Interesting idea about AA and Framerate.

  • Thread starter JDigital
  • 25 comments
  • 1,584 views
So GT Mobile is supposed to run at a solid 60fps. Looking at the video it appears that nothing has antialiasing...

Would an option to run at 60fps and no AA or run at like 30fps and with AA be something you'd like?


Personally I'd be fine with 30fps and having some nice smooth lines....


Discuss.
 
Every video I have seen of the game "in motion" has been good enough to not need any AA. The still photos though look pretty bad. I'm happy with the 60fps as is.
 
I think it looks great as it is (running), I don't want 30fps at all.
 
Looks great? You're kidding right...

Sure it looks better than PS1 graphics but this is 2009. Almost 2010 by the time it comes out... not having AA is kinda unacceptable really.

If we're gonna tout 60fps, it should look great.

Also you do realize that you cannot physically see 60fps? a solid 30fps will look exactly like a solid 60.
 
Are you serious? You do know the PSP has less power than the PS2 right? and it's running pretty much at GT4's level..
 
Also you do realize that you cannot physically see 60fps? a solid 30fps will look exactly like a solid 60.

Heard many say that, but why do I see difference in replay (30fps) and in game (60fps)?? 60 fps looks smother and more real to me..
 
You can see beyond 30 fps actually, 30 is just "good enough" to represent animation without stutter but its still noticably reduced quality.
30 is the bare minimum you aim for a game to be able to achieve all the time, not the benchmark of quality.
 
Right... lets not split hairs here though.


You're talking about "visual quality" of 60fps versus 30fps... but that's all irrelevant when there are jaggies on the whole screen....

Quit being apologists, if the PSP can run it at 60fps, then it should have no problem running at 45fps with 4xAA... I said around 30 to just give an idea... in practice it would be higher.

As it sits, we'll have incredibly smooth, ugly jagged graphics...

I'm proposing incredibly smooth, nice smooth graphics.

Don't act like 30fps isn't smooth either. You realize most film is shot at 25fps right... movies don't look jerky do they? Exactly my point.
 
Don't act like 30fps isn't smooth either. You realize most film is shot at 25fps right... movies don't look jerky do they? Exactly my point.

When I watch blueray I can notice the lower frame rate versus 60fps. Easy to see in shots where camera goes slowly from one side to another.. Thats why I never understand that they use 25fps in movies.

EDIT: I sit 5 feet from a 37 inch, maybe thats why I notice it...
 
Uhh, this is incorrect.

actually GTM is SUPPOSED to run in a constant 60FPS. Kaz made this statement at E3... now in GT5P i know the replays arent in 60FPS but i think GTM will be able to do it due to lack of 1080p High Def rendering.
 
So GT Mobile is supposed to run at a solid 60fps. Looking at the video it appears that nothing has antialiasing...

Would an option to run at 60fps and no AA or run at like 30fps and with AA be something you'd like?


Personally I'd be fine with 30fps and having some nice smooth lines....


Discuss.

It's a handled PSP, it looks way smoother then any other racing game on PSP.
 
It's a handled PSP, it looks way smoother then any other racing game on PSP.

This is my point... all those jagged edges moving around the screen so smoothly would be just as smooth as if they had 2xAA-4xAA and running at 30-45 FPS.

The end result would be much nicer looking... guess I'm talking to the wrong crowd about technical things though.



"60FPS!!! YAY!!!"

*facepalm*
 
From the videos I have seen it is looking like the best looking PSP game by a margin. Honestly what do you xpect from the wee thing?

Everyone I have shown it to on my course is amazed at what they have managed!
 
You can see beyond 30 fps actually, 30 is just "good enough" to represent animation without stutter but its still noticably reduced quality.
30 is the bare minimum you aim for a game to be able to achieve all the time, not the benchmark of quality.

If you look at old monitors. You could change the frequency from 50hz to 100hz and it made a huge differens. It's not really the same as fps since a strong light source is required but the human eye can tell the difference between 50hz and 100hz.
 
Don't act like 30fps isn't smooth either. You realize most film is shot at 25fps right... movies don't look jerky do they? Exactly my point.
You cannot compare framerates of recorded footage to rendered sequences, they're completely different. 25FPS is enough for TV or movies because it is also recorded that way. That means that frames blend in together better due to natural transitions between the frames (images will be sort of blurred together if there is fast motion). Rendering frames in games do not have that natural cohesion (though some games try to simulate it with post processing).

There is a reason 60FPS is the industry standard for games. Also note that when running at 30FPS, you will have no margin whatsoever for framedrops/unsteady framerates cause by busy scenes, etc. It will make the experience very jerky (no game runs at a specific framerate constantly).

That said, I've seen games appear smooth at framerates of around 20-25 (like TDU on PC) and appear jerky at 100 (because the engine failed to deliver that framerate constantly). FPS is certainly not the golden standard to judge visual quality.
 
Indeed they are. But again, you cannot directly compare framerates in games to framerates in movies. Just do a lookup on google for '60 fps vs 24 fps' to find some good examples.
 
You cannot compare framerates of recorded footage to rendered sequences, they're completely different. 25FPS is enough for TV or movies because it is also recorded that way. That means that frames blend in together better due to natural transitions between the frames (images will be sort of blurred together if there is fast motion). Rendering frames in games do not have that natural cohesion (though some games try to simulate it with post processing).


