30fps or 60fps ???

With regards to games, I'm usually fine with with either.
The most important caveat is that it should be a STABLE 30/60 fps experience.

I wouldn't have thought that anyone would choose 30fps over 60 given the choice...

PC master race checking in:

Only filthy peasants play at anything less than 144 fps.

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

This isn't the XB1 vs PS4 thread back, but in disguise?

A solid frame rate is more important than a high frame rate.
If a game is designed to run at 60fps but drops frames when the action gets hot it's distracting.
Better to lock it to 30fps and use the excess power to invest in the gameplay and visuals on offer.

Stable / fast frame rate is a debate that stretches back through the generations.
E.g. 50/60Hz games.
Unstable frame rate nearly ruined the masterpiece that is Shadow of the Colussus.

there really is no argument to favour 30fps if one can achieve a stable 60fps.

There is no truth to the argument that 30fps is more cinematic in any form, 24fps being the cinematic framerate is a lot more complicated matter then just being 24fps involving dynamic ranges in lighting and a whole host of calibration with a nice topping of cost on top of it that has defined 24fps as the frame rate most films are shot on and it has nothing to do with the 20-30fps range being some cinematic sweet spot.

60FPS and above obviously. Tighter control responsiveness, non-nausiating camera movement, 30fps is passable as long as it has naught a single frame dropped and the game is fairly slow-paced like Silent Hill or some turn-based game. However we've been seeing 30fps locked racing games appearing this generation which is just atrocious.

super_furry wrote: »

I'm still playing on a 720p TV so I'm really letting the side down.

Lower res = more FPS, typically.

Robert ninja wrote: »

@CiDeRmAn

In regards to older games, they were typically more slower paced and had all calculations tied to FPS. Take Zelda OoT for example, I know it runs well under 30fps but the games native animations and gameplay are slow enough to match it so it's still playable, timeless classic. But if you were to try and play Tekken 6 at Tekken 1's framerate you'd have a really bad experience.

Unlike graphics or resolution, framerate directly effects gameplay, which is what people seem to yell every time technical aspects of games come into conversation.

NTSC Tekken 1 and Tekken 6 run at the same frame rate, both 60fps.

Also just to be nitpicking, PAL tv shows are output at 25 fps, Cinema is 24 fps worldwide.

60fps is always the better option.

@Chris_Heilong

Wow really? It's been many years since I played tekken 1, and I've never emulated it to check its FPS. I suppose it's a fighting game so it would be 60fps, at least outside of EU anyway. Kinda sad that a PS1 game has better FPS than some modern racing games we're seeing.

Animation was still slow as hell, though. Those 10 ft high jumps are hilarious looking back.

30fps.......brings back memories of my childhood when my parents bought me my first computer, a ZX Spectrum 48K +. Thats what 30fps feels to the master race, only tramps play at such paltry inferior levels. If you don't notice a huge increase in score from higher frame rates, you're just not a bleeding edge gamer like me!

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Apparently James Cameron is thinking of using 60fps for the next avatar movies. Hopefully he does because if it actually looks good that'd instantly make it catch on...tbh, I'm just curious to see what a 60fps movie would look like

despite being a games forum I'll fill this in.

a film shot at 60fps unless it is in 3D you wont see any real difference unless they completely balls it up.

if it is viewed in 3D the 3d plains will be more firmly defined as seperate solid layers at 60fps so the 3d effect overall will be much more effective.

this is the reason the hobbit was filmed and screened at 48fps.

James Cameron is really the only filmmaker today I'd trust to push for a 60fps film because he's the only one willing to pay the vastly higher cost (simply higher fps costs more money in film) and also his backgroun engineering means he also will focus very much in building new techniques to handle the extra challenges of 60fps.



So to fill out that complicated reason for 24fps for the curious (if not just skip to the next post)

the reason for 24fps in a cynical fashion is a matter of cost vs result. Prior to sound being introduced most film studios found the cost vs result sweet spot was 18fps, but sound dictated that the fps be increased.

For filmmakers the key issue is a term known as the "dynamic range" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range#Photography) which is essentially the range of light that can be recorded before the image turns totally white or totally black and all detail is lost.

when you increase your fps the dynamic range decreases rapidly requiring filmmakers to do a much more extensive control of the lighting environment to preserve the image. And by control I mean more and more lights to light everything and keep all the elements of the image (background, character etc) in the same area in terms of lighting, as you can imagine a low dynamic range kills contrast and makes things rather flat.

So when 24fps became somewhat the standard range all equipment and techniques are built around providing the best dynamic range for that fps

that is why film was predominantly shot on 35mm as it had each individual frame being capable of taking in more light while still having enough detail on the low end of the range to allow more contrast. Going to larger frames (imax's 70mm) could allow more detail on the high end of the range but required more initial light pumped in as the lower end of the range was much more shorter.

So all filmrolls were designed for specific dynamic ranges to be delivered at a 24fps speed, unless a stock was specifically designed to be shot at a higher fps which was expensive.

All light meters, the lights and lenses and all the tables and graphs that cinematographers have in bulk to help them light their characters and sets (not to mention the make up and the actual prop building itself) are all built with the range in mind that has been built from shooting at 24fps. Shift to a higher fps and suddenly most of that stuff is too weak or too strong and needs to be adjusted, when shooting on film you dont know how that has affected the image until you get rushes the next morning so you are essentially running blind.

Shooting digitally it's still the same problem as the CMOS chip in most cameras today are still designed for giving the best dynamic range at 24fps and increasing the fps still has the same problem with a shrunken dynamic range.

The *TV look* comes because prior to using video cameras most tv productions was shot on 16mm because it was cheaper, but it had a lower dynamic range, it handled low light better but it lost detail quicker when more light was applied. When things went to video they developed a new form of recording images that didnt use a progressive frame rate (instead it used an interlaced frame rate) that still allowed much better low light recording but still weak at the high end of the range.


So the problem with the Hobbit is straightforward, they shot at 48fps greatly shrinking their dynamic range which improved the 3D effects but gave the cinematographer etc much smaller range for lighting characters and scenes thus making the film feel distinctly flatter compared to it's predecessors.

To combat these issues they either need to build cameras with better chips to handle reading light at a higher fps (which I expect from james Cameron) or they need to redesign their entire lighting process to work in a smaller range but still deliver on contrast and depth.

In the end the deeply cynical will see it being simply about money, the less cynical will see that 24fps gives the artist the biggest canvas to work with.

And as you can see none of this has any effect on the same points being laid at video games, there is no dynamic range in video games that is effected by fps so the argument that 30fps is more cinematic is bullsh*t.