CGI-Quality said:
SvennoJ said:
Why do those effects make it look more realistic? Does it really make them look more realistic, or simply more like what you are used to seeing from a camera on a screen? Many of those effects do not make sense in VR at all. Depth of field, useless. Motion blur, nope you can follow things with your eyes. Lens flares, film grain, bloom, chromatic aberration (already comes with the lenses unfortunately) all does not make any sense. Fake HDR breaks immersion and well camera shake, a definite no. VR aims for realism, yet can't use all the techniques that make games look more realistic!
|
That is why I said the genre and scenario are relevant. As an example, no, lens flares won't make much sense in a 3rd person game with a character jumping from one platform to the next, but certain FPS titles make use of it that make total sense. It's still a case-by-case basis, though. Very few features do I find totally unnecessary (chromatic aberration being the main one).
But, none of that really matters when talking frame rates (unless they inherently interfere with it ~ which is a whole other matter). Those are mainly visual flares.
thismeintiel said:
It is 100% hyperbolic to say that 30 FPS is choppy.
Nope.
Movies run at 6 FPS less than those games, and they are not choppy, either.
Movies and games cannot be compared 1:1 due to the nature of interaction vs not. One thing that is for sure, movies that run at higher Hz appear smoother.
And it's not just from experience that I know this, it is just a scientific fact. It only takes ~20 FPS to fool the brain that a series of images are actually in motion, without the choppiness of something like stop motion animation.
I've heard of no scientific fact that can tell one person what is choppy vs someone else, but I'd be interested to see a source of such.
At 24 FPS and 30 FPS, it is impossible for it to look choppy.
Nope, it isn't.
Sure, it's not as smooth as 60 FPS, but nothing choppy about it.
By comparison, it is (I assume you don't have a monitor capable of 120+Hz).
And motion blur is not to remove any kind of choppiness from low framerate, it is to address image ghosting from previous frames, mainly caused by turning the camera quickly.
Never argued that motion blur removed anything. It attempts to mask lower frame rates (much of what we saw last gen).
It's also used to simulate something our eyes naturally do with motion. A game running at 18 FPS isn't going to magically look smooth because you threw some motion blur at it.
Indeed, which is why I wouldn't argue that it, nor 30fps, is smooth.
Well, glad we agree that it is about preference. 30 FPS for games is here to stay because many think it actually looks more cinematic. Same goes for 24 FPS for film.
30fps is here to stay (on console) because of power constraints and designers preferring visuals over framerate. Film is a different beast entirely and I've not heard of any correlation between the two.
|
My take.
And check this out: http://www.technologyx.com/featured/understanding-frame-rate-look-truth-behind-30v60-fps/
Fantastic read that attempts to make sense of much of this.
|
