Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 20 Jun 2011.
who cares, its on a console
TV runs at either 25 or very nearly 30 frames per second.
Almost all home-viewed movies run at very nearly 24fps in the US or other 60Hz territories, or 25 elsewhere.
More or less the only thing that runs at exactly 24 is theatrical exhibition.
Quite frankly, this. I couldn't give a toss about how well it runs on the consoles, since I'm not going to play it on a console.
I will go down with this ship?
I like how people are saying who cares, yet you cared enough to read the article and then post in the comments
Explain again why I should buy a console?
This will be a game created on the PC first and only then ported to consoles ...that is something to celebrate.
This isn't really news, I could've told you that
lol,consoles. Play it on a real machine if you want performance and graphics, dolts.
No that's not a bad way of explaining it actually. Frames on films typically contain much of the visual information contained within the last 1/24th of the second. Anyone who's ever paused an action sequence on a film knows how blurry it looks - it's becasue you're not looking at one moment in time, you're looking at 0.04166 of a second spread across a single frame.
A frame in a game is literally one moment in time, the time between the frames is effectively lost - you never see it, so you need a higher framerate to make up for the lost time.
Showing every moment in time is impossible - you'd need an infinite number of frames in a second - but you can show enough so that the human eye is incapable of telling them apart.
Unfortunately the cut-off point is about 250-300 frames per second to guarantee this, so in that respect 30 frames per second, whilst acceptable, isn't perfect.
Oh, I'm definitely saving that for future use
Also, I hated MW2 on the PS3. The resolution and graphical quality were astoundingly bad, I thought there was something wrong with my eyes at first. 60 fps can blow me if it's only running at the equivalent settings of a Windows 98 computer.
Basically I'm just waiting for the next generation of consoles now, if at all. The PS3 and 360 never really blew my mind, probably because I built a PC shortly after they came out.
edit - Bauul, I can't rep you again apparently, so I'll just say: good explanation.
Finally someone who confirms what I have been saying for years. 30fps is not enough, period.
Agreed, 24fps is why we get motion sickness in fast moving movies, these days movies should be at least 40fps.
And it doesnt take 250fps for fluent motion, 60-80 is enought.
Peter Jackson is filming the hobbit in 40fps i believe.
30fps sucks in just about any game, save rpgs, etc
For fluid motion, yes 60-80 is enough.
For the difference between one frame and the next to be so quick it's impossible to tell it isn't true fluid motion? Much, much higher.
Example: if you look a totally black screen in a darkened room, and the entire screen flashes bright white for 1/80th of a second, I guarantee you'll be able to notice it.
The 250-300fps I mentioned is to be able to do that so quickly you don't notice. That's how fast you need to be to guarantee it's impossible to tell it isn't truely fluid motion, as opposed to a series of static images.
Edit: excellent little article on frame rates:
Me too! Dell U2711!!!
Try watching 60fps pron! lol!
30fps is by no way playable for me. You can tell a massive difference in smoothness between say 30 & 60fps.
Can I just point out that CoD5 runs at 30fps on consoles? It's because they used the CoD4 engine with higher levels of detail, so it couldn't run as fast.
that's a false truth, you don't need 200-300 fps (not to mention the bandwidth issues for current resolutions). First of all, there's very little natural things that appear in such discrete steps. Look at car tires, after a certain speed your eye can no longer discern the discrete spokes. 300fps wouldn't make spokes look any better. The motion blur is pretty accurate. using a high speed camera and high speed tv, would do the same thing as motion blur, your brain would blur the discrete steps together. I agree 24 fps is low, but 100+ is wasteful.
high speed videography is mostly useful when you want to slow down the action.
lol I cant spell... ditto, there I did it
Separate names with a comma.