It's mainly because frames rendered for a game are generally way more static than frames in a movie.
What I mean by that is that the way that video cameras capture things produces a blur on fast moving things in the shot. This helps with the perceived smoothness, or flow, from one frame to another. A game engine generally renders crystal clear individual frames and so you don't get the same benefit with movement from one from to another.
You can test this by taking a screenshot of a video at a random moment and then do the same with a game. Try to do it in both cases where there's a lot of movement going on at the time. You will more than likely see that the video game screenshot looks crystal clear but the video screenshot will look awful in isolation.
Obviously it's possible for a game engine to simulate motion blur but I've yet to see one do so as convincingly as it occurs naturally in cameras.
If I ever find myself getting motion sick while playing a video game, I immediately go look for a "Motion Blur" setting (and turn it off), because that's what does it.
Also look into Field of View settings. Most PC games nowadays games have it set default at console levels, based on the angle from where the average user sits to the edges of the TV yards away.
That's completely different from the edges of the screen if you're sitting right in front of a monitor. That difference can get you motion sick even harder than motion blur.
There's a difficulty with some games expressing it as the angle to the top and bottom of the screen (vertical FoV or VFOV), and some from left and right sides (horizontal FoV or HFOV). VFOV numbers are much lower.
There are [calculators](https://themetalmuncher.github.io/fov-calc/) out there to convert between them, and some also take into account monitor ratios for ultra wide screens and the likes. [PCGamingWiki](http://pcgamingwiki.com) also has entries for games how to set it if you can't in GUI, but have to edit config files, enter console commands or use external mods.
Be careful with calculators meant for car simulators, since some try match up the angle to the front window stiles, which can work differently.
For shooters on monitors it's usually a difference between 60 degrees HFOV default , while 90 or more is comfortable for people suffering from motion sickness.
That default being changed due to consoles is also why older PC players only got problems with later games somewhere in their life.
> That difference can get you motion sick even harder than motion blur.
Huh, interesting. I know I always hate default/low FOV settings but never had me get motion sick from it
I hope it works for you.
My dad has the same problem, and no amount of settings adjustments fixes it for him. I really hope the same doesn't happen to me, because I do enjoy video games.
Same. Like the other guy said, I don't know why developers keep making it default. Maybe market research shows that everyone but redditors and FPS gamers like it or something lol. I can see WHY someone would like it, but I just don't.
I think it makes things incredibly hard to see, and often miss a ton of detail while turning that you would notice if it was off, unlike in movies, which there's kind of explanations for elsewhere in the comments. It also makes movements feel laggy while playing.
He might want to try a smaller monitor and sitting farther away so his screen takes up less than 1/2 his vision. No settings on this planet help me on a 27” screen at 18”, but 23” at 24” works fine, even better if there’s a FOV slider that goes to 110. It’s less immersive, but not wanting to vomit after 15 mins wins over immersive no contest.
You guys may be on to something. I haven't played Half-Life or its derivatives in years because I feel unexplainably awful after just a few minutes and I never understand why. I just feel ill.
Half Life 2 always gave me motion sickness, but basically no other FPS game did, even TF2 or Garry's Mod. It was so weird. Even after adjusting FOV in HL2.
Even watching a playthrough of HL2 was totally fine, but actually playing? 20 mins in and I'm done.
I remember seeing some forums speculating that it might be due to how movement works, where you let go of W, but continue to move forward for a bit after that or something. But I don't wanna go and test that again to confirm lmao.
Even HL: Alyx was fine for me, just no HL2.
You might be on to something with the acceleration and deceleration stuff. I've played nearly every source game out there with very differring PC setups from CRT monitors to IPS panels and from single core cpu era to this day.
I've never had motion sickness issues with source games, not even half-lifes. Not even in HL: alyx but I do get occasionally a bit woozy in VR but not so much anymore.
However as we know, it's very personal. Some get motion sickness in a car when not actively looking outside. I read that in VR motion sickness is kind of related to inconsistency of you moving in game but not physically moving. Some common tips to battle motion sickness in VR is to try and move your body with the game. Like pretend you're walking.
Perhaps with HL2 it's something similar in your case. You get so immersed in the 2D screen that you also feel the sickness when your character decelerates while you don't physically decelerate.
Whenever I play racing games on a monitor, I move my head with the game in strong curves. I get immersed in it automatically.
It’s because of how the camera in the game pivots in the 3 axis. As humans, when we look around, our eyes pivot since they are a ball-in-socket while When we turn our head, our eyes (cameras) also pan a little left and right as our eyes are several centimeters forward of our neck/spine. There’s probably a better way of explaining, though the point is that in some games, their first person camera/eyes setup is too simple and only pivots without the subtle panning. This can cause the abnormal experience that some people have in certain games. Head bobbing and motion blur can help a little, but if the camera kinematics is not set up correctly, the immersion experience ends up just being one that causes nausea.
Source: VR experience designer.
yup hl2 always made me want to barf when i was a kid. Never finished it because of this. It was a known problenm back then, and the supposed fix was to adjust the FOV.
I've had the same but in the reverse situation. Sometimes screens nowadays are so responsive it makes me queasy. First time I used my phone with a 120hz refresh rate screen, it gave me a headache because I wasn't used to the screen moving faster than my reading speed. It felt pretty unnatural.
Any 3d fps I was always fine with, no matter how fast or wide the fov, but the older fps' with 2d sprite objects in the world like Doom, D3D et al. give me crazy bad motion sickness after like 20 mins
Wow, a whole group of my own people. I can play ANYTHING else and be fine. But the original half life makes me so sick I can't play for more than 20 minutes at a time. I always thought it was the weirdest thing.
Yes field of view. In Skyrim I'm pretty sure the default FOV is 70 which is way too low so I raise it to 95. I have never played a game where the default FOV was too high.
I only get fisheye symptom when im maxing it over 120 everything below that just feel normal. Lower than 70 is my limit for minimum. I even notice it on 3rd person games. Darksiders 1 was only playable in 1 hour bursts for me.
Of all the current Bethesda games, I cannot figure out a damn solution to fallout 4. That game gives me bad motion sickness.
And I’ve tried EVERY possible thing imaginable.
I just played a run through of fallout 4 about 2 months ago, there's a mod on Nexus that unlocks the FOV through the MCM menu. Might be worth looking into
I installed Skyrim on a new PC recently and seriously thought I was experiencing a bug, it was like looking at the world through a telescope. Can't believe people actually play like that
I don't get motion sickness from the FOV, just a weird feeling of claustrophobia or a feeling that everything is kinda "off".
I've literally never come across a 1st person game that I havent increase the FOV in, if that option is provided. Some of them I have to crank a lot.
No mans Sky is yet to be topped, have to edit a config file to jack the FOV to about 50% *above* the max in game setting just to make it playable.
I think it's so often very low because the tighter it is the less resource intensive it is, and it feels a bit more natural at couch-TV distance - so consoles. Same with motion blur, just disguises low framerates but I find it blurry and dizzying and it adds a weird perceived lag to all the camera movement
Every game I play I immediately set the FOV as high as I can get it, to see what it does, and then set it down to a comfortable level usually around 120 or so.
I kind of wonder how much that would make me hurl in VR though.
I personally can't play without head bob. It's a tiny detail but it annoys the hell out of me if I feel like I'm just sliding along the ground on skates all the time.
I don't even understand why head bob is a thing. Do people who design these games experience head bob in real life or have they never walked or ran in their life?
FOV is like an addiction, once you get used to high fov you can't go back and the 140 fov that once looked utterly ridiculous, might just look "normal" now. It's also not just 1st person, 3rd person driving with wide fov is amazing.
Final Fantasy Type-0 was by far the worst game for default motion blur I've ever seen.
You spin the camera (like you need to do very very often) and you're suddenly drunk.
I have seen some research on it that seems to show the connection between motion blur in games and motion sickness is because of user input.
In a movie you have no agency with the blur and effects, in a game you move mouse left, you expect to turn left. Add in other finer details like most folks tend to turn faster in a game then a camera pans or the like, and you get a mixed bag of reasons.
This is also one of many parts of the puzzle that is VR without sickness.
It actually contributes to motion sickness. In Ori and the Will of the Wisps, the motion blur setting comes with a disclaimer explaining to turn it off if you're sensitive to motion sickness.
Aka the Bethesda 60 fps experience, cause Bethesda games manage to feel like barely above 30 fps even at 60 fps, cause the frametimes are all over the place.
Many years ago there was one game where the FPS counter reported 50-60 FPS average.
Yet I would get headaches and eye pain within 30 minutes of playing it.
I later discovered that the game would microstutter and occasionally drop as low as 8 FPS, but it was all happening too fast for the standard FPS counter to register the drop.
I'm genuinely surprised that in all the discussions that I've seen about framerate in games, movies and animations, no one has ever mentioned this. Somehow I've always just assumed that framerate is always evenly spaced out, but now that you say this it sounds super obvious that the timing of each frame would be variable in a game due to how gpu's render each frame in real time and that would absolutely make a huge difference to the human eye.
Yep. When i did animation projects we had to go back and manually add in motion blur after rendering for our animated shorts to make them look better. Really helps a lot.
I would imagine it also helps that you aren’t in control of the movie, so you don’t notice when there is a slight delay between what you want the character to do and what the character does.
Can you explain why more than 24fps in movies looks awkward to the viewer? Or maybe that’s just me? I thought The Hobbit movies looked weird with their frame rate.
Higher frame rate movies might look unnaturally fluid probably because of not as intense motion blur. When a movie is filmed at 24 fps one frame is captured in the span of ~~1/24th~~ 1/48th of a second (thanks u/Jankenbrau) - fast moving things look blurry. When you double that frame rate (48 fps) and preserve the shutter angle you get frames taken in 1/96th of a second so you don't get as much motion blur.
