Quantcast
24 frames per second is starting to look awkward in 4k.

Forums - Movies Discussion - 24 frames per second is starting to look awkward in 4k.

I prefer film in...

24 fps. 28 62.22%
 
30 fps. 3 6.67%
 
48 fps. 4 8.89%
 
60 fps. 4 8.89%
 
North of 60.... 3 6.67%
 
Any/indifferent/comments/middle America. 3 6.67%
 
Total:45

I can't agree that 30fps will ever feel more realistic than 60 (and even the latter isn't enough for me). It is clearly sluggish and totally at odds with how life feels. Now, where I don't mind that is in a cinematic, but in games, no, I'd never take 30fps over anything higher if given the option.



                                                                                                                                            

Around the Network
CGI-Quality said:
I can't agree that 30fps will ever feel more realistic than 60 (and even the latter isn't enough for me). It is clearly sluggish and totally at odds with how life feels. Now, where I don't mind that is in a cinematic, but in games, no, I'd never take 30fps over anything higher if given the option.

There's a reason 30 FPS has stuck around for all of these decades, the same goes for 24 FPS in film, and it has nothing do with processing power.  To A LOT (I'd even say the vast majority) of people it looks more realistic.  Our world, while not having an actual framerate, does not appear to us to move in the smoothness of 60 FPS or higher.  So, yea, you can definitely prefer higher framerates for games if that's what you like, but you can not tell me that that actually looks like real life.



thismeintiel said:
CGI-Quality said:
I can't agree that 30fps will ever feel more realistic than 60 (and even the latter isn't enough for me). It is clearly sluggish and totally at odds with how life feels. Now, where I don't mind that is in a cinematic, but in games, no, I'd never take 30fps over anything higher if given the option.

There's a reason 30 FPS has stuck around for all of these decades, the same goes for 24 FPS in film, and it has nothing do with processing power.  To A LOT (I'd even say the vast majority) of people it looks more realistic.  Our world, while not having an actual framerate, does not appear to us to move in the smoothness of 60 FPS or higher.  So, yea, you can definitely prefer higher framerates for games if that's what you like, but you can not tell me that that actually looks like real life.

In gaming, it is far less about preference. The hardware will always be the drawback, especially considering that devs push visuals over frames per second (though this will continue to change). The latter is where the money is. Doesn't mean 30fps magically is more realistic than 60. And what I can tell you ~ real life is far closer to 60 fps than 30. Things aren't choppy in the world I live in. 



                                                                                                                                            

thismeintiel said:

Our world, while not having an actual framerate, does not appear to us to move in the smoothness of 60 FPS or higher.

YMMD! Are you for real?



It would seem the obvious solution would be a varied frame rate and up the frames when it's needed but alas, they won't do it. There are deep learning systems already available and much cheaper than Hollywood tech that can double frames in a scene. I reckon they won't use that because it'll put people out of very high paying jobs. A 24 million moustache is muvh more productive than a system doing it automatically and in real time for practically free and of little effort.



 

Around the Network
thismeintiel said:
CGI-Quality said:
I can't agree that 30fps will ever feel more realistic than 60 (and even the latter isn't enough for me). It is clearly sluggish and totally at odds with how life feels. Now, where I don't mind that is in a cinematic, but in games, no, I'd never take 30fps over anything higher if given the option.

There's a reason 30 FPS has stuck around for all of these decades, the same goes for 24 FPS in film, and it has nothing do with processing power.  

....

NES and SNES games ran at 60FPS most of the time, though PAL versions were usually at 50HZ. Although NES and SNES games did experience slow-down sometimes which, was a hardware limitation. When the 5th generation came out, a lot of 3D games had bad frameraes. Ocarina of Time is infamous for having a bad framerate. And that was because of hardware limitations. Although there are a few games from that generation that were 3D and 60fps, F-Zero X is a good example.  And when the 6th generation came out, games like Devil May Cry 1-3, Metroid Prime 1-2, every Ratchet and Clank, Metal Gear Solid 2 (but not 3, because limitations!), Super Smash Brothers Melee, God of War 1-2, Tekken, Soul Calibur, F-Zero GX, and a butt load of other games were 60fps. 

So to make it sound like 30FPS has "stuck around for all these decades" and therefore it is an optimal gaming experience when higher framerates have been normal for a long time is silly. Especially because the earliest games that had lower frame-rates usually ran worse because of processing power. 30FPS would have stuck around whether or not developers believed (or in some cases rather made an excuse) that it feels more "cinematic", because some developers prioritize maxing out visual fidelity over framerate.

Last edited by AngryLittleAlchemist - on 13 January 2019

CGI-Quality said:
thismeintiel said:

There's a reason 30 FPS has stuck around for all of these decades, the same goes for 24 FPS in film, and it has nothing do with processing power.  To A LOT (I'd even say the vast majority) of people it looks more realistic.  Our world, while not having an actual framerate, does not appear to us to move in the smoothness of 60 FPS or higher.  So, yea, you can definitely prefer higher framerates for games if that's what you like, but you can not tell me that that actually looks like real life.

