DSOGaming writes: "What is more interesting though is that Carmack believes there will be a lot of 30fps games in the next-generation consoles."
First off, anything more than 24Hz for a movie is bad. Let's take Harry Potter for example. In one scene it looked like Gandolf was gliding on the ground instead of walking. More Hz = faster motions. You need to slow it down so that movement looks natural. Second of all I don't think i'v played any consoles games that run at 24fps. It's 30 or more. IF we have anything less than 60fps next generation it be hilarious. Now, I expect the games to run at 60fps when the console first comes out and as games get more advanced for the hardware as the years go by only THEN would the games fun at 30fps.
I expect more 60fps games but mostly 1080p 30fps games. Console devs will want to squeeze everything out of the consoles even if that means 30fps. Most console players don't even know what is or care about 60fps. Lots of people don't know cod is 60fps and don't even know it's not hd. I hope 1980x1200 will be standard on pc. or maybe 4k monitors?
Soundslike is correct, built in motion blur means you can get away with 24fps in film. Digital games rendered cleanly without motion blur do not look good at 24fps. As for the article. Most games hit 30fps already. Peter Jackson is making the Hobbit, not James Cameron.
Well I have news for you. Peter Jackson is shooting the Hobbit movies at 48 fps and Cameron is considering 60 fps for the Avatar sequels. As Jackson stated it takes longer than 10 minutes or so to get used to the experience. How was Gandolf (Gandalf) in Harry Potter? Did you mean Dumbledore?
30?....30!?! Consoles better do 60fps @ 1080p otherwise they're in deep doo doo.
Yeah for the most part, 1080p and 30fps is pretty much what I expect the standard to be for next-gen.
@Morganfell Kind of amusing though, I heard a lot of the prescreeners noticed something not so shiny with the new tech. The fidelity was so good that the set ended up looking like a set. The quality in scene production just wasn't quite enough to keep up with the higher detail in the film. Apparently the exterior, helicopter-swoop shots are just bloody gorgeous though. Now, it's certainly possible for the rest of the production to adapt and make sure everything looks great, but I recall one of the prescreeners having said, "It's the future... of documentary."
Gandalf? are you talking about Lord of the Rings?
No I believe he is yaking about Zelda.
I love yaking to strangers whenever I visit a Starbucks. Ah, yaking... My favorite past time. In all seriousness, he clearly stated "Harry Potter" so I think he was pretty confident that Gandalf was in that movie somehow. Lol.
How dare you combine harry potter and lord of the rings.
On a scale of 1 to 10 ... how mad?
@Asgaro I would say 0, it was a joke.
Higher frame rate does not equal faster motion, it just results in more fluid motion. A higher frame rate looks more natural but people have become accustomed to the slower frame rates typically used in film.
"More Hz = faster motions. You need to slow it down so that movement looks natural. " Wrong. More hz = more DETAILED motions. 24hz/fps in theaters have been offset by the natural motion blur of film. So the perceived framerate is actually higher than 24fps in most cases (extreme speed and action can break the illusion). As more and more theaters switch to digital projectors the 24hz will simply not be enough because the motion blur will not exist anymore. 48hz will be the new standard and with good reason. Its a new format and will need new tricks and techniques, but to say that its bad is just completely ignorant. We've had the better part of a century to master 24hz w/motion blur. You can make 24hz look bad as well, if you need proof, just watch the alleyway brawl in one of the Matrix movies vs the 100s of smiths. There is too much speed in the motion for the framerate to keep up and it ends up being a visually painful experience. There is no excuse for next gen to not run at 60fps 1080p. If they can't achieve that then they shouldn't even bother. I'm fine with this gen until they actually can.
thats true, but I find myself completely disoriented by motion blur in fast motion scenes. There are scenes in movies where I dont even know who won the fight until its over!
Youre exactly correct. Just like older games only had a few frames for animation of moves. I remember Street Fighter 2 players who had combos timed to specifif animation frames.
no, but interpolation looks horrible. Thats what most peoples reference is with movies at higher than 24fps, duplicating frames looks weird of course. Similar to a low budget italian soap opera filmed at like 15 fps and the interpolated up to 29.9.
Actually, interpolation algorithms have evolved. It's true that interpolation looked awful a couple of years ago, but right now there are scripts that offer amazing results. The problem, however, is that those scripts are very demanding. My Q9650 (at 4.2Ghz) struggles to playback 1080p movies with the more advanced interpolation scripts. The result however is a beauty to behold, with smooth and constant movement (no sudden acceleration at scenes, noise or that first-generation interpolation issues).
