
The same as Skyrim on the PS3.
RSB
Banned
I don't know what he did exactly, but basically he made the movie look worse, and he even admitted it in an interview:Really? What did he do? I missed this one in theaters unfortunately and I'm pissed the blu-ray doesn't support 48 FPS
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/dec/13/peter-jackson-48fps-tone-down-hobbit-desolation-smaug-hd
As I said, disgusting.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
A movie
Shyakugaun
Banned
Lol this cinematic fps shit is getting out of hand, these devs really need to stop
Kssio_Aug
Member
Who?
That's dumb. If movies had been 48fps always you could never even look at 24fps footage. It's all about getting used to things.
Aha, you fibber you
I think "super shampling and motion blar" is probably the best thing to come out of this thread.
JaseMath
Member
Yeah fuck that. That looks choppy and...well, bad.
You do know that tv and movies are now shot at the same frame rate...tv used to be 29.97 but it is now 23.97 like movies...the difference comes from how it is shot, lighting, motion blur, focus, etc.
The problem is the technology. LCDs are hold-type displays, and that's the problem. I can't ever look smooth.
untrue...it is a happy accident that movies settled on 23.97 frames per second...but it is where they should stay
The Omega Man
Member
Dev: We have chosen 30 frames per second to accomplish the very sought after "Filmic look" I mean I could press this button and make it run at 60fps I just choose not to for stylish reasons.
The folk: But does your game also implement all the other effects applied to film along with the frame rate? such as motion blur? also do you understand that your game has gameplay in it that makes 60fps unmatched for controlling purposes?
Dev: Look behind you!! A three-headed monkey!!!
The folk: But does your game also implement all the other effects applied to film along with the frame rate? such as motion blur? also do you understand that your game has gameplay in it that makes 60fps unmatched for controlling purposes?
Dev: Look behind you!! A three-headed monkey!!!
Doesn't that depend on the TV show?
Devs want THEIR GAME, NOT YOURS, to approach cinematic experience.
Movies goas at 24, then, 30 is more cinematic than 60 because it's closer to 24.
Simple and understanable logic.
You can argue or disagree what you want, but it's a fact.
Stop telling the devs the choices they shoud make, or start your own development studio.
Movies goas at 24, then, 30 is more cinematic than 60 because it's closer to 24.
Simple and understanable logic.
You can argue or disagree what you want, but it's a fact.
Stop telling the devs the choices they shoud make, or start your own development studio.
Cameras in 3rd person videogames traverse a lot more ground in a second than normal film cameras do. They often are a lot more unstable & unpredictable too (180 turnaround, hit effects, etc). The FOV is super wide angle, increasing the amount of pixels on screen that changes per frame.
All that objectively calls for a higher framerate than "filmic" to look good, to control good and above all: Be readable by the human eye.
All that objectively calls for a higher framerate than "filmic" to look good, to control good and above all: Be readable by the human eye.
CadetMahoney
Member
That would explain when I'm drunk.
Yeah that's pretty bad alright.
To play devil's advocate though, cutting the frame rate of a game designed for higher framerates is always going to look crap, as your cutting out frames of the animation. A game designed natively for lower framerates would look better than that.
EatinOlives
Member
The way that films are shot, edited, and touched up is completely different from the way games are rendered. Even motion blur was traditionally achieved in movies from the exposure of films. The blur appeared as a natural product of object or scene motion captured into one frame. Blur in games fundamentally doesn't work that way. It's simulated, just like everything else, and at this current generation the blur isn't anywhere near as natural looking as it does in film.
You want a game to "look cinematic", I expect some serious efforts in the technical side of actually making a game look cinematic. I expect pristine, clean image quality, blur and depth of field that looks indistinguishable form its film counterparts, and a complete lack of loading screens so the story misses no beats.
Oh but that's not what we're getting with these "cinematic" games, are we? We still get shitty blur, jaggies out the ass, poorly segmented sequences or excessive loading times that, if they ever appeared in any movie, people would just walk out the theater.