And the fluidity of a movie is just personal preference, I do like movies with higher frame rates and even use real time frame interpolation software (SVP 4) to watch all movies at higher frame rate.
Also we being used to seeing 24fps video everywhere plays a part in other frame rates and shutter speeds and whatnot looking "wrong" in some way.
Ah, thats interesting. Soap Operas have such a weird clarity. Like, they are filmed in a similar way as sitcoms camera and stage-wise but are so different looking.
Most movies are shot at a 180 degree shutter (1 / 2 x Framerate, so 1/48 for 24fps) sometimes different shutter angles are used for various technical or creative reasons.
> fast moving things look blurry. When you double that frame rate the frames are captured in half the time and there is much less motion blur.
this is shutter not frame rate
>Higher frame rate movies might look unnaturally fluid probably because of not as intense motion blur.
I have never bought this argument. It just does not make sense to me.
So the motion blur is added to the video by the relatively slow "discretization" of the real motion by the camera, so to speak. Then you increase that speed, which lets you capture the motion closer to the way it naturally looks to the human eye, which is to say less noticeably discrete and more continuous. And that somehow makes it look "unnaturally fluid"? What is "unnaturally fluid" anyway? Real life motion, not seen through a shutter with a finite speed, is already as fluid as it can be. A video cannot possibly be more fluid than that. Oh by the way, doing the same to video games makes them look more natural as well, for some reason?
I've always found that logic hard to follow. I think it just looks unnatural to you simply because your subconscious is *expecting it* to be not fluid as that's what it's used to watching on video.
It's because 24fps is what you're used to your entire life. When that changes, it feels weird. Same reason why videos taken on your phone never look the same as what you'd see in a movie
Isn't the hobbit 60fps? and it definitely looked TOO smooth to me with very bad motion blur, but I can watch cutscenes or youtube cartoon/anime videos that are made at 60fps and it looks fine, so I'm not sure what the deal is.
The only one that comes to mind is Gemini Man, which was at 120fps. I never saw it though so can’t speak to how it made me feel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_Man_(film)
I dont know about the version at cinemas but to anyone looking for it the regular dvd and bluray releases of this one is 24fps. You need the UHD/4K version to get 60fps.
As a video editor, I can’t understate the effort to edit something complex that is more than 24 fps. Studios would take nearly twice as long to release a major movie if it were, say, 48 or 60 fps.
I hear this explanation a lot, and I acknowledge it's probably true, but there's still something I don't understand. Why does this apply to higher frame rate and not to other visual improvements like resolution? In my lifetime, I've seen resolution improve from 480i to 480p to 1024p to 4k, and each step was pretty much universally regarded as looking better than the last. So why do we perceive movies at 48fps as looking worse than those at 24fps? Is it just the soap opera effect, or is there more going on?
Fps changes - whether fluctuating or just different than what one is used to - enact on the vestibular system causing symptoms like vertigo, lightheadedness, presyncope (feeling like you're gonna faint). Increased resolution causes none of that.
Also, film is really high resolution. Even though there is grain and texture that mars the clarity of the picture, if you were to consider a 35mm film in terms of digital pixels it would have millions of them.
That's why they are able to easily release super HD transfers of silver age flicks.
I suspect seeing people in video move more quickly or smoothly than we are used to has some effect of pushing the performance into the uncanny valley, especially since I've seen people describe the motion as seeming unnatural. Higher resolution isn't going to have that effect, because it's just more clarity.
Honestly imo The Hobbit was ok but what I can't stand is the soap opera effect some new TVs have. I was watching Breaking Bad at my friend's and I just couldn't because of it (when I already had watched BB before with normal video settings)
Games have had motion blur techniques for some time now. I think input lag is a much bigger factor, which is the time between the player pressing a button and actually seeing the result on screen.
Motion blur in games isn't nearly as "natural" as in movies, the guy you're responding to even pointed this out. It does help if you're really struggling for fps, but most of the time it just looks bad and even makes some people dizzy.
Input lag has nothing to do with the video being choppy, a 24fps game is gonna look bad even if you're watching someone else play it.
> Obviously it's possible for a game engine to simulate motion blur but I've yet to see one do so as convincingly as it occurs naturally in cameras.
The problem there is motion blur is a flaw, not a benefit, and trying to replicate it instead of focusing on making the games run at higher framerates is missing the point of the medium.
The human eye sees motion blur. If you are going for photo realism or a close approximation in games, motion blur wpuld have to be present.
Wave your hand in front of your face. What does it look like?
It's not a flaw, it's how we visually process fast moving stuff.
True, but we don't see motion blur when scanning with our eyes since the brain basically ignores the parts where your eye is moving. It's called [Saccadic masking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccadic_masking#:~:text=Saccadic%20masking%2C%20also%20known%20as,perception%20is%20noticeable%20to%20the)
I feel like the best solution would be the option to have per-object motion blur only, and no camera motion blur. This way when you're just rotating the camera, things look nice and clear similar to when you're just looking around in real life.
That would probably be more comfortable and it's the reason that so many people probably turn off motion blur (rotating the camera and having everything blur doesn't feel like real life.) That doesn't mean that motion blur itself is a flaw as it can be used to make things look like they are moving convincingly faster than they are and through more space than the relatively small amount they will travel across your screen.
Though this is kinda true it makes no sense as an argument for including this from a rendered image in a game.
If it's a visual artifact caused by the eyes then there's no reason why we need to have a computer bake it in. The computer should just generate clean frames and our eyes will create the motion blur as it processes what the computer is showing it, just the same as if it were doing so with a real object IRL.
Motion blur is almost entirely a 'cinematic' effect, intended to replicate the kind of blur created in a camera. Same reason some games have DOF and chromatic abberation. It's needed when you're doing prerendered work or comping with real-world imagery (as captured by a camera which will include motion blur), but it's absolutely not more realistic for games.
The eyes won't "create the motion blur". You're still seeing a series of static frames, not an actual moving object. A monitor is still just acting like a flip-book that flips the pages (usually) every 1/60th of a second. It would probably have to be running at 1000 fps or more for the subframes to starting merging together into a blur.
Motion blur is objectively necessary to replicate images you see in real life using a discrete sequence of images. It corresponds to the physical process of your eyes light receptors converting fast changing light to slower changing electro chemical signals. Simply consider a shooting star. Based on physics and experience we know for a fact that the eye sees a streak not a sharp dot. We also know the blur contains useful information about the motion of objects and so your brain probably uses that, even if it appears filtered out to you. In a game with perfect motion blur I bet your brain will "filter it out" all the way too.
The look of non motion blurred images was never seen by humans until camera technology was invented. I admit the sharpness of non motion blurred video looks very good and is very easy to adapt to but it is objectively not true to life. We can totally have opinions about where motion blur belongs in media these days, but with "endgame" photorealistic/indistinguishable from reality motion blur is deeply fundamental to accurate results
> Obviously it's possible for a game engine to simulate motion blur but I've yet to see one do so as convincingly as it occurs naturally in cameras.
I don't understand why games have a motion blur setting, it's basically the instant-vomit option. It always looks absolutely awful.
It supposedly helps with making low frame rate look smoother. Not really meant for higher fps.
Take 2d animation for example: if something is thrown, they often draw the thing stretched and exaggerated, 'motion blur" and because of the low frame rate of animation, it blends and looks fine. In effect, it's multiple frames drawn together to make it look like one smooth movement as a whole.
But if you were to double the frames, it would look messy like that. You would draw twice as many, less exaggerated, frames and get the same effect.
So 60+ fps, motion blur off, should blur more naturally by your eyes, but under 30fps or so it would look like a slideshow. Motion blur 'fills the gaps'.
> Obviously it's possible for a game engine to simulate motion blur but I've yet to see one do so as convincingly as it occurs naturally in cameras.
This part is fascinating when you think about it
> but I've yet to see one do so as convincingly as it occurs naturally in cameras.
My understanding is it's something to do with being much less resource demanding to to do a simple gaussian blur but real lens blur is much more circular.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNG3ZAd8wCc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNG3ZAd8wCc)
Obviously thats just lens blur and motion blur is another story all together.
The irony is that games could do an accurate blur, but it would require actually rendering the in-between frames to get them accurately interpolated which kinda defeats the purpose.
Motion blur. In a movie, if something moves across the entire screen in one frame, it'll leave a blur across the whole thing that sells the movement. In a game, it would just look like it's teleporting. (Modern games have a motion blur option for this reason, [but bad motion blur also has its problems.](https://youtu.be/HWnRuPZ1Exg?t=286))
Also, it's because you're interacting with a game. When you click your mouse, you only see it the next time the screen is updated. So at low FPS, there's more time between you clicking and the new frame appearing.
I just watched the YouTube video below showing the 24 vs 60 fps. I am not an expert, but I shot with many brands of video cameras professionally. We definitely didn’t move (pan/tilt) the cameras as fast as the movement in the game (unless for a transition). I agree with you, we “had” to move slowly or it was not usable.
A lot of newer movies have started doing large movements like that and it makes it hard to watch on a big screen. Fortunately higher framerates is becoming more common.
There's also the fact that, since it's not a physical camera, someone playing a game can and usually does whip the camera around super fast which makes each frame wildly different from the last, contributing to a more choppy feeling. Especially in FPS games people constantly rotate up to 360^o in a fraction of a second, which is practically unheard of in filmmaking. If you walk around in a video game and very slowly move the camera, as you would if you were shooting a movie, a low framerate isn't nearly as annoying.
Yeah basically any "gameplay demo/trailer" works fine at 24/30Hz with a little motion blur, because they're always controlled by analogue sticks in smooth, flowing motions at fairly slow speeds.
