By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
teigaga on 26 October 2014
Edit Thread
Aura7541 said:
teigaga said:
Aura7541 said:
teigaga said:

Why? its completely subjective. I think 30fps is more cinematic.

In movies, it's not the 24 fps itself that makes them look cinematic, it's the motion blur.

Its a combination of the two, more so the framerate. Shutterspeed and frame both a very distinct effect of the flavour of a films sense of cinema. 

The motion blur helps the human perceive the low framerate to look smooth. It works really well in live-action movies because cameras capture natural light sources. However, it's a huge challenge for video games because usually the lighting is not realistic and will instead, make the games look even weirder. The Order: 1886, has some pretty damn good lighting, so if motion blur is implemented, it should look fine. The other problem with implementing motion blur is control latency and I hope RAD is working on making the controls feel responsive.

This guy here does a better job at explaining this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCWZ_kWTB9w

I think that video is more a decription of why film can afford a framerate of 24fps without looking choppy, whereas games can't. I wouldn't even say 30fps is ideal in terms of appearing ''cinematic'' but I think preferable over 60fps. But as a initially I think its somehwhat subject, the regularity at which we're exposed to the 2 probably has a huge impact on our perception as well. I take you've seen the video of Uncharted 4 running at 30fps vs 60fps. Which one to you was most cinematic? 

For me it was the 30fps.