-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Final say in the PGR3 60fps debate..
- Thread starter thorns
- Start date
Shogmaster
Member
Gek54 said:Ghosting IS a type of blur effect that has been intentionaly used for the purpose of creating the appearance of motion blur in other games. In the case of 30fps a moving object appears elongated.
That top pic is showing interlacing, which has little to do with ghosting.
WHOAguitarninja
Member
Gek54 said:Ghosting IS a type of blur effect that has been intentionaly used for the purpose of creating the appearance of motion blur in other games. In the case of 30fps a moving object appears elongated.
This images do not correctly display how it should look though. In one, you're displaying two frames at 30fps, and in one, you're displaying one at 60fps. To compare elapsed time, that's 1/15th of a second vs 1/60th of a second. The bottom image should have 4 images placed in it, all spaced 1/2 the spacing between what's above.
I understand what you're trying to convey, but it's not quite that simple.
What 60fps does it it creates a "blurring" more similar to the one our eyes actually see. The residual images are closer together, and that is what gives the impression of a solid blur, rather than copped off frames all superimposed. Since we know that real life isn't blurry, we associate this more appropriate blur with how realistic things should look. Thus, one could make the argument that 60fps is actually blurryer, in a sense. However, it looks better, because the blur is more natural.
WHOAguitarninja
Member
Just read Fight For Freedom's last post...about how cameras can capture blur, I beleive it has to do with the way they take their pictures.
When a videogame shows a single frame, it is an instant in time. It does not show a sum of the places a car has been in the 1/30th or 1/60th of a second, it shows where it is at that exact moment in time. No fudging.
When a camera takes a "shot", it is recording every place at has been in the time it has taken to take the shot.
This is really hard to put into words, so perhaps this will help.
every vertical line will represent a new frame, dashes with be when the camera is recording motion, and periods will be time passing unused.
VIDEOGAME
-......|-.....|-.....|
There is elapsed distance between every individual frame...and NOTHING is there to account for it.
CAMERA
------|------|------|
It records everything in between in the individual frames, and it all gets blurred together in the image. Think of the way a photo camera works. If you move too fast, you will be spread over a large portion of the film, and will be blurred.
Hopefully that explains it.
When a videogame shows a single frame, it is an instant in time. It does not show a sum of the places a car has been in the 1/30th or 1/60th of a second, it shows where it is at that exact moment in time. No fudging.
When a camera takes a "shot", it is recording every place at has been in the time it has taken to take the shot.
This is really hard to put into words, so perhaps this will help.
every vertical line will represent a new frame, dashes with be when the camera is recording motion, and periods will be time passing unused.
VIDEOGAME
-......|-.....|-.....|
There is elapsed distance between every individual frame...and NOTHING is there to account for it.
CAMERA
------|------|------|
It records everything in between in the individual frames, and it all gets blurred together in the image. Think of the way a photo camera works. If you move too fast, you will be spread over a large portion of the film, and will be blurred.
Hopefully that explains it.
What's even funnier is that with a 30 fps game there is no interlacing to be seen when doing video capture on my PC, and it's the 60 fps games that display these interlacing artifacts. While I do agree that 60 fps games look clearer on a TV than 30 fps one, it always surprised me considering that at 60 fps (and with a 480i display) we only get to see half of each frame.Gek54 said:
morbidaza said:
*slaps forehead*
Stupid me...yeah...it's like how you can extend the shutter length to add blur to pics.
I understand the concept compared to a videogame, but what I was concerned about is how it relates to our brains. But now it makes sense.
Again, while 60fps does a good job, adding motion blur similar to how cameras capture it would be even better.
I think most people didn't even notice (or if they noticed, didn't particularity CARE as it seems so unlikely to be in the final game) the blur...if this is being done realtime the game is gonna look unreal. If that's just an effect for promotion, I'm gonna be cheesed
-addendum-
or people could have noticed, but simply though it was DOF. It could be...and I could be wrong...it just looks to me that there is a constant direction to the blurring, so it's not blurring in all directions, but from bottom-left to top-right (matching the angle of the shot).
-addendum #2-
Yeah definate blurring of trees and road here. And it's not super smooth so it's probably real time
saweeetmidnightguy
Member
jarrod said:
nice work Jarrod
midnightguy
Member
Fight for Freeform said:
I loved the 30FPS Ridge Racer games also, but I love the 60FPS RR games even more!
Oh no, I am not getting anything mixed up.
It may indeed be more realistic, but texturing a road surface with patterns moving left to right and lots of fine detail repeating details does indeed kill the sense of speed. SegaGT on Dreamcast did the same thing.
Honestly, I would like more games to use the multilayer approach employed by MotoGP. As speed increases, different textures are swapped onto the surface to convey a better sense of speed. When at a stand still, the track is of very high detail, but at the highest speeds, it's a blur.
Ah, but so am I. However, I am more fond of artistic use of effects and details. Realistic aspects used in an artistic fashion can be nice, but PGR2 is simply mundane. The lighting is flat and dull in appearance. Many aspects of the lighting model are impressive, and it is certainly well beyond the pre-baked lighting found in so many other racers...but that doesn't mean it is attractive.
For example, here are some shots I grabbed from the first page of Gamespot's PGR2 pic collection. There was no selection here. I just clicked on random shots and posted them here. These shots demonstrate what I was talking about. This is NOT ABOUT the capture quality so do not dare bring it up. You can see what I am talking about.
dark10x said:Oh no, I am not getting anything mixed up.
It may indeed be more realistic, but texturing a road surface with patterns moving left to right and lots of fine detail repeating details does indeed kill the sense of speed. SegaGT on Dreamcast did the same thing.
Honestly, I would like more games to use the multilayer approach employed by MotoGP. As speed increases, different textures are swapped onto the surface to convey a better sense of speed. When at a stand still, the track is of very high detail, but at the highest speeds, it's a blur.
Ah, but so am I. However, I am more fond of artistic use of effects and details. Realistic aspects used in an artistic fashion can be nice, but PGR2 is simply mundane. The lighting is flat and dull in appearance. Many aspects of the lighting model are impressive, and it is certainly well beyond the pre-baked lighting found in so many other racers...but that doesn't mean it is attractive.
For example, here are some shots I grabbed from the first page of Gamespot's PGR2 pic collection. There was no selection here. I just clicked on random shots and posted them here. These shots demonstrate what I was talking about. This is NOT ABOUT the capture quality so do not dare bring it up. You can see what I am talking about.
Couldn't have said it better Darkie. "Mundane" was the perfect word to throw out there.