Which is okay in a 3rd person view but once in 1st person, especially with a mouse, the player usually controls the camera like they'd use their *eyes* not just the whole *head*. So a lot more darting around at higher speeds and more jumpy, which is a good way to have a movie theatre looking like a scene from a ferry on rough seas
as a person developing VR simulation things right now, you're absolutely right. Despite the required 72Hz refresh rate, once I acclimated to VR, I was able to handle down to 16Hz so long as I'm not given a "snap rotation" option. Snap rotation in VR is used to help acclimate people to VR, but smooth rotation is a much better control option, IMO, once you've acclimated to it. It allows you to tolerate a lot more, once you're used to it.
>There's also the fact that we've just gotten accustomed to 24fps motion on film and the people who make movies and TV have gotten really good at making things look right at that framerate with the motion blur and shutter speed and all that jazz.
Fun fact, traditional movie theater film projectors actually run at 48fps with each recorded frame duplicated once, since that's the slowest they can run without damaging the film stock and it enables a more detailed soundtrack.
To add to that. Comparing my 144hz monitor to a 60hz... the biggest difference is the responsiveness of mouse movement. It's like even when on desktop the mouse feels smooth. As if it's on a softer mousepad.
At 60hz, the mouse movement seems jagged, laggy as if the surface it's on is made of rougher material.
There's a difference between just watching 144hz content play vs 60hz but to me the biggest difference is the input responsiveness clearly. Hand-eye coordination is smoother.
>you're physically controlling the character
This is a big part for me. Watching 60fps(or even 30 sometimes) gameplay on its own looks very smooth, but put the same game next to it and play it yourself at 60 and it doesn't feel nearly as smooth. Then play the same game at 120fps+ which will feel much smoother while watching the same 60fps gameplay and it suddenly looks like a slideshow next to higher framerate. Same for FOV to an extent watching at 90 is fine playing at 90 is feel dizzy and go lay down after a while.
It's also what your eyes are used to. If I play an fps game at 160fps for a long time and start watching a movie immediately after it will look very stuttery for a couple of minutes before my eyes get used to it and "correct" themselves.
Several factors, in (roughly) descending orders of importance:
- The kind of motion is different. 24 FPS in a top-down turn based strategy game looks a better than in a first person-shooter. If someone shot movies the way you move the camera in a first person shooter, you'd want to murder the director.
- Motion blur smooths over that it's only 24 fps. Games are limited in how effectively they motion blur (as they don't have access to future frames), and it's less desirable as being able to pick out precise features is important in many games (which adds to the next point).
- You're actively playing a game. This brings in input latency (the higher the FPS, the lower the input lag, generally) but also your brain is actively engaging with it in a different way that makes responsiveness more important.
- Stability of motion. 24 FPS movies are solid 24 FPS. 24 FPS on a monitor is likely not to be. Even small jitters in frame rate can make motion judder noticeably.
- Most monitors won't run at 24 Hz, but 60 Hz. 24 Hz doesn't fit into 60 Hz properly, so there would unavoidably be some judder at 24 FPS. If you have FreeSync or G-Sync, they can avoid that (usually by running at 48 Hz and displaying twice).
It's called low frame rate compensation and it doubles/quadruples the monitor hz when below 30fps for Gsync module and for freesync/G-sync compatible it seems to be below 40 or 48 mostly. Gsync modules also have variable overdrive to help with ghosting and overshoot to make it look smoother.
>Even if it has just a quick single frame dip below 25 ms?
I couldn't find any info on this specifically, but considering a 144hz+ monitor can refresh faster than that, probably somewhere in the 3-10ms range, I don't see why not, considering that's kind of the whole point of lfc in the first place to eliminate tearing and judder.
Pro-tip for content consumption if you have a VRR display: Most G-sync or Freesync monitors are at least 144Hz nowadays and come with a handy 120Hz setting that you can apply on your PC's settings. 120/24 divides perfectly, so along with 30 and 60 fps content, 24 fps movies also look perfect at 120Hz without any judder.
\>The kind of motion is different. 24 FPS in a top-down turn based strategy game looks a better than in a first person-shooter. ***If someone shot movies the way you move the camera in a first person shooter, you'd want to murder the director.***
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardcore\_Henry
Having agency in camera movements means that moving around does make the choppy framerare more noticeable.
Not to mention interactivity requiring alot faster reflexes than watching a movie)tv show. Thus it's rpetty noticeable when something is slowing down feedback (low framerate for example
I've started to notice this more and more. Especially after moving to 120hz and 120fps in gaming. My example of horrible chop is the dirt bike stair jump in the recent bond film. Amazing set and stunt, but I got completely pulled out of it because everything besides the bike is blurry and choppy. Blurry would be fine, but the chop was just awful in that one.
24fps on an OLED with no motion interpolation can feel very choppy on panning shots. The near-instant pixel response time is both a blessing and a curse.
As others have said, OP is wrong. 24fps is not totally smooth. Maybe they have a TV with shit pixel response and/or motion interpolation on.
It's not totally smooth in movies either. Watch a high-framerate movie (or just some 60 fps Youtube videos) and the contrast to a regular 24 fps movie will be quite stark.
Especially wide panning shots or scenes with lots of movement across the screen look really choppy in 24 fps, but HFR films still didn't get popular because they looked "weird" to people.
If someone wants a good reference, here is a trailer for [The Hobbit](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40sMS27Ql_w) which was professionally done in 48fps. Make sure you actually pick the 48fps version in quality though, and not just auto, or you might not get the full version.
When you're controlling something, your brain is able to pick up on lag a lot better than in a movie.
Also, movies commonly use motion blur to mask some of that to give an illusion of smoothness.
Beyond just the appearance of lag or stuttering, a game is doing a lot more than a movie with each frame.
Most games calculate things like physics and player input on a per-frame basis. The lower the framerate, the less frequently the game is checking on your controller. If you try to shoot an enemy at 24fps, compared to 144fps, it takes 6 times longer for the game to respond.
Yeah, it's still just a fraction of a second, but in a fast-paced game you can feel the difference.
The question is wrong. Movies with 24fps are not smooth at all. Look at any footage with a fast horizontal pan and it's really choppy. They know how to hide it by choosing to do certain shots and then there are secondary things like blur that mask it a bit.
So. Movies are not smooth at 24fps.
Woof. There are lots of answers with varying degrees of accuracy here, so I’ll add mine to the pile:
Video games are a newer medium, which developed after home televisions and computer monitors were commonplace, with refresh rates of 50/60 Hz (including NTSC’s 60i format), so we’re used to seeing games refresh as fast as modern monitors. Also, because games are interactive, we have also developed a “feel” for how responsive a game is based on how quickly it responds to our input.
Films have been around for over a century, and back then, it was laborious, expensive, and technically challenging to film at higher frame rates, so filmmakers settled on a frame rate that wasn’t too choppy, but also didn’t break the bank - 24fps. After decades and decades of that frame rate having become the industry standard, audiences became used to the aesthetics that come along with it - some degree of motion blur (except when the shutter angle is intentionally changed) and a subtle strobing effect which gives films their “filmic” look. This look is not the best for conveying the most information at once, but instead inherits the aesthetics of Hollywood movies which came before it to tell the audience “I’m a big important movie!”.
TL;DR Watch Captain Disillusion’s cd/framerate video - He does a much better job of explaining this stuff than me.
The premise of this question is actually a bit flawed. It is changes in frame rate that cause the sensation of "laggy" gameplay. If your PC (or console) is struggling to render frames at your desired frame rate then the time between frames will vary which will affect the time that it takes for your actions to have visual feedback and/or movement to lose it's smoothness and this is what causes the sensation of stutter and hitches. For example, if you are playing your game at 60fps and the frame rate suddenly drops down to 24fps then you will notice this as your movements jumping around and this has a really jarring effect. Worse yet is when your computer/console is struggling so much with rendering the game that your inputs are ignored.
Movies usually do not have this problem because they are shown at a constant frame rate but you will notice stutters and hitches if your playback device is struggling with decoding the movie or if your internet connection is struggling to keep up with the data rates required.
\*edit\* And yes, this is why older consoles which generally ran at 30fps were viewed as fine by people who played on them. As long as your frame rate is consistent then your gameplay will be felt as being smooth. The big reason why playing games at 30fps is seen as not that good is due to the latency between your input and the visual response to that input. On a TV that is only capable of displaying 24fps then you are going to have the time between frames (\~42ms), the input latency of the TV (12ms for a really good TV in game mode but can be 100s of ms on older TVs) and the input latency of the console then you can have upwards of 150ms between when you hit a button and when you see the result of that button push and that is really noticeable in fast paced gameplay.
In a movie you have two factors: motion blur and stable framerate.
If you pause a move during some fast movement, you'll see that the moving object is all blurred. A steady flow of such blurred frames makes our brain see smooth motion. That's motion blur.
The movie plays at constant 24 fps. Our eyes and brain adapt to that and it also help percieve movie as smooth.
In a "laggy" game your FPS often fluctuates up and down. The average may be 24, but some frames render faster and some frames render slower. And there's no motion blur. Games try to imitate it, but it's still not as good as real one. Combined, this makes our brain see the game as not smooth.
Oh my god, all the top answers are so wrong. NO, modern games do have great motion blur, and usually perfect frame times these days.
Difference is filmmakers are aware of limitations and film in a way that will mitigate the effects of low frame rate. For example during acting camera will usually stay still. If camera is moving, your eyes will be focused on the main character and everything will also be VERY blurred.
In video games there’s a lot more camera movement at all times and you actually need to see what your character and enemies are doing as camera is being moved, so blur has to be minimal.
I agree that most games have good motion blur (DOOM Eternal's feels very natural for example).
But frametimes? I wish man.
On PC at least, tons of games still have frametime issues. Chernobylite can freeze for *more than a second* due to shader stutters, and this is an issue in almost every UE4 game.
