• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

FUD: 30fps is enough

I love movies in 48FPS. Feels so much more real and immersive.

I find it amusing that many of the people saying that you can't tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps, are the same people saying they don't like 48fps in films. Which is it, can you tell the difference or not?

To be fair, I never used to care as much. I used to always game with vsync, on a 60hz display, with underpowered GPUs so I'd be seeing 30fps most of the time.

Take LA Noire, which is locked to 30fps. I got about 3/4 of the way through it before getting bored and playing something else, back when it was released.

I tried to play it again a couple of nights ago and finally finish it, since having 980 SLI and a RoG swift and I just couldn't. It was horrible. I spent a while googling how to unlock the FPS, eventually managed but at that point was bored and couldn't be bothered anymore.

Dead space 3, vsync locks to 30fps. I had just gotten the RoG Swift when I played this, although I was running it on AMD at the time so no GSync. In the end I turned vsync off and accepted the tearing because it was hideous.

Now with gsync, it's amazing and I am tempted to play it over.

I think if people try higher frame rates, they won't go back.
 
I'd also chuck in the argument that you don't even need a 120hz monitor to feel the frame rate from control .

Battlefield is my prime example , if I use one 970 without v-sync In 64 player matched I get around the 60fps mark without v-sync , it's smooth , it's playable ... I stick my second 970 on , even with a 60hz monitor the game feels completely different as I'm pushing well into 100-120fps

Not sure if that's a valid point but sure feels like it

I'd like to see a console game with an unlockable framrate just to see if the same applies to controllers .
 
rtho782 said:
I love movies in 48FPS. Feels so much more real and immersive.

I find it amusing that many of the people saying that you can't tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps, are the same people saying they don't like 48fps in films. Which is it, can you tell the difference or not?
Click to expand...

Who said that? I don't think I've read a single comment here from anybody that it applies to

'Last of Us' on PS4 and 'Infamous' on PS4 have unlockable Frame rate.
 
That is why Google invested in YouTube and video a 60 FPS...these people are just lazy buggers trying to get money from all platform without optimizing!
 
VincentHanna said:
Who said that? I don't think I've read a single comment here from anybody that it applies to

'Last of Us' on PS4 and 'Infamous' on PS4 have unlockable Frame rate.
Click to expand...

To be fair, nobody here has said that, but I've seen those arguments elsewhere :)

I was not meaning any disrespect to people here.
 
Trustdesa said:
That is why Google invested in YouTube and video a 60 FPS...these people are just lazy buggers trying to get money from all platform without optimizing!
Click to expand...

Yep console games optimized to play well at 30fps on console. And then ported over to run at 30fps incase any bugs/ timing issues occur . i remember unlocking the frame rate on one of the NFS games and it felt/looked like everything was in fast forward and the controls were too sensitive because it was suppose to be run at 30fps
 
With one of my old rigs to play at the highest settings on 90% of games I had to lock the fps at 30.
I would rather play with fps locked at 60 but if I have to I will play locked to 30 to get a locked frame rate with no dips.

Yes 60 is a lot better than 30 but I would rather have a solid 30 with no drops and slowdown than have 60 with even small drops everywhere.

Its why watchdogs is unplayable for me at 60 because no matter what the settings I cannot get a solid 60 and get random drops to the 40s winch causes a lot of stutter.
Locked at 30 I get no drops what so ever even at 4k with every setting up to the max
 
vintage-x said:
With one of my old rigs to play at the highest settings on 90% of games I had to lock the fps at 30.
I would rather play with fps locked at 60 but if I have to I will play locked to 30 to get a locked frame rate with no dips.

Yes 60 is a lot better than 30 but I would rather have a solid 30 with no drops and slowdown than have 60 with even small drops everywhere.

Its why watchdogs is unplayable for me at 60 because no matter what the settings I cannot get a solid 60 and get random drops to the 40s winch causes a lot of stutter.
Locked at 30 I get no drops what so ever even at 4k with every setting up to the max
Click to expand...

I would have agreed with you before, but since GSync, the issue has gone away. Hopefully Freesync will do the same for AMD users.
 
Freesync 4k TV with Displayport would be amazing.

Won't happen though.