This paragraph doesn't even make sense to be honest with you... frame rate is frame rate, has nothing to do whatsoever with what the subject of the frames are. Rendered frames versus film... its still how many frames are displayed in a given second.


Also, you talk about Hertz... Most monitors in the US are 60 hertz because that is how many times the polarity of the AC circuit switches, most of Europe is 50 hertz... which is why when Americans go to Europe it seems like the lights flicker, because we are used to 60hertz. (technically its like 59.97 hertz or something).

Comparing the hertz(refresh rate) of a monitor to FPS of film or rendered footage is apples to oranges. Coincidentally, screen tearing is when the frame refresh overlaps the monitor refresh, you end up with half rendered frame showing before the monitor refreshes, then the next frame rendered before the monitor refreshes again. So it "tears". Interesting to note that screen tearing is much more common on higher frame rates... Its actually better to have your frame rate below your monitor refresh rate, less chance of a frame being rendered between refresh rates of the monitor.

Now, I don't know what a 24fps versus 60fps comparison is going to prove, being as we're talking about 30fps versus 60.. and really we're talking about like 40-45fps versus 60. Lets not try to introduce completely random things into the discussion as if it was evidence against the actual point. Strawman argument comes to mind...

Also, 60fps has only recently became the "industry standard" as you like to call it. Its really not a standard at all, it just makes non-technical people all happy because they think that 60fps is required. Truth be told, its so that the framerate could drop by as much as half and you'd never know. This gives developers a little wiggle room for intense scenes with lots of polys and post processing. Plus with any development project there is always scope creep. At first we wanted 100,000,000 polys on the screen... now we realize how cool it would be to have 150,000,000....


(disclosure: I am a programmer by career and have programmed OpenGL and DirectX...)
 
This paragraph doesn't even make sense to be honest with you... frame rate is frame rate, has nothing to do whatsoever with what the subject of the frames are. Rendered frames versus film... its still how many frames are displayed in a given second.
Wrong, just do a lookup in any search engine, there are many articles and examples to be found.

Also, you talk about Hertz... Most monitors in the US are 60 hertz because that is how many times the polarity of the AC circuit switches, most of Europe is 50 hertz... which is why when Americans go to Europe it seems like the lights flicker, because we are used to 60hertz. (technically its like 59.97 hertz or something).
Now who's not making sense here? :confused: Please quote where I mentioned Hertz? Because I didn't. I'm talking strictly framerates here.

Now, I don't know what a 24fps versus 60fps comparison is going to prove, being as we're talking about 30fps versus 60.. and really we're talking about like 40-45fps versus 60.
Don't act like 30fps isn't smooth either. You realize most film is shot at 25fps right... movies don't look jerky do they? Exactly my point.
YOU are the one bringing in the argument of comparing frame rate in movies to frame rate in games! You bring in the argument, I disprove it and then you tell me it's out of place in this discussion? :lol:

(disclosure: I am a programmer by career and have programmed OpenGL and DirectX...)
Yeah, so what? I am too, and have programmed OpenGL, DirectX and various other graphical frameworks on several different platforms like C64,MSX,Amiga, PC, MAC and various mobile platforms. Big deal, it doesn't mean squat. The fact that you need to bring it in to prove your point says enough I think...

And if you think nobody will notice a framedrop from 60FPS to 30FPS, then sorry for being blunt, but you really don't have a clue what you are talking about.
 
I've actually gone ahead and created an account just so i can try and end this...

JDigital, it seems you don't know how cameras record images, so i'll explain:

First, the shutter is closed, the shutter is then opened for a certain amount of time to let light hit the sensor that's recording the image, then the shutter closes again and the image is stored.

In a video camera at 24fps, this sequence happens 24 times in a second (go figure), but because movement occurs during the time the shutter is open, the image is blurred, this is hugely important; because every single image is ever so slightly blurred, the motion SHOULD seem perfectly fluid (obviously, there are certain times where it is indeed slightly too slow, because you can see small stutters in very fast moving images), this is because this is exactly how our eyes see things - the world blurs at high speed, therefore it seems natural to us because our brains take this into account when viewing it.

In a game, a graphics card sending out a still shot (this is how they work) once every 30th of a second would seem, to us humans, a LOT more noticably slower than 24fps cinema. This is simply because the game "skips" from one frame to the next with no blurring inbetween; this is strikingly obvious to our brains (and they don't like it).

Interestingly, as someone mentioned a while back, TDU seems fluid at relatively low frame rates... You know why that is? It's got blur ;)

Game makers can incorporate blur as a post-process in games (there are only a few games that do this - Crysis is another that does) which makes them appear more fluid at lower frame-rates as our brains like it more that way - problem is, the PSP can't manage that all too well...

Now, onto you asking for anti-aliasing; don't quote me on this, but i do believe the PSP can't physically utilise anti-aliasing. Even if it can, the performance hit of even a little anti-aliasing would be very large, so, more likely than not this is unfeasible too.

If you're sat there thinking "hmm, but some PSP games look like they have anti-aliasing", more likely than not they're 2D and therefore rendered differently (not having anti-aliasing) - if you could point out any 3D game that has anti-aliasing on the PSP i'd be pleasantly surprised, so that's a nice little challenge for you :)
 
Back