In gaming, it is far less about preference. The hardware will always be the drawback, especially considering that devs push visuals over frames per second (though this will continue to change). The latter is where the money is. Doesn't mean 30fps magically is more realistic than 60. And what I can tell you ~ real life is far closer to 60 fps than 30. Things aren't choppy in the world I live in. 

Lol, 30 FPS is not choppy.  Let's not use hyperbole to try and win a debate.  There is nothing choppy about a locked in 30 FPS. 

And every game could run at 60 FPS if devs so chose.  Sure, they would have to lower some of the fidelity, but it is possible.  Doom, for example, is still a really good looking game.  And while it is really fun to play, that 60 FPS screams that I am playing a video game.  Things do not move that smoothly across your eyes in the real world.  This is the same reason 48 FPS film failed.  While many people are fine with higher framerates in games, as it is a game, they do not want that in their films where it is supposed to be capturing lifelike images.  So, there is much more to the 30 FPS vs 60 FPS and 24 FPS vs 48 FPS than just HW limitations.  It is most often a preference. If I were making a game that I was aiming at complete realism, there is no way I would want it to run higher than 40 FPS.



It's mostly interpolation that makes film at 24 fps look bad on 4K TVs (i.e. the judder effect). The idea that 24 fps was chosen as the absolute minimum needed to trick the brain is also false. All sort of animation features lower frame rates. It was a relatively fluid image with an easily divisible number - which made for easy editing.



Retro Tech Select - My Youtube channel. Covers throwback consumer electronics with a focus on "vid'ya games."

Latest Video: Top 12 GameCube Games of All-Time - Special Features, Episode 5

thismeintiel said:
CGI-Quality said:

~ snip

Lol, 30 FPS is not choppy.  Let's not use hyperbole to try and win a debate.  There is nothing choppy about a locked in 30 FPS. 

And every game could run at 60 FPS if devs so chose.  Sure, they would have to lower some of the fidelity, but it is possible.  Doom, for example, is still a really good looking game.  And while it is really fun to play, that 60 FPS screams that I am playing a video game.  Things do not move that smoothly across your eyes in the real world.  This is the same reason 48 FPS film failed.  While many people are fine with higher framerates in games, as it is a game, they do not want that in their films where it is supposed to be capturing lifelike images.  So, there is much more to the 30 FPS vs 60 FPS and 24 FPS vs 48 FPS than just HW limitations.  It is most often a preference. If I were making a game that I was aiming at complete realism, there is no way I would want it to run higher than 40 FPS.

Nothing hyperbolic about that statement and there is no debate to win. You either prefer higher frame rates or you don't. Yes, by comparison to both what I see in real life and 60+fps gaming, 30fps is choppy. If you truly think it runs 'nearly as good as real life', then it is clear that you haven't spent much time playing higher or you're just choosing the lower frame rate for.....whatever reason. Remove the motion blur (what many 30fps games hide behind) and you have a choppier experience. That's Game Design 101.

 

EDIT: For those with higher-than-60Hz refresh rate monitors (preferably 120-144), check this out: https://www.testufo.com/framerates#count=3&background=none&pps=960

Let me know how 30 (36 if you're on 144Hz monitors) fps looks by comparison.

Last edited by CGI-Quality - on 13 January 2019

                                                                                                                                            

thismeintiel said:
CGI-Quality said:

In gaming, it is far less about preference. The hardware will always be the drawback, especially considering that devs push visuals over frames per second (though this will continue to change). The latter is where the money is. Doesn't mean 30fps magically is more realistic than 60. And what I can tell you ~ real life is far closer to 60 fps than 30. Things aren't choppy in the world I live in. 

Lol, 30 FPS is not choppy.  Let's not use hyperbole to try and win a debate.  There is nothing choppy about a locked in 30 FPS. 

And every game could run at 60 FPS if devs so chose.  Sure, they would have to lower some of the fidelity, but it is possible.  Doom, for example, is still a really good looking game.  And while it is really fun to play, that 60 FPS screams that I am playing a video game.  Things do not move that smoothly across your eyes in the real world.  This is the same reason 48 FPS film failed.  While many people are fine with higher framerates in games, as it is a game, they do not want that in their films where it is supposed to be capturing lifelike images.  So, there is much more to the 30 FPS vs 60 FPS and 24 FPS vs 48 FPS than just HW limitations.  It is most often a preference. If I were making a game that I was aiming at complete realism, there is no way I would want it to run higher than 40 FPS.

It's not more lifelike, it's more dream like, what movies should be. You can do a lot more with exposure and lighting with 24 fps. You can suggest a lot more with 24 fps. You can hide a lot less with 48 fps or 60 fps. Games choose to hide things in the dark to suggest more than there is. That works for movies as well, however a lower frame rate is just as effective.

Games also use all kinds of filters to make it look more 'realistic', especially motion blur. That pretty much contradicts the whole higher frame rate is better. Games try so hard to simulate (bad) cameras, it's not even funny anymore. Bloom, blur, lens flares, chromatic aberration, depth of field,  camera shake, fake HDR, film grain.  Yet without it they look sterile and fake.

Anyway the most important reason is, 24 fps enough to perceive smooth motion while leaving enough room for the brain to add its own interpretation. Movies don't aim for realism, they aim for make belief.