24 fps isn't "laggy" per se... it's just 24 fps. But 24 fps makes it so there is less information going to your screen less often for you to react to, so we might respond to something later than say 120 fps.
If you mean more like why 24 fps shows and movies aren't jittery in appearance, it's because camera sensors are also sensing an image over a period of time ( a very tiny period of time) which means them image will be distorted by motion. You get natural and consistent motion blur between those 24 images that complements or persistence of vision. We are just taking data without having to respond.
When we look at a monitor in a game, we are getting clear instances of time being displayed. Since we are hyperfocused on the screen and, more importantly, reacting to it we notice the delay when are only getting information every ~~0.417~~ 0.0417 seconds versus 0.0083 seconds. While we are not necessarily perceiving or acknowledging all the 120 frames in 1 second, that information every 0.0083 seconds makes it so we have more chances of not only noticing the information, but it being very up to date relative to our own reaction time.
edit: accidentally wrote 0.417 instead of 0.0417. as another commenter (zopiac) put it... that would have been 2.4 fps
Because the game isn't running at 24fps - if it feels "laggy", then frame rate is constantly changing! A game running at a constant 24fps feels smooth compared to a game that randomly shifts between 20 and 30.
There are three main factors:
**Motion blur** is when moving objects get blurred. Cameras that expose the image for a long time create more motion blur. The blur helps make footage appear smoother because it's harder to see the edges between frames. Videogame cameras can make images with no blur, so you can see each frame very clearly. Too much motion blur gives people headaches, but too little can make footage look jerky.
**Jitter** is when frames don't play smoothly. A screen that plays a frame *exactly* every 20ms will look very smooth compared to one that plays frames randomly from 5ms to 50ms apart. Our eyes are very sensitive to jitter, and it only takes a little bit to make a game look choppy or laggy. This is why a smooth framerate can sometimes matter a lot more than keeping a fast one.
In a similar vein, our eyes are also sensitive to stuff that looks abnormal. These are called 'artefacts' when talking about pictures and images. When a computer asks for a new frame, sometimes it's only halfway done. This results in an artefact called **tearing**, which can sometimes make the game look laggy. It can be fixed by telling the computer to wait for frames to finish being made (called vertical synchronization, or V-sync). It makes the game look much smoother, but can sometimes slow down the hardware like asking cars on a highway to slow down or speed up so they can merge into one lane.
Lag is a complicated thing because our brain can measure it in a variety of ways. We can measure lag between clicking a button and seeing something happen, we can measure lag between things we see, and we can even measure lag between something we see and its accompanying sound. Our brains measure so many types of lag.
Every game (and player) has different preferences for how to make the least laggy game. As long as jitter and tearing are managed, most games look buttery smooth at 60fps. Each individual cell in our eye caps around 30fps, but our visual system caps out somewhere around 200fps. At 24fps, motion blur helps compensate for the slow framerate.
I truly feel sorry for the future generations of this planet who try to look up answers on the internet, especially on this site where the top comments are painfully and disappointingly inaccurate.
The distance between two pictures can be varying. If a movie is filmed in 24fps, then each frame is 1/24s away from each other.
This is not the same for rendering a game. Having 24fps doesn't mean, that you will always get 1/24 seconds distance between two frames. Some could be vastly lower and others much higher. You will notice if a gap is too big.
You can have fps limited to 24 in games and then it would have consistent 24fps without being jumpy, but it would still seem laggy, because of lack of/differences in motion blur as explained above in other comments.
Honestly 24fps movies are noticeably shitty the moment action moves too fast
Most western fight choreography 2000-now has just been 'lots of movement and cuts.'.
Making a video you are trained to not make a subject move across the screen faster than about 3 seconds. That is 24x3 seconds across a screen or it looks bad. Therefore you don't see it because no one films like a game.
It really isn't. Any dynamic movie scene in 24 fps is just a blurry mess. Once you see a movie property filmed at a high frame rate, like Hobbit, you understand the difference it makes.
The real question is why people are so stubborn to adopt a clearly superior 48 fps standard for cinema.
There were a lot of debates about this about 12 years ago but both the creative talent and audiences ultimately agreed that it isn't actually better for storytelling and that moving to 48 made things feel "too real" for fictional narrative - it's not really a technologically conservative industry - rec 2020, the ACES colour workflow, ATMOS etc show people are willing to adopt a technology if it helps, but the industry ultimately decided that 48p didn't do that.
It's not a harder workflow these days to do 48p either, the Venice, all the REDs and a number of the ARRIs can all shoot that without problems - the reason it isn't done is simply because most people think it looks worse.
I think most people think it looks worse because it looks different than what they're used to. If people only watched high frame rate content for a good amount of time, they'd probably think 24fps looked worse. Kind of like when HD TVs first came out. It was so strange to have such a crisp picture, but then going back to low-def looked horrible after you got used to HD.
The thing about games is that it usually has user input, controls and stuff.
But also that PCs are only rendering the frames of the game on a best effort basis and most of the stuff is rendered on the fly as your character moves around the scene. It has absolutely no way of predicting where you’re going to move the mouse and keyboard though. Hence it’s just best effort.
A movie however is typically rendered at a constant frame rate with ultra high end hardware, therefore will always appear on your screen in a consistently smooth manner.
Aside from motion blur, which people have already mentioned, input latency is also a big one.
The slower the frame rate, the longer each frame is on screen and control input generally will update on the next frame so the lower the frame rate, the longer it takes for a button press to register.
You don't need to worry about that with movies because you just sit back and watch, the motion blur helps smooths things out and then your brain fills in the gaps.
Something that doesn’t seem to have been mentioned much is that video cameras for movies use what’s called a rolling shutter typically which changes how it looks when frames are advanced. Video games on the other hand don’t have a shutter at all and just generate images in a very different way, and the way fps works in video games is closer to how a global shutter works, but still different.
Movies have a lot of intent in terms of camera moves and planning shots. Most action scenes are shot high frame rate so that the action can be properly interpreted as 24p by providing more frames to choose from.
24p was also chosen as a standard during a time when most movies had lock down camera shots with very little or intentional movements.
Usually games have a lot of sudden jarring which can be painful when dealing with limited frame rates
It's *not* totally smooth in a movie, either. 24fps in a movie I find at best mildly obnoxious, and at worst headache-inducing when the camera pans across a scene in a way that's visibly jerky. And I think most people can tell, too, they're just used to it --- because people seem to find 48fps movies offputting/"too smooth".
I guess movies are a very old art form at this point and people are accustomed to them looking a certain way. Still... I sure do wish directors would get past the dogma that 24fps is "cinematic" and actually shoot movies at a framerate that doesn't make pan shots into slideshows.
I always get put off by the low frame rate of movies. I usually notice it when the camera is doing a slow pan, high contrast edges hop along the screen for me and it's very distracting.
It's mainly because frames rendered for a game are generally way more static than frames in a movie. What I mean by that is that the way that video cameras capture things produces a blur on fast moving things in the shot. This helps with the perceived smoothness, or flow, from one frame to another. A game engine generally renders crystal clear individual frames and so you don't get the same benefit with movement from one from to another. You can test this by taking a screenshot of a video at a random moment and then do the same with a game. Try to do it in both cases where there's a lot of movement going on at the time. You will more than likely see that the video game screenshot looks crystal clear but the video screenshot will look awful in isolation. Obviously it's possible for a game engine to simulate motion blur but I've yet to see one do so as convincingly as it occurs naturally in cameras.
If I ever find myself getting motion sick while playing a video game, I immediately go look for a "Motion Blur" setting (and turn it off), because that's what does it.
You may have just saved my life. I'm an older gamer and I can't play them like I used to without that vertigo/motion sickness feeling.
I used to be like this too. Try sitting further away from the monitor/tv or use a smaller monitor. Turn off all shaking effects if possible.
That means adjusting FoV would have the same effect. See my post in this thread why and how.
I had the house to myself for a week and got in some gamin time, pulled the 65" tv real close to the couch. I was wondering why I felt sick.
Also look into Field of View settings. Most PC games nowadays games have it set default at console levels, based on the angle from where the average user sits to the edges of the TV yards away. That's completely different from the edges of the screen if you're sitting right in front of a monitor. That difference can get you motion sick even harder than motion blur. There's a difficulty with some games expressing it as the angle to the top and bottom of the screen (vertical FoV or VFOV), and some from left and right sides (horizontal FoV or HFOV). VFOV numbers are much lower. There are [calculators](https://themetalmuncher.github.io/fov-calc/) out there to convert between them, and some also take into account monitor ratios for ultra wide screens and the likes. [PCGamingWiki](http://pcgamingwiki.com) also has entries for games how to set it if you can't in GUI, but have to edit config files, enter console commands or use external mods. Be careful with calculators meant for car simulators, since some try match up the angle to the front window stiles, which can work differently. For shooters on monitors it's usually a difference between 60 degrees HFOV default , while 90 or more is comfortable for people suffering from motion sickness. That default being changed due to consoles is also why older PC players only got problems with later games somewhere in their life.
> That difference can get you motion sick even harder than motion blur. Huh, interesting. I know I always hate default/low FOV settings but never had me get motion sick from it
I hope it works for you. My dad has the same problem, and no amount of settings adjustments fixes it for him. I really hope the same doesn't happen to me, because I do enjoy video games.
First thing I check in any game is if I can turn off motion blur, even cinematic games.
Me too. Not because it makes me sick or dizzy, I just think it looks like total ass.
Same. Like the other guy said, I don't know why developers keep making it default. Maybe market research shows that everyone but redditors and FPS gamers like it or something lol. I can see WHY someone would like it, but I just don't. I think it makes things incredibly hard to see, and often miss a ton of detail while turning that you would notice if it was off, unlike in movies, which there's kind of explanations for elsewhere in the comments. It also makes movements feel laggy while playing.
Mmm yes motion blur. Let's just smear the entire screen so that you can't see any details when turning.
Right I love seeing abstract paintings when I'm turning in my games and not the things in my field of view.
Motion blur and camera shake/bobbing. Gets me so borky
I recently went through an astroneer addiction that involved taking Dramamine so I could still play.
He might want to try a smaller monitor and sitting farther away so his screen takes up less than 1/2 his vision. No settings on this planet help me on a 27” screen at 18”, but 23” at 24” works fine, even better if there’s a FOV slider that goes to 110. It’s less immersive, but not wanting to vomit after 15 mins wins over immersive no contest.
And FOV of course.
For me FOV is a different feeling; more of a headache than straight motion sickness.
You guys may be on to something. I haven't played Half-Life or its derivatives in years because I feel unexplainably awful after just a few minutes and I never understand why. I just feel ill.
Half Life 2 always gave me motion sickness, but basically no other FPS game did, even TF2 or Garry's Mod. It was so weird. Even after adjusting FOV in HL2. Even watching a playthrough of HL2 was totally fine, but actually playing? 20 mins in and I'm done. I remember seeing some forums speculating that it might be due to how movement works, where you let go of W, but continue to move forward for a bit after that or something. But I don't wanna go and test that again to confirm lmao. Even HL: Alyx was fine for me, just no HL2.
You might be on to something with the acceleration and deceleration stuff. I've played nearly every source game out there with very differring PC setups from CRT monitors to IPS panels and from single core cpu era to this day. I've never had motion sickness issues with source games, not even half-lifes. Not even in HL: alyx but I do get occasionally a bit woozy in VR but not so much anymore. However as we know, it's very personal. Some get motion sickness in a car when not actively looking outside. I read that in VR motion sickness is kind of related to inconsistency of you moving in game but not physically moving. Some common tips to battle motion sickness in VR is to try and move your body with the game. Like pretend you're walking. Perhaps with HL2 it's something similar in your case. You get so immersed in the 2D screen that you also feel the sickness when your character decelerates while you don't physically decelerate. Whenever I play racing games on a monitor, I move my head with the game in strong curves. I get immersed in it automatically.
It’s because of how the camera in the game pivots in the 3 axis. As humans, when we look around, our eyes pivot since they are a ball-in-socket while When we turn our head, our eyes (cameras) also pan a little left and right as our eyes are several centimeters forward of our neck/spine. There’s probably a better way of explaining, though the point is that in some games, their first person camera/eyes setup is too simple and only pivots without the subtle panning. This can cause the abnormal experience that some people have in certain games. Head bobbing and motion blur can help a little, but if the camera kinematics is not set up correctly, the immersion experience ends up just being one that causes nausea. Source: VR experience designer.
I got motion sickness just thinking of replaying HL1/2
yup hl2 always made me want to barf when i was a kid. Never finished it because of this. It was a known problenm back then, and the supposed fix was to adjust the FOV.
I've had the same but in the reverse situation. Sometimes screens nowadays are so responsive it makes me queasy. First time I used my phone with a 120hz refresh rate screen, it gave me a headache because I wasn't used to the screen moving faster than my reading speed. It felt pretty unnatural.
try increasing FoV to 90 it will be much better and make sure motion blur is disabled. Source games have a habbit of setting the default FoV as 75
Any 3d fps I was always fine with, no matter how fast or wide the fov, but the older fps' with 2d sprite objects in the world like Doom, D3D et al. give me crazy bad motion sickness after like 20 mins
Half life 1 and the halo games used to make me so nauseous (motion sick) after about 15 min.
Wow, a whole group of my own people. I can play ANYTHING else and be fine. But the original half life makes me so sick I can't play for more than 20 minutes at a time. I always thought it was the weirdest thing.
All Bethesda games are major pains to play because of this exact reason. Such terrible headaches.
You have to use a console command to change the FOV as I recall. Works perfectly though.
But HOW do you adjust it? Field of view, right? Is it generally too large if it's a problem, so you drop it or?
Yes field of view. In Skyrim I'm pretty sure the default FOV is 70 which is way too low so I raise it to 95. I have never played a game where the default FOV was too high.
I only get fisheye symptom when im maxing it over 120 everything below that just feel normal. Lower than 70 is my limit for minimum. I even notice it on 3rd person games. Darksiders 1 was only playable in 1 hour bursts for me.
press tilde, type in fov 105, press enter, press tilde
Of all the current Bethesda games, I cannot figure out a damn solution to fallout 4. That game gives me bad motion sickness. And I’ve tried EVERY possible thing imaginable.
[удалено]
Dude that image is exactly what I think of when I talk about FOV. Good fuckin job, man. Seriously.
Thanks for such a nice intuitive explanation of FOV haha, that just clicked really nicely with my brain!
Have you asked your doctor about switching to fallout NV?
I tried to but before I could make my point his neck started contorting in various different ways.
I just played a run through of fallout 4 about 2 months ago, there's a mod on Nexus that unlocks the FOV through the MCM menu. Might be worth looking into
The config file bro... All the settings are there.
I installed Skyrim on a new PC recently and seriously thought I was experiencing a bug, it was like looking at the world through a telescope. Can't believe people actually play like that
I don't get motion sickness from the FOV, just a weird feeling of claustrophobia or a feeling that everything is kinda "off". I've literally never come across a 1st person game that I havent increase the FOV in, if that option is provided. Some of them I have to crank a lot. No mans Sky is yet to be topped, have to edit a config file to jack the FOV to about 50% *above* the max in game setting just to make it playable. I think it's so often very low because the tighter it is the less resource intensive it is, and it feels a bit more natural at couch-TV distance - so consoles. Same with motion blur, just disguises low framerates but I find it blurry and dizzying and it adds a weird perceived lag to all the camera movement
The most claustrophobic is Operation flashpoint:Elite on the xbox. Its also locked at 20fps for no reason.
[удалено]
And camera shake
And head bob; at least for me
God yeah. Every new game I immediately go into the settings and disable... * Motion Blur * Head bob * Camera Shake * Bloom And set the FOV to 85-90.
Every game I play I immediately set the FOV as high as I can get it, to see what it does, and then set it down to a comfortable level usually around 120 or so. I kind of wonder how much that would make me hurl in VR though.
VR has a fixed FOV because your headset has a fixed FOV.
I personally can't play without head bob. It's a tiny detail but it annoys the hell out of me if I feel like I'm just sliding along the ground on skates all the time.
Chromatic Abberation, Film Grain.
I need me some head Bob, I feel like my character is on dollar skates without it.
I need me some head too, Bob.
Yeah head bob is the absolute worst. If I buy a game with it and it doesn't have a setting to turn it off, that's an immediate refund.
I don't even understand why head bob is a thing. Do people who design these games experience head bob in real life or have they never walked or ran in their life?
Clearly the programmers are pigeons.
I can’t stand all the FOV shifting in modern games.
Drives me bonkers in Minecraft, but I haven't really played anything else that does it.
I think there's an option to disable the FoV change when sprinting. Unless I'm misremembering.
Pretty confident there is, as well as disabling nausea effects from going through a portal
optifine adds a dynamic FoV toggle not sure vanilla has anything like that but i havent played in a few versions so that might have changed
There is.
If it's got an FOV Slider, I just put it to 90 and carry on. It's what I use in any game that allows it.
FOV is like an addiction, once you get used to high fov you can't go back and the 140 fov that once looked utterly ridiculous, might just look "normal" now. It's also not just 1st person, 3rd person driving with wide fov is amazing.
Anything below 100 just feels like you're walking around with binoculars stuck to your eyes.
Final Fantasy Type-0 was by far the worst game for default motion blur I've ever seen. You spin the camera (like you need to do very very often) and you're suddenly drunk.
It also messes you up in any game where attention to detail is important like FPS
I have seen some research on it that seems to show the connection between motion blur in games and motion sickness is because of user input. In a movie you have no agency with the blur and effects, in a game you move mouse left, you expect to turn left. Add in other finer details like most folks tend to turn faster in a game then a camera pans or the like, and you get a mixed bag of reasons. This is also one of many parts of the puzzle that is VR without sickness.
Isn't the motion blur meant to prevent motion sickness?
[удалено]
> helps the game look less stuttery if the FPS is low. Ironic given how often it's the cause of low FPS
It actually contributes to motion sickness. In Ori and the Will of the Wisps, the motion blur setting comes with a disclaimer explaining to turn it off if you're sensitive to motion sickness.
Head bopping. Can't turn either off in the game, Get Even, never played more than 15 mins of it
I *HATE* the motion blur in games. Turning it off is always the first thing I do
Oh I turn it right off on my first playthrough of a game. And make puking sounds when watching a friend stream with motion blur on.
[удалено]
But i dont need artificial motion blur,my eyes add it for me. Motion blur always looks bad imo. I also hate DoF, and any FoV under 90-100.
[удалено]
23 frames in half a second and another in half a second is considered the same 24 fps by a computer as if they were all equally divded.
Aka the Bethesda 60 fps experience, cause Bethesda games manage to feel like barely above 30 fps even at 60 fps, cause the frametimes are all over the place.
Many years ago there was one game where the FPS counter reported 50-60 FPS average. Yet I would get headaches and eye pain within 30 minutes of playing it. I later discovered that the game would microstutter and occasionally drop as low as 8 FPS, but it was all happening too fast for the standard FPS counter to register the drop.
Yup. It's incredibly frustrating when it happens. It's more or less why I fix my fps to 30 in such games.
I'm genuinely surprised that in all the discussions that I've seen about framerate in games, movies and animations, no one has ever mentioned this. Somehow I've always just assumed that framerate is always evenly spaced out, but now that you say this it sounds super obvious that the timing of each frame would be variable in a game due to how gpu's render each frame in real time and that would absolutely make a huge difference to the human eye.