On the issue of higher frame rate movies, I was genuinely excited about The Hobbit at 48fps when it was announced as I thought it would make the 3D better (I'm not a huge 3D fan), but at the cinema it just wasn't cinematic. It all looked very soap opera-ish

I much preferred Desolation of Smaug in 2D at 24fps.

Nolan has the right idea IMO. I saw Dark Knight Rises at the BFI IMAX in 2012 and Interstellar last weekend at the BFI Imax.

Not that I have a problem with high resolution digital cameras, as Michael Mann and others were pushing boundaries there, but 70mm IMAX film is amazing.
 
Last edited:
VincentHanna said:
On the issue of higher frame rate movies, I was genuinely excited about The Hobbit at 48fps when it was announced as I thought it would make the 3D better (I'm not a huge 3D fan), but at the cinema it just wasn't cinematic. It all looked very soap opera-ish

I much preferred Desolation of Smaug in 2D at 24fps.
Click to expand...

People already explained that's purely psychological.
 
It is psychological yes, but I remember doing a bit of reading after watching the Hobbit in HFR, to try and understand why I didn't like it.

After all, Peter Jackson said you should get used to it in about 10 minutes but I found this not to be the case at all. The film was quite distracting in many places throughout.

Firstly, I don't think he did himself any favours as you really need a marked change in how you shoot at HFR. You can't just rely on the same cinematography techniques you are used to. HFR makes everything sharper, so depth of field becomes a problem as scenes that would work better with a blurred (DOP) effect in the background just look 'fake'. We now see more than we would normally so you have to compensate with better sets, costume and makeup. All these things were distracting in The Hobbit.

Then there's the question of how our brains perceive things:

THE NECESSARY SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF — WHICH 48 FPS LACKS
“It’s psychological: we need suspension of disbelief, and suspension of disbelief comes from the lower frame rate. The lower frame rate allows our brains to say, Okay — I’m not perceiving 40 conscious moments per second anymore; I’m only perceiving 24, or 30, and therefore this is not real and I can accept the artificial conventions of the acting and the lighting and the props. It’s an inherent part of the way our brain perceives things. Twenty-four or 30 frames per second is an inherent part of the cinematic experience. It’s the way we accept cinema. It’s the way we suspend our disbelief.”
“Those high frame rates are great for reality television, and we accept them because we know these things are real. We’re always going to associate high frame rates with something that’s not acted, and our brains are always going to associate low frame rates with something that is not. It’s not a learned behaviour; [Some say] you watch it long enough and you won’t associate it with cheap soap operas anymore. That’s nonsense. The science does not say that. It’s not learned behaviour. It’s an inherent part of the way our brains see things.”
Click to expand...

http://movieline.com/2012/12/14/hobbit-high-frame-rate-science-48-frames-per-second/
 
I had pretty much the opposite experience Vincent.
I watched the Desolation of smaug in 3D HFR fully expecting to hate it (from several recent experiences with 3D) and really loved it. I enjoyed the detail and sharpness. I could also follow the action clearly rather than it becoming a blurry mess where my brain decides 'sure, action-y stuff happening here, cannot really see wtf is going on but action box is ticked, next'.

Watched it again in normal 2D at the cinema with diff ppl, excited to watch it again, and was a little :(. The river barrel scenes with the fast paced action stood out as looking particularly bad and hard to follow.

VincentHanna said:
The second problem, is that if our brains can "get used to it", will it not then make the previous 100 years of 24fps film hard to watch?
Click to expand...

Perhaps. In the case of the barrel scene it was the expectation that spoilt the 24fps. Without that direct comparison the difference may not have felt so obvious.
 
Last edited:
VincentHanna said:
The second problem, is that if our brains can "get used to it", will it not then make the previous 100 years of 24fps film hard to watch?
Click to expand...

Orangey said:
Well, silent films and 12fps early footage is hard to watch.
Click to expand...

Pretty much what I was going to say, not moving forward because of past content is just not a good reason. Imagine when moving to colour tv/filming you could say the same. People would be thinking if everyone gets used to colour they are going to find black and white uninspiring and boring.

Life/technology moves on and changes things.

The possibility of not watching older content as often or as comfortably shouldn't stop us from moving forwards and making all new content better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom