30fps better for storytelling than 60fps?

[Testbuilds]

I searched and couldn't find any posts of this article, so hopefully this isn't a repost.

 

http://wccftech.com/30fps-vs-60fps-30fps-better-story-telling-games/

 

WCCFTECH claims that 30fps is better for story telling than 60fps, because games at 30fps are similar to the "movie magic" effect of 24fps movies, and 48fps have the "soap opera effect" where they are too smooth. Apparently filling in the missing parts with our brains is beneficial.

 

"The more Frames Per Second we increase in our Gaming Standards the less “Magical” they will feel."

I don't know about you, but 30fps in a game never feels magical to me, it just reminds me that I need a newer GPU.

 

If any of you believe 30 fps is better, please back up your reasoning better than the article writer, and I'll try to keep an open mind about supposed low frame-rate superiority.

 

Until then, anyone that claims 30 fps is "perfectly fine" or "better than higher fps," is just going to get

 

[SpaceSquid]

i like my games playable, if i wanted to watch a movie i would watch a movie

[applebook]

30 FPS isn't better for anything.

[BeyondSmash]

How many more of these threads are needed and why must it be from Wccftech as well?

[Kevinkt]

This topic

 

 

 

[rashdanml]

30 fps is playable only if the frame rate is locked to 30 without any dips. The issue with low frame rate isn't really the number itself, but the frame rate dip which much more noticeable at lower frame rates. 

[StingBull]

That article is from last year.

[EChondo]

That article is from last year.

This.

 

Also, they forget to mention "motion blur". Take away motion blur and there is no cinematic experience.

[luke_2bossly]

yeah I prefer my 300 fps when its available lol.... minecraft got so popular cause everyone loves the 300 frames... not the game lol, what did you think??? I mean cmon guys lets use common sense here... haha ROTFL

[Beskamir]

I was watching Game of Thrones this morning (12-1am) and there was one scene where an army heads north of the wall and they had banners which would have allowed me to figure out who they are fighting for but due to the INCREDIBLY low frame rate (24fps) I couldn't make out the banners. They were just a blur (hate motion blur more than low fps)

 

Point being that less than 60 frames for anything is a joke unless it looks amazing and is being rendered in real time (games) then I can tolerate 30-40.

[NinjaStyle013]

I dont even like 26fps for movies and shit, watching movies on my brothers 3d tv with the crazy refresh rate whatever making movies super smooth is so much cooler

[JaeDee884]

I was watching Game of Thrones this morning (12-1am) and there was one scene where an army heads north of the wall and they had banners which would have allowed me to figure out who they are fighting for but due to the INCREDIBLY low frame rate (24fps) I couldn't make out the banners. They were just a blur (hate motion blur more than low fps)

 

Point being that less than 60 frames for anything is a joke unless it looks amazing and is being rendered in real time (games) then I can tolerate 30-40.

I'm sorry but i could see very clearly who's banners they were

[Slinkey]

Wasn't Mass Effect 60 FPS?

[Syntaxvgm]

Movies work at low fps because motion blur is a natural camera effect which sucks in games. Games look shitty at lower fps because it looks like a series of images to us. 

[juretrn]

30 fps is not better for anything. It just about hangs on the edge of acceptable framerate for me, and having smoother movement is always better. 

[Misanthrope]

Clickbait, please ignore and move on.

[Morpheus]

30 fps is playable only if the frame rate is locked to 30 without any dips. The issue with low frame rate isn't really the number itself, but the frame rate dip which much more noticeable at lower frame rates. 

it really isn't probably even then tbh.. even a constant 30 wouldn't look all that good when moving around etc in games

[NICKT]

"Early silent films had stated frame rates anywhere from 16 to 24 FPS,^[5] but since the cameras were hand-cranked, the rate often changed during the scene to fit the mood. Projectionists could also change the frame rate in the theater by adjusting a rheostat controlling the voltage powering the film-carrying mechanism in the projector.^[6] Silent films were often intended to be shown at higher frame rates than those used during filming.^[7] These frame rates were enough for the sense of motion, but it was perceived as jerky motion. By using projectors with dual- and triple-blade shutters, the rate was multiplied two or three times as seen by the audience. Thomas Edison said that 46 frames per second was the minimum need by the visual cortex: "Anything less will strain the eye."^[8][9] In the mid to late 1920s, the frame rate for silent films increased to between 20 and 26 FPS.^[8]