OneAboveAll, you are highly misguided. More Hz does not equal faster motion, what it does equal is a more detail and clarity in motion.
Crysis 2 is one. Skyrim used to be if you play on PS3 around launch. GTAIV has a ton of framerate drops most of the time. Most games in the last two years run at 27-29FPS around 600-700p, NOT 720p, with the exception of games like Black Ops 2 running around 40FPS and Modern Warfare 3 at 57-59FPS--and even then they both run at 600p. 60FPS games just don't happen like they used to. And @ this article: Most TVs get around 60Hz though, I don't know what Carmack is talking about. Today 48" 1080P LCD HDTVs that would have costed a fortune run around $300 today and get 60-120Hz.
They're still 60Hz. The 100/120/200/240/600Hz etc you see is just interpolation of the 60 frames you get from the input, and in fact it's a pretty annoying effect if you wish to play games (because it increases the lag and because of the artifacts). Most people who claim they play on 120FPS simply don't know what they're talking about: there are barely any connections that actually allow you to pass 120FPS on a cable, and most screens don't support it. Even if fraps shows the game is running on 120FPS or above - some of these frames are just dropped when the GPU sends the image to the screen.
You sir, don't know SHIT about frames per second. More Hz does NOT mean faster motions. If something is recorded at 60Hz, then played back at 60Hz, it will look the same as it was in real life. Now, if something is recorded at 20fps, or a game runs at 20fps, then is played at 60, that's when it will seem reall fast. Get your fucking knowledge right.
All I know is Mario Kart 7 plays so smooth on the 3DS. There's no excuse why other games can't reach the frame rate Mario Kart 7 has. Even ps3 exclusives like GOW, KZ3, and Motorstorm have slower frame rates. I didn't realize how bad things got this gen, till I seen it with my own eyes.
That's not true about gow3,the engine wasn't optimize enough to be a constant 60 fps so it fluctuated in certain scenes. @dougr as games try to push more effect they'll zap frames,only less demanding game will have higher fps and the beauty about pc even older GPUs can get 60 fps in certain gamer,i've seen gtx 9800+ sli play bf3 at 720p,60fps on ultra and medium terrain quality.
I dont think MK7 is 60 fps... and those ps3 games you listed can get up to that level, well GOW at least.
MK7 runs at 60 fps on 3ds, it's very fluid and clear.
stable frame rate > higher frame rate that fluctuates Sure 60 is nice but if it constantly fluctuates than i much rather have a locked 30. When it fluctuates is when the problems happen and you notice it. BTW Im not saying this about your post but just in general.
Yes, well: Stable 60fps > lower stable frame rate RAGE, for one, has stable 60fps on consoles. I'm not saying RAGE was a good game, but the engine it was built on allows for such a great feature.
But Mario Kart is a racing game, and a simple one at that. It's inherently easier to achieve high frame rates in racing games. The environments are more constrained and there are a limited number of live objects on the screen at any given time. And a game like Mario Kart has pretty simplistic graphics and racing physics so it's not too taxing on the system.
"All I know is Mario Kart 7 plays so smooth on the 3DS. There's no excuse why other games can't reach the frame rate Mario Kart 7 has. Even ps3 exclusives like GOW, KZ3, and Motorstorm have slower frame rates" You've got to be kidding me. Did you seriously just compare those titles to Mario Kart? To start, MK games don't require a quarter of the processing as those titles. The physics are way more simple and the graphics are a lot less detailed and likely has thousands of a lesser polygon count. There are no fancy graphical effects. The play areas are not very large or detailed. The HD consoles could EASILY run at 60fps if they were running such simple, under-detailed games. Please....PLEASE go educate yourself on these things, or else never speak about the technical side of games ever again.
30fps is ok, as long as its suited for the specific game. mmmtek tek tek technology..mm technology.
30 FPS isn't okay when you get used to 120 FPS with superior graphics. Obviously that is with $800 worth of graphics cards, so that is unrealistic for consoles next gen, but anything less than a solid 45-60 FPS will be a joke in my opinion. The problem with that is that unless the parts can be made cheap the consoles will have to be very expensive again. Just going from a computer perspective, you can't run 45-60 FPS without spending at least $200 on a graphics card at 1920X1080 resolution which is what games need to be next gen. Obviously I don't know how much the components are for a video game system, but something like a GTX 760/770 equivalent in the next console should easily be able to power games to that level for a 6-8 year life cycle. Maybe these parts can be produced at the $150 price point which could allow the consoles to be priced in the $399 range which is in my opinion a solid price, although I'd be okay with $499 if it meant a better GPU.
$800 graphics card? where the hell do you buy $800 graphic cards, Brazil?