"My game is cinematic because it runs at 30 FPS" is the biggest load of horseshit I've ever heard to justify the framerate. That's not how a film works. I can't take a fucking iPhone camera, chop everything to look 24 FPS, then claim a video of my dog skateboarding "makes it look cinematic". Any developer making such a boneheaded argument is blowing smoke up your ass.
EDIT: I want to make it clear I think 30 FPS is still perfectly playable, but it's objectively inferior to 60 FPS in any game. 30 FPS has never been, and never will be, a conscious artistic decision by any developer. It is always, always a technical one that results in the developer trading off framerate for better visuals.
You want a game to "look cinematic", I expect some serious efforts in the technical side of actually making a game look cinematic. I expect pristine, clean image quality, blur and depth of field that looks indistinguishable form its film counterparts, and a complete lack of loading screens so the story misses no beats.
Oh but that's not what we're getting with these "cinematic" games, are we? We still get shitty blur, jaggies out the ass, poorly segmented sequences or excessive loading times that, if they ever appeared in any movie, people would just walk out the theater.
"My game is cinematic because it runs at 30 FPS" is the biggest load of horseshit I've ever heard to justify the framerate. That's not how a film works. I can't take a fucking iPhone camera, chop everything to look 24 FPS, then claim a video of my dog skateboarding "makes it look cinematic". Any developer making such a boneheaded argument is blowing smoke up your ass.
EDIT: I want to make it clear I think 30 FPS is still perfectly playable, but it's objectively inferior to 60 FPS in any game. 30 FPS has never been, and never will be, a conscious artistic decision by any developer. It is always, always a technical one that results in the developer trading off framerate for better visuals.
As i understood, we can neither measure nor detect time shorter then 1 Planck unit.
That doesn't mean that time shorter then 1 Planck unit doesn't exist.
I'm sticking with infinite.
DoomGyver
Member
Yeah but the motion blur makes everything seamless.
The problem I have with these webms posted is that the game itself isn't designed to run at that low a framerate, so it will look worse than one which was intended to. Motion blur and the like will be finely tuned around that target.
NullPointer
Member
Been playing Ground Zeroes which not only plays at 60fps, but has in-game cut-scenes at 60fps too.
More please, its fucking smooth and awesome. That game also looks just fine to my eyes.
More please, its fucking smooth and awesome. That game also looks just fine to my eyes.
Kssio_Aug
Member
And thank god devs have their freedom to do it. I experienced bunch of amazing good games at 30fps (some even not stable such as D. Souls) on PS3, and as long as they keep releasing good games with pretty visuals at 30 im fine with it, unless they chose to release it on 60 since they dont target for better visuals (like Wolfenstein).
SteveWinwood
Member
you have to start defining time tho
Even compared to something like Mythbusters rather than a soap opera or whatever? Yeah, if you're not screwing with us then I really have to question your senses.
I do have to admit I do wonder if there could be something of an uncanny valley effect to 60 fps. Even when I'm used to it it seems as if it's "smoother than life", and makes me wonder if 120 fps closes that gap for a more authentic feeling smoothness. I'll still take that uncanny valley smoothness though because it looks nice and we're not talking about the uncanny valley in recreating the human face, but it leaves me to wonder.
GoofsterStud
Member
Games 60 frames or more preferred. 30 frames acceptable under extreme cases. Anything lower than that I will never be purchased by me. I'll get a movie.
Now if you want the "Filmic" look, do it for the cut scenes and CGI. Those don't effect the gameplay, you get the "Filmic" look during the cinematic segments! Everyone wins!
Now if you want the "Filmic" look, do it for the cut scenes and CGI. Those don't effect the gameplay, you get the "Filmic" look during the cinematic segments! Everyone wins!
Freeman
Banned
24fps and 48fps in films certainly have a distinct feel, whether one is better than the other is definitely subjective.
On games it is also subjective, contrary to what some keep preaching. 60fps doesn't come out of nowhere and concessions have to be made for it to be achieved.