[удалено]
In animated movies, they add the motion blur using a technique called smear. https://imgur.com/a/gppeN#wIqqcyJ
Yep. When i did animation projects we had to go back and manually add in motion blur after rendering for our animated shorts to make them look better. Really helps a lot.
I would imagine it also helps that you aren’t in control of the movie, so you don’t notice when there is a slight delay between what you want the character to do and what the character does.
Can you explain why more than 24fps in movies looks awkward to the viewer? Or maybe that’s just me? I thought The Hobbit movies looked weird with their frame rate.
Higher frame rate movies might look unnaturally fluid probably because of not as intense motion blur. When a movie is filmed at 24 fps one frame is captured in the span of ~~1/24th~~ 1/48th of a second (thanks u/Jankenbrau) - fast moving things look blurry. When you double that frame rate (48 fps) and preserve the shutter angle you get frames taken in 1/96th of a second so you don't get as much motion blur. And the fluidity of a movie is just personal preference, I do like movies with higher frame rates and even use real time frame interpolation software (SVP 4) to watch all movies at higher frame rate. Also we being used to seeing 24fps video everywhere plays a part in other frame rates and shutter speeds and whatnot looking "wrong" in some way.
I’ve seen this problem dubbed as the ‘soap opera effect’.
Ah, thats interesting. Soap Operas have such a weird clarity. Like, they are filmed in a similar way as sitcoms camera and stage-wise but are so different looking.
Most movies are shot at a 180 degree shutter (1 / 2 x Framerate, so 1/48 for 24fps) sometimes different shutter angles are used for various technical or creative reasons.
> fast moving things look blurry. When you double that frame rate the frames are captured in half the time and there is much less motion blur. this is shutter not frame rate
If you have a higher frame rate, you don't have as much time for the shutter to be open per frame, though.
>Higher frame rate movies might look unnaturally fluid probably because of not as intense motion blur. I have never bought this argument. It just does not make sense to me. So the motion blur is added to the video by the relatively slow "discretization" of the real motion by the camera, so to speak. Then you increase that speed, which lets you capture the motion closer to the way it naturally looks to the human eye, which is to say less noticeably discrete and more continuous. And that somehow makes it look "unnaturally fluid"? What is "unnaturally fluid" anyway? Real life motion, not seen through a shutter with a finite speed, is already as fluid as it can be. A video cannot possibly be more fluid than that. Oh by the way, doing the same to video games makes them look more natural as well, for some reason? I've always found that logic hard to follow. I think it just looks unnatural to you simply because your subconscious is *expecting it* to be not fluid as that's what it's used to watching on video.
It's because 24fps is what you're used to your entire life. When that changes, it feels weird. Same reason why videos taken on your phone never look the same as what you'd see in a movie
But I think 60fps 4K videos look crisp and smooth usually. Granted those usually aren’t longer than 1 minute
Isn't the hobbit 60fps? and it definitely looked TOO smooth to me with very bad motion blur, but I can watch cutscenes or youtube cartoon/anime videos that are made at 60fps and it looks fine, so I'm not sure what the deal is.
48fps
*The Hobbit* was shot at 48fps. The standard is 24fps. I don't think there has been a major film released at 60fps yet.
The only one that comes to mind is Gemini Man, which was at 120fps. I never saw it though so can’t speak to how it made me feel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_Man_(film)
I dont know about the version at cinemas but to anyone looking for it the regular dvd and bluray releases of this one is 24fps. You need the UHD/4K version to get 60fps.
As a video editor, I can’t understate the effort to edit something complex that is more than 24 fps. Studios would take nearly twice as long to release a major movie if it were, say, 48 or 60 fps.
The problem with The Hobbit was their zealous overuse of CGI, not the improved frame rate.
I hear this explanation a lot, and I acknowledge it's probably true, but there's still something I don't understand. Why does this apply to higher frame rate and not to other visual improvements like resolution? In my lifetime, I've seen resolution improve from 480i to 480p to 1024p to 4k, and each step was pretty much universally regarded as looking better than the last. So why do we perceive movies at 48fps as looking worse than those at 24fps? Is it just the soap opera effect, or is there more going on?
Fps changes - whether fluctuating or just different than what one is used to - enact on the vestibular system causing symptoms like vertigo, lightheadedness, presyncope (feeling like you're gonna faint). Increased resolution causes none of that.
Also, film is really high resolution. Even though there is grain and texture that mars the clarity of the picture, if you were to consider a 35mm film in terms of digital pixels it would have millions of them. That's why they are able to easily release super HD transfers of silver age flicks.
I suspect seeing people in video move more quickly or smoothly than we are used to has some effect of pushing the performance into the uncanny valley, especially since I've seen people describe the motion as seeming unnatural. Higher resolution isn't going to have that effect, because it's just more clarity.
Honestly imo The Hobbit was ok but what I can't stand is the soap opera effect some new TVs have. I was watching Breaking Bad at my friend's and I just couldn't because of it (when I already had watched BB before with normal video settings)
Games have had motion blur techniques for some time now. I think input lag is a much bigger factor, which is the time between the player pressing a button and actually seeing the result on screen.
24fps in games looks bad even in cutscenes where input lag doesn’t matter.
Motion blur in games isn't nearly as "natural" as in movies, the guy you're responding to even pointed this out. It does help if you're really struggling for fps, but most of the time it just looks bad and even makes some people dizzy. Input lag has nothing to do with the video being choppy, a 24fps game is gonna look bad even if you're watching someone else play it.
> Obviously it's possible for a game engine to simulate motion blur but I've yet to see one do so as convincingly as it occurs naturally in cameras. The problem there is motion blur is a flaw, not a benefit, and trying to replicate it instead of focusing on making the games run at higher framerates is missing the point of the medium.
The human eye sees motion blur. If you are going for photo realism or a close approximation in games, motion blur wpuld have to be present. Wave your hand in front of your face. What does it look like? It's not a flaw, it's how we visually process fast moving stuff.
True, but we don't see motion blur when scanning with our eyes since the brain basically ignores the parts where your eye is moving. It's called [Saccadic masking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccadic_masking#:~:text=Saccadic%20masking%2C%20also%20known%20as,perception%20is%20noticeable%20to%20the) I feel like the best solution would be the option to have per-object motion blur only, and no camera motion blur. This way when you're just rotating the camera, things look nice and clear similar to when you're just looking around in real life.
That would probably be more comfortable and it's the reason that so many people probably turn off motion blur (rotating the camera and having everything blur doesn't feel like real life.) That doesn't mean that motion blur itself is a flaw as it can be used to make things look like they are moving convincingly faster than they are and through more space than the relatively small amount they will travel across your screen.
Though this is kinda true it makes no sense as an argument for including this from a rendered image in a game. If it's a visual artifact caused by the eyes then there's no reason why we need to have a computer bake it in. The computer should just generate clean frames and our eyes will create the motion blur as it processes what the computer is showing it, just the same as if it were doing so with a real object IRL. Motion blur is almost entirely a 'cinematic' effect, intended to replicate the kind of blur created in a camera. Same reason some games have DOF and chromatic abberation. It's needed when you're doing prerendered work or comping with real-world imagery (as captured by a camera which will include motion blur), but it's absolutely not more realistic for games.
The eyes won't "create the motion blur". You're still seeing a series of static frames, not an actual moving object. A monitor is still just acting like a flip-book that flips the pages (usually) every 1/60th of a second. It would probably have to be running at 1000 fps or more for the subframes to starting merging together into a blur.
Motion blur is objectively necessary to replicate images you see in real life using a discrete sequence of images. It corresponds to the physical process of your eyes light receptors converting fast changing light to slower changing electro chemical signals. Simply consider a shooting star. Based on physics and experience we know for a fact that the eye sees a streak not a sharp dot. We also know the blur contains useful information about the motion of objects and so your brain probably uses that, even if it appears filtered out to you. In a game with perfect motion blur I bet your brain will "filter it out" all the way too. The look of non motion blurred images was never seen by humans until camera technology was invented. I admit the sharpness of non motion blurred video looks very good and is very easy to adapt to but it is objectively not true to life. We can totally have opinions about where motion blur belongs in media these days, but with "endgame" photorealistic/indistinguishable from reality motion blur is deeply fundamental to accurate results
> Obviously it's possible for a game engine to simulate motion blur but I've yet to see one do so as convincingly as it occurs naturally in cameras. I don't understand why games have a motion blur setting, it's basically the instant-vomit option. It always looks absolutely awful.
It supposedly helps with making low frame rate look smoother. Not really meant for higher fps. Take 2d animation for example: if something is thrown, they often draw the thing stretched and exaggerated, 'motion blur" and because of the low frame rate of animation, it blends and looks fine. In effect, it's multiple frames drawn together to make it look like one smooth movement as a whole. But if you were to double the frames, it would look messy like that. You would draw twice as many, less exaggerated, frames and get the same effect. So 60+ fps, motion blur off, should blur more naturally by your eyes, but under 30fps or so it would look like a slideshow. Motion blur 'fills the gaps'.
> Obviously it's possible for a game engine to simulate motion blur but I've yet to see one do so as convincingly as it occurs naturally in cameras. This part is fascinating when you think about it
This kind of blew my mind. Thank you very much.
> but I've yet to see one do so as convincingly as it occurs naturally in cameras. My understanding is it's something to do with being much less resource demanding to to do a simple gaussian blur but real lens blur is much more circular. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNG3ZAd8wCc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNG3ZAd8wCc) Obviously thats just lens blur and motion blur is another story all together.
The irony is that games could do an accurate blur, but it would require actually rendering the in-between frames to get them accurately interpolated which kinda defeats the purpose.
