Cinema and tv are two diferent platforms, in america they use 30 fps on their tv as apposed to our 25fps as apposed to cinema 24FPS, they are always backwards.Originally Posted by Strifehart
I still do believe that he has it wrong, as far as I'm aware its just 30 FPS per eye and not 60 as he suggest.
Edit : typo - meant 24fps not 34 fps
Last edited by Sockmonkey; 08-04-2010 at 11:24 AM.
Some movies are displayed in 24fps in Cinemas. Hence the "24fps" feature you find on most of the new HDTV's these days. Some blu-ray movies have a stuttering display on wide panning shots because your TV is trying to display the images faster than what the movie was filmed at....that's when you should set your TV to 24fps mode.
True, but I stated that Cinema is 24fps (as this is the only media available that currently "does" 3D, in the stereoscopic sense). Tv is a totally different story as NTSC and PAL standards come into play.
You can have a perfectly smooth gaming experience as long as the framerate is solid. So a locked 30fps should be fine.
I don't think gameplay and movies should be judged with the same yardstick when it comes to how "smooth" things are. for movies, 24fps is absolutely fine. But it's been proven time and time again that the "sweet spot" for smooth gameplay is 60 fps.
Do you have a source(s) for that?
24fps for movies is only just adequate. It is definitely not smooth, but the inadequacy of the frame rate is less obvious.
Yip, here it is :
I should smack you for that. :PYip, here it is :
Then again, being from Debbin, you probably pronounce source and sauce the same way. So it's an honest mistake.
There have been a few articles on it Strifehart, the most notable was a pretty comprehensive article @ Eurogamer on input latency.
The Lag Factor
Input latency aside, if you run a game side by side with itself on separate screens, one locked 60FPS and the other at 30FPS, the difference is very clear.* The lowest latencies a video game can have is 50ms (three frames) - the PS3 XMB runs at this rate, but few games reach it.
* Most 60FPS games have a 66.67ms latency - Ridge Racer 7, for example.
* 30FPS games have a minimum potential lag of 100ms, but many exceed this.
* Game developers should test their own games using the camera technique in order to weed out bugs - West says that Heavenly Sword's response slows down to 300ms just by turning the character, and reckons it's a technical issue that should have been resolved before going gold with the game.
* Citing GTAIV as an example, West suggests that a 166ms response is where gamers notice controller lag, which could also explain the Killzone 2 furore too.
* Game reviewers should accurately measure latency for their reviews where controller lag is an issue, in the hope that sloppy game response times come under far more scrutiny.
A LOT of console games run at 30FPS though (which is acceptable), however, put those games in 3D and they will drop down to 15FPS, which is unplayable.
LOL, I just had to do it.
I actually do pronounce source and sauce the same way
/ Back on topic
At the end of the day, the console was not designed with 3D in mind, so it wont be able to run it as smoothly as gamers would want it to. I imagine the nex gen consoles will be better suited to 3D Gaming.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