When sound film was introduced in 1926, variations in film speed were no longer tolerated as the human ear is more sensitive to changes in audio frequency. Many theaters had shown silent films at 22 to 26 FPS which is why 24 FPS was chosen for sound. From 1927 to 1930, as various studios updated equipment, the rate of 24 FPS became standard for 35 mm sound film.^[1]"

 

 

 

Shutter

 

A commonly held misconception is that film projection is simply a series of individual frames dragged very quickly past the projector's intense light source. This is not the case; if a roll of film were merely passed between the light source and the lens of the projector, all that would be visible on screen would be a continuous blurred series of images sliding from one edge to the other. It is the shutter that gives the illusion of one full frame being replaced exactly on top of another full frame. A rotating petal or gated cylindrical shutter interrupts the emitted light during the time the film is advanced to the next frame. The viewer does not see the transition, thus tricking the brain into believing a moving image is on screen. Modern shutters are designed with a flicker-rate of two times (48 Hz) or even sometimes three times (72 Hz) the frame rate of the film, so as to reduce the perception of screen flickering.

 

Felt like reading up on a couple things, but it seems like the 24 FPS as a standard was developed most definitely with film in mind, not exactly movies. I do find though that as we advance in technology we should always be challenging the standard and going with a better output and more fidelity, we can't hold onto an old standard that was set forth when the hardware was incapable of doing more than that standard, now that we've move forward, our standards should too, nostalgia and the 'filmic' look are poor concepts and excuses to hold onto because they do naught more than hold industry back.

 

Also, to suggest that story-telling in any way is defined by how quickly you witness it on a screen is absolutely fucking ridiculous and the person whom ever said that needs to have a wrench directly applied to their frontal lobe because they're a moronic lobster cock.

I also believe that in movies we should be trying to get more out of the image, if we can get 48fps then why don't we? People claim that film gets away with it because we don't interact with the medium like we do with video games and we don't need the precision of time but I do feel that as an experience we should be going for a smoother and clearer image instead of a 'filmic' one.

But hey, whatever, at the end of the day, the path of least resistance is what wins and if that means delivering a sub-par product then so be it.

[AMD Lover]

yeah I prefer my 300 fps when its available lol.... minecraft got so popular cause everyone loves the 300 frames... not the game lol, what did you think??? I mean cmon guys lets use common sense here... haha ROTFL

300fps in Minecraft makes me motion sick, like seriously not kidding

[Syntaxvgm]

300fps in Minecraft makes me motion sick, like seriously not kidding

Your monitor can likely only display 60 fps. Some people get motion sickness from mc though. 

[rashdanml]

it really isn't probably even then tbh.. even a constant 30 wouldn't look all that good when moving around etc in games

Works for some games, ie. Assassin's Creed 4. Multiplayer, not so much, but I don't play Multiplayer. 

[AMD Lover]

Your monitor can likely only display 60 fps. Some people get motion sickness from mc though. 

True, forgot about that part of it. Thats weird, I never got it on the console, maybe because I was sitting farther, the details were worse and my TV isnt 1080p

[Syntaxvgm]

Works for some games, ie. Assassin's Creed 4. Multiplayer, not so much, but I don't play Multiplayer. 

It doesn't simply becuase the console versions tend not to keep that 30fps like AC2. But yea the AC series is all perfectly playable in 30 fps, and you wont be angry about it like battlefield. But it never in any way  felt better than in 60 fps on pc to me. 

[Guest]

If you're making a movie, sure 24fps is good for that cinematic motion blur effect (except for movies with high motion like the Hobbit, where I can see why they made it 48fps)

 

So I would actually agree with them on this one. Sorta.

[Syntaxvgm]

If you're making a movie, sure 24fps is good for that cinematic motion blur effect (except for movies with high motion like the Hobbit, where I can see why they made it 48fps)

 

So I would actually agree with them on this one. Sorta.

right, but that in no way translates to games. Games != cameras.