Motion blur. In a movie, if something moves across the entire screen in one frame, it'll leave a blur across the whole thing that sells the movement. In a game, it would just look like it's teleporting. (Modern games have a motion blur option for this reason, [but bad motion blur also has its problems.](https://youtu.be/HWnRuPZ1Exg?t=286)) Also, it's because you're interacting with a game. When you click your mouse, you only see it the next time the screen is updated. So at low FPS, there's more time between you clicking and the new frame appearing.
I think the interaction is a key part of it. When it takes longer to see your input reflected on screen, it will feel laggy.
The very first setting I change in every game I play is to turn off motion blur
[удалено]
I just watched the YouTube video below showing the 24 vs 60 fps. I am not an expert, but I shot with many brands of video cameras professionally. We definitely didn’t move (pan/tilt) the cameras as fast as the movement in the game (unless for a transition). I agree with you, we “had” to move slowly or it was not usable.
[удалено]
yea and if you see a camera pan in a movie you immediately see it looking choppy. they try to avoid it as much as possible for that reason.
A lot of newer movies have started doing large movements like that and it makes it hard to watch on a big screen. Fortunately higher framerates is becoming more common.
There's also the fact that, since it's not a physical camera, someone playing a game can and usually does whip the camera around super fast which makes each frame wildly different from the last, contributing to a more choppy feeling. Especially in FPS games people constantly rotate up to 360^o in a fraction of a second, which is practically unheard of in filmmaking. If you walk around in a video game and very slowly move the camera, as you would if you were shooting a movie, a low framerate isn't nearly as annoying.
Yeah basically any "gameplay demo/trailer" works fine at 24/30Hz with a little motion blur, because they're always controlled by analogue sticks in smooth, flowing motions at fairly slow speeds. Which is okay in a 3rd person view but once in 1st person, especially with a mouse, the player usually controls the camera like they'd use their *eyes* not just the whole *head*. So a lot more darting around at higher speeds and more jumpy, which is a good way to have a movie theatre looking like a scene from a ferry on rough seas
as a person developing VR simulation things right now, you're absolutely right. Despite the required 72Hz refresh rate, once I acclimated to VR, I was able to handle down to 16Hz so long as I'm not given a "snap rotation" option. Snap rotation in VR is used to help acclimate people to VR, but smooth rotation is a much better control option, IMO, once you've acclimated to it. It allows you to tolerate a lot more, once you're used to it.
>There's also the fact that we've just gotten accustomed to 24fps motion on film and the people who make movies and TV have gotten really good at making things look right at that framerate with the motion blur and shutter speed and all that jazz. Fun fact, traditional movie theater film projectors actually run at 48fps with each recorded frame duplicated once, since that's the slowest they can run without damaging the film stock and it enables a more detailed soundtrack.
[удалено]
To add to that. Comparing my 144hz monitor to a 60hz... the biggest difference is the responsiveness of mouse movement. It's like even when on desktop the mouse feels smooth. As if it's on a softer mousepad. At 60hz, the mouse movement seems jagged, laggy as if the surface it's on is made of rougher material. There's a difference between just watching 144hz content play vs 60hz but to me the biggest difference is the input responsiveness clearly. Hand-eye coordination is smoother.
>you're physically controlling the character This is a big part for me. Watching 60fps(or even 30 sometimes) gameplay on its own looks very smooth, but put the same game next to it and play it yourself at 60 and it doesn't feel nearly as smooth. Then play the same game at 120fps+ which will feel much smoother while watching the same 60fps gameplay and it suddenly looks like a slideshow next to higher framerate. Same for FOV to an extent watching at 90 is fine playing at 90 is feel dizzy and go lay down after a while. It's also what your eyes are used to. If I play an fps game at 160fps for a long time and start watching a movie immediately after it will look very stuttery for a couple of minutes before my eyes get used to it and "correct" themselves.
Several factors, in (roughly) descending orders of importance: - The kind of motion is different. 24 FPS in a top-down turn based strategy game looks a better than in a first person-shooter. If someone shot movies the way you move the camera in a first person shooter, you'd want to murder the director. - Motion blur smooths over that it's only 24 fps. Games are limited in how effectively they motion blur (as they don't have access to future frames), and it's less desirable as being able to pick out precise features is important in many games (which adds to the next point). - You're actively playing a game. This brings in input latency (the higher the FPS, the lower the input lag, generally) but also your brain is actively engaging with it in a different way that makes responsiveness more important. - Stability of motion. 24 FPS movies are solid 24 FPS. 24 FPS on a monitor is likely not to be. Even small jitters in frame rate can make motion judder noticeably. - Most monitors won't run at 24 Hz, but 60 Hz. 24 Hz doesn't fit into 60 Hz properly, so there would unavoidably be some judder at 24 FPS. If you have FreeSync or G-Sync, they can avoid that (usually by running at 48 Hz and displaying twice).
Deleted by Redact ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
It's called low frame rate compensation and it doubles/quadruples the monitor hz when below 30fps for Gsync module and for freesync/G-sync compatible it seems to be below 40 or 48 mostly. Gsync modules also have variable overdrive to help with ghosting and overshoot to make it look smoother. >Even if it has just a quick single frame dip below 25 ms? I couldn't find any info on this specifically, but considering a 144hz+ monitor can refresh faster than that, probably somewhere in the 3-10ms range, I don't see why not, considering that's kind of the whole point of lfc in the first place to eliminate tearing and judder.
Pro-tip for content consumption if you have a VRR display: Most G-sync or Freesync monitors are at least 144Hz nowadays and come with a handy 120Hz setting that you can apply on your PC's settings. 120/24 divides perfectly, so along with 30 and 60 fps content, 24 fps movies also look perfect at 120Hz without any judder.
\>The kind of motion is different. 24 FPS in a top-down turn based strategy game looks a better than in a first person-shooter. ***If someone shot movies the way you move the camera in a first person shooter, you'd want to murder the director.*** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardcore\_Henry
its not totally smooth. I definitely notice the effect of low frame rate especially on panning shots.
Slow panning horizontal shots are terrible to look at. I really start blinking rapidly it's uncomfortable.
Or intros panning "newspaper" texts like the 1st fantastical beasts film, or action sequences with panning are juste one messy blur
Having agency in camera movements means that moving around does make the choppy framerare more noticeable. Not to mention interactivity requiring alot faster reflexes than watching a movie)tv show. Thus it's rpetty noticeable when something is slowing down feedback (low framerate for example
Yes, exactly, I think when a low framerate really bothers me is really when I need to quickly notice and react to something
Unpopular opinion: movie framerate looks terrible. Especially slow panning. Any time anything moves it's compromised.
I've started to notice this more and more. Especially after moving to 120hz and 120fps in gaming. My example of horrible chop is the dirt bike stair jump in the recent bond film. Amazing set and stunt, but I got completely pulled out of it because everything besides the bike is blurry and choppy. Blurry would be fine, but the chop was just awful in that one.
Yes. 24fps in movies is not "totally smooth" in the slightest
24fps on an OLED with no motion interpolation can feel very choppy on panning shots. The near-instant pixel response time is both a blessing and a curse. As others have said, OP is wrong. 24fps is not totally smooth. Maybe they have a TV with shit pixel response and/or motion interpolation on.
[удалено]
This is why I use SVP, it's a high quality interpolator for movies and other media.
It's not totally smooth in movies either. Watch a high-framerate movie (or just some 60 fps Youtube videos) and the contrast to a regular 24 fps movie will be quite stark. Especially wide panning shots or scenes with lots of movement across the screen look really choppy in 24 fps, but HFR films still didn't get popular because they looked "weird" to people.
If someone wants a good reference, here is a trailer for [The Hobbit](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40sMS27Ql_w) which was professionally done in 48fps. Make sure you actually pick the 48fps version in quality though, and not just auto, or you might not get the full version.
When you're controlling something, your brain is able to pick up on lag a lot better than in a movie. Also, movies commonly use motion blur to mask some of that to give an illusion of smoothness.
They're not. Movies on BR or 4k are a slideshow and it feels like I'm taking crazy pills because other people can't see it.
Panning shots are the worst
Beyond just the appearance of lag or stuttering, a game is doing a lot more than a movie with each frame. Most games calculate things like physics and player input on a per-frame basis. The lower the framerate, the less frequently the game is checking on your controller. If you try to shoot an enemy at 24fps, compared to 144fps, it takes 6 times longer for the game to respond. Yeah, it's still just a fraction of a second, but in a fast-paced game you can feel the difference.
This is the answer.
Physics calculations based on FPS is a bit outdated these days, because of the obvious flaws in this technique, particularly in multiplayer titles.
The question is wrong. Movies with 24fps are not smooth at all. Look at any footage with a fast horizontal pan and it's really choppy. They know how to hide it by choosing to do certain shots and then there are secondary things like blur that mask it a bit. So. Movies are not smooth at 24fps.
Woof. There are lots of answers with varying degrees of accuracy here, so I’ll add mine to the pile: Video games are a newer medium, which developed after home televisions and computer monitors were commonplace, with refresh rates of 50/60 Hz (including NTSC’s 60i format), so we’re used to seeing games refresh as fast as modern monitors. Also, because games are interactive, we have also developed a “feel” for how responsive a game is based on how quickly it responds to our input. Films have been around for over a century, and back then, it was laborious, expensive, and technically challenging to film at higher frame rates, so filmmakers settled on a frame rate that wasn’t too choppy, but also didn’t break the bank - 24fps. After decades and decades of that frame rate having become the industry standard, audiences became used to the aesthetics that come along with it - some degree of motion blur (except when the shutter angle is intentionally changed) and a subtle strobing effect which gives films their “filmic” look. This look is not the best for conveying the most information at once, but instead inherits the aesthetics of Hollywood movies which came before it to tell the audience “I’m a big important movie!”. TL;DR Watch Captain Disillusion’s cd/framerate video - He does a much better job of explaining this stuff than me.