Good gameplay also doesn't necessarily needs to come from 60fps nor does it necessarily benefits from it.
There is some extremist here with such a closed mind that think that everything has to be made according to their preferences. I actually doubt that most of them only play 60fps game as they claim even if they are PC players(at least if they have being playing for long).
On games it is also subjective, contrary to what some keep preaching. 60fps doesn't come out of nowhere and concessions have to be made for it to be achieved.
Good gameplay also doesn't necessarily needs to come from 60fps nor does it necessarily benefits from it.
There is some extremist here with such a closed mind that think that everything has to be made according to their preferences. I actually doubt that most of them only play 60fps game as they claim even if they are PC players(at least if they have being playing for long).
All I know is I prefer 24fps for films (did not like 48fps at all) and prefer 60fps for games but can tolerate 30fps in games fine so long as it doesn't detract from aiming, movement, etc.
I think you can't compare the two though. Films are essentially capturing real subjects (unless animated or fully CGI where you can get same issues as games) with natural motion blur, etc. and tend to look natural as a result. Games are rendered and there is always a power restriction on calculating every frame rendered to really match what a film does "for free" and issues with fps look very jarring in games in a way you just don't get in films - even films with deliberate camera shake, etc.
I do like games that have narratives and borrow certain elements from films but if I'm required to shoot or do anything response you need a smooth, consistent frame rate.
I think you can't compare the two though. Films are essentially capturing real subjects (unless animated or fully CGI where you can get same issues as games) with natural motion blur, etc. and tend to look natural as a result. Games are rendered and there is always a power restriction on calculating every frame rendered to really match what a film does "for free" and issues with fps look very jarring in games in a way you just don't get in films - even films with deliberate camera shake, etc.
I do like games that have narratives and borrow certain elements from films but if I'm required to shoot or do anything response you need a smooth, consistent frame rate.
Pro from Dover
Member
I see where you're coming from, OP.
As much as I think, say, The Hobbit was weird at 48fps, I liked it only because of how *different* it was. Kind of like how I like the 3D on the 3DS.
But I'm even very cool with 30fps in games, though depending on the game, I would like to see it in 60fps. Like Dragon's Dogma. Yeah, would love to have that frame rate up.
No. It's because it looks oddly smooth. That's because, iirc, our eyes don't apply motion blur to sceens. Also, irl, our eyes dart back and forth. When we watch a movie our whole "head" (the camera) is moving much more smoothly. It's kind of difficult, but there's a way to hold your eye to keep it from moving around normally, so that you have to move your head to look around. Suddenly, when you do that, everything looks smooth like in a game or soap opera. Really bizarre.
That's why games have motion blur. It cuts down on the weird, unnaturally smooth look and helps to replicate the way we normally see things.
I just read that researching shorter lengths of time than 1 Planck unit leads to black holes and general nothingness...
1 Planck unit t'is.
Please don't make me read an article on what the exact nature of time is...
It kind of blew me away to be honest. The opening cutscene is just gorgeous.
This.
Maybe some day people will understand that fps doesnt have that much impact on the quality of a game.
Fuck cut scenes, we're playing video games not movies. Leave cut scenes and movies out of the discussion altogether.
Needs motion blur.
QisTopTier
XisBannedTier
Personally I prefer 60 fps porn myself... oh wait this isn't off topic.
60 fps is the ideal lowest, 30 is manageable but anything less is painful
Nope, it has nothing to do with measurement. If a shorter time-period could exist, time would lose its continuum. Time would quantize and all objects (that could exist/change their state/whatever shorter than 1 Planck) would become a singularity.
But it's offtopic anyway xD
bargeparty
Member
Think you should redo this. Doesn't look like you're using motion blur either. I think it would help at a lower frame rate. I locked mine at 24 and it didn't seem that choppy. I even ran around, drove around, shot the place up. Was decent enough, not really playable for a while though.
The video even hitches around 11-12 seconds.