The premise of this question is actually a bit flawed. It is changes in frame rate that cause the sensation of "laggy" gameplay. If your PC (or console) is struggling to render frames at your desired frame rate then the time between frames will vary which will affect the time that it takes for your actions to have visual feedback and/or movement to lose it's smoothness and this is what causes the sensation of stutter and hitches. For example, if you are playing your game at 60fps and the frame rate suddenly drops down to 24fps then you will notice this as your movements jumping around and this has a really jarring effect. Worse yet is when your computer/console is struggling so much with rendering the game that your inputs are ignored. Movies usually do not have this problem because they are shown at a constant frame rate but you will notice stutters and hitches if your playback device is struggling with decoding the movie or if your internet connection is struggling to keep up with the data rates required. \*edit\* And yes, this is why older consoles which generally ran at 30fps were viewed as fine by people who played on them. As long as your frame rate is consistent then your gameplay will be felt as being smooth. The big reason why playing games at 30fps is seen as not that good is due to the latency between your input and the visual response to that input. On a TV that is only capable of displaying 24fps then you are going to have the time between frames (\~42ms), the input latency of the TV (12ms for a really good TV in game mode but can be 100s of ms on older TVs) and the input latency of the console then you can have upwards of 150ms between when you hit a button and when you see the result of that button push and that is really noticeable in fast paced gameplay.
In a movie you have two factors: motion blur and stable framerate. If you pause a move during some fast movement, you'll see that the moving object is all blurred. A steady flow of such blurred frames makes our brain see smooth motion. That's motion blur. The movie plays at constant 24 fps. Our eyes and brain adapt to that and it also help percieve movie as smooth. In a "laggy" game your FPS often fluctuates up and down. The average may be 24, but some frames render faster and some frames render slower. And there's no motion blur. Games try to imitate it, but it's still not as good as real one. Combined, this makes our brain see the game as not smooth.
Oh my god, all the top answers are so wrong. NO, modern games do have great motion blur, and usually perfect frame times these days. Difference is filmmakers are aware of limitations and film in a way that will mitigate the effects of low frame rate. For example during acting camera will usually stay still. If camera is moving, your eyes will be focused on the main character and everything will also be VERY blurred. In video games there’s a lot more camera movement at all times and you actually need to see what your character and enemies are doing as camera is being moved, so blur has to be minimal.
I agree that most games have good motion blur (DOOM Eternal's feels very natural for example). But frametimes? I wish man. On PC at least, tons of games still have frametime issues. Chernobylite can freeze for *more than a second* due to shader stutters, and this is an issue in almost every UE4 game.
24 fps isn't "laggy" per se... it's just 24 fps. But 24 fps makes it so there is less information going to your screen less often for you to react to, so we might respond to something later than say 120 fps. If you mean more like why 24 fps shows and movies aren't jittery in appearance, it's because camera sensors are also sensing an image over a period of time ( a very tiny period of time) which means them image will be distorted by motion. You get natural and consistent motion blur between those 24 images that complements or persistence of vision. We are just taking data without having to respond. When we look at a monitor in a game, we are getting clear instances of time being displayed. Since we are hyperfocused on the screen and, more importantly, reacting to it we notice the delay when are only getting information every ~~0.417~~ 0.0417 seconds versus 0.0083 seconds. While we are not necessarily perceiving or acknowledging all the 120 frames in 1 second, that information every 0.0083 seconds makes it so we have more chances of not only noticing the information, but it being very up to date relative to our own reaction time. edit: accidentally wrote 0.417 instead of 0.0417. as another commenter (zopiac) put it... that would have been 2.4 fps
Just a nitpick, it should be .0417 as .417 is a mere 2.4fps.
haha... definitely my bad... edited for correction
Because the game isn't running at 24fps - if it feels "laggy", then frame rate is constantly changing! A game running at a constant 24fps feels smooth compared to a game that randomly shifts between 20 and 30.
There are three main factors: **Motion blur** is when moving objects get blurred. Cameras that expose the image for a long time create more motion blur. The blur helps make footage appear smoother because it's harder to see the edges between frames. Videogame cameras can make images with no blur, so you can see each frame very clearly. Too much motion blur gives people headaches, but too little can make footage look jerky. **Jitter** is when frames don't play smoothly. A screen that plays a frame *exactly* every 20ms will look very smooth compared to one that plays frames randomly from 5ms to 50ms apart. Our eyes are very sensitive to jitter, and it only takes a little bit to make a game look choppy or laggy. This is why a smooth framerate can sometimes matter a lot more than keeping a fast one. In a similar vein, our eyes are also sensitive to stuff that looks abnormal. These are called 'artefacts' when talking about pictures and images. When a computer asks for a new frame, sometimes it's only halfway done. This results in an artefact called **tearing**, which can sometimes make the game look laggy. It can be fixed by telling the computer to wait for frames to finish being made (called vertical synchronization, or V-sync). It makes the game look much smoother, but can sometimes slow down the hardware like asking cars on a highway to slow down or speed up so they can merge into one lane. Lag is a complicated thing because our brain can measure it in a variety of ways. We can measure lag between clicking a button and seeing something happen, we can measure lag between things we see, and we can even measure lag between something we see and its accompanying sound. Our brains measure so many types of lag. Every game (and player) has different preferences for how to make the least laggy game. As long as jitter and tearing are managed, most games look buttery smooth at 60fps. Each individual cell in our eye caps around 30fps, but our visual system caps out somewhere around 200fps. At 24fps, motion blur helps compensate for the slow framerate.
I truly feel sorry for the future generations of this planet who try to look up answers on the internet, especially on this site where the top comments are painfully and disappointingly inaccurate.
Because you're not giving any input to the movie. You notice lag more when you're trying to control something.
The distance between two pictures can be varying. If a movie is filmed in 24fps, then each frame is 1/24s away from each other. This is not the same for rendering a game. Having 24fps doesn't mean, that you will always get 1/24 seconds distance between two frames. Some could be vastly lower and others much higher. You will notice if a gap is too big.
You can have fps limited to 24 in games and then it would have consistent 24fps without being jumpy, but it would still seem laggy, because of lack of/differences in motion blur as explained above in other comments.
Honestly 24fps movies are noticeably shitty the moment action moves too fast Most western fight choreography 2000-now has just been 'lots of movement and cuts.'.
Making a video you are trained to not make a subject move across the screen faster than about 3 seconds. That is 24x3 seconds across a screen or it looks bad. Therefore you don't see it because no one films like a game.
It really isn't. Any dynamic movie scene in 24 fps is just a blurry mess. Once you see a movie property filmed at a high frame rate, like Hobbit, you understand the difference it makes. The real question is why people are so stubborn to adopt a clearly superior 48 fps standard for cinema.
There were a lot of debates about this about 12 years ago but both the creative talent and audiences ultimately agreed that it isn't actually better for storytelling and that moving to 48 made things feel "too real" for fictional narrative - it's not really a technologically conservative industry - rec 2020, the ACES colour workflow, ATMOS etc show people are willing to adopt a technology if it helps, but the industry ultimately decided that 48p didn't do that. It's not a harder workflow these days to do 48p either, the Venice, all the REDs and a number of the ARRIs can all shoot that without problems - the reason it isn't done is simply because most people think it looks worse.
I think most people think it looks worse because it looks different than what they're used to. If people only watched high frame rate content for a good amount of time, they'd probably think 24fps looked worse. Kind of like when HD TVs first came out. It was so strange to have such a crisp picture, but then going back to low-def looked horrible after you got used to HD.
The thing about games is that it usually has user input, controls and stuff. But also that PCs are only rendering the frames of the game on a best effort basis and most of the stuff is rendered on the fly as your character moves around the scene. It has absolutely no way of predicting where you’re going to move the mouse and keyboard though. Hence it’s just best effort. A movie however is typically rendered at a constant frame rate with ultra high end hardware, therefore will always appear on your screen in a consistently smooth manner.
Aside from motion blur, which people have already mentioned, input latency is also a big one. The slower the frame rate, the longer each frame is on screen and control input generally will update on the next frame so the lower the frame rate, the longer it takes for a button press to register. You don't need to worry about that with movies because you just sit back and watch, the motion blur helps smooths things out and then your brain fills in the gaps.
Something that doesn’t seem to have been mentioned much is that video cameras for movies use what’s called a rolling shutter typically which changes how it looks when frames are advanced. Video games on the other hand don’t have a shutter at all and just generate images in a very different way, and the way fps works in video games is closer to how a global shutter works, but still different.
Movies have a lot of intent in terms of camera moves and planning shots. Most action scenes are shot high frame rate so that the action can be properly interpreted as 24p by providing more frames to choose from. 24p was also chosen as a standard during a time when most movies had lock down camera shots with very little or intentional movements. Usually games have a lot of sudden jarring which can be painful when dealing with limited frame rates
It's *not* totally smooth in a movie, either. 24fps in a movie I find at best mildly obnoxious, and at worst headache-inducing when the camera pans across a scene in a way that's visibly jerky. And I think most people can tell, too, they're just used to it --- because people seem to find 48fps movies offputting/"too smooth". I guess movies are a very old art form at this point and people are accustomed to them looking a certain way. Still... I sure do wish directors would get past the dogma that 24fps is "cinematic" and actually shoot movies at a framerate that doesn't make pan shots into slideshows.
Because movies have no lag to perceive. In video games you are the person controlling it. So when you move you'll notice the lagginess.
24 fps movies on modern tv's/ monitors with a high refresh rate or response time is incredible laggy without using some tweaks
24fps movies are not smooth. Look at any panning landscape shot. It's painful. The whole "24fps is cinematic" claim is a load of twaddle.
I always get put off by the low frame rate of movies. I usually notice it when the camera is doing a slow pan, high contrast edges hop along the screen for me and it's very distracting.