Hello,
for some time now I've had the idea of capturing gameplay at 120fps and blending 2 or 4 frames to encode at 60 or 30fps, instead of just dropping them.
The reasoning for this is based on why movies are still watchable at 24fps (have you ever wondered why pausing a movie during intense action is always a blur?).
So well-shot movies will have a frame exposure of 1/fps (or very close), meaning a single frame will capture what the eye should really see during that frame time. If a film is shot correctly at 60fps (with almost 1/60th frame exposure), blending 2 frames will still allow "our brain" to be fooled into seeing the action at 30fps. However, reducing the rate by dropping frames means skipping some information which the brain will pick up (infact I realized this by watching a movie pan scene which obviously was jerky...and behold, whenever I paused, I would see clear images).
So, as each computer-generated frame represents 1/inf expossure, my thinking is that blending those frames will still present a 120fps-like fluid motion even at 30fps. I assume 80% of the 120fps-like experience could be achieved, the rest being negligible due to non-interactive nature. Thus bringing more fluid recordings at lower impact to encoder (or allow for more quality at same bitrate). Unfortunately I'm kind of lazy to even test for this (hopefully, this post will motivate me :D ).
Sooo....I always turn off motion blur, but I've seen reviewers mentioning that some action games are really good/playable even though they are capped at 30-fps.
PS: I have 144Hz monitors, but I keep it at 120Hz so it will be a multiple of 30/60 for when I do record (no, I avoid vsync...let's not go into that discussion). I don't get why they made 144 and not just 120 or 150.
for some time now I've had the idea of capturing gameplay at 120fps and blending 2 or 4 frames to encode at 60 or 30fps, instead of just dropping them.
The reasoning for this is based on why movies are still watchable at 24fps (have you ever wondered why pausing a movie during intense action is always a blur?).
So well-shot movies will have a frame exposure of 1/fps (or very close), meaning a single frame will capture what the eye should really see during that frame time. If a film is shot correctly at 60fps (with almost 1/60th frame exposure), blending 2 frames will still allow "our brain" to be fooled into seeing the action at 30fps. However, reducing the rate by dropping frames means skipping some information which the brain will pick up (infact I realized this by watching a movie pan scene which obviously was jerky...and behold, whenever I paused, I would see clear images).
So, as each computer-generated frame represents 1/inf expossure, my thinking is that blending those frames will still present a 120fps-like fluid motion even at 30fps. I assume 80% of the 120fps-like experience could be achieved, the rest being negligible due to non-interactive nature. Thus bringing more fluid recordings at lower impact to encoder (or allow for more quality at same bitrate). Unfortunately I'm kind of lazy to even test for this (hopefully, this post will motivate me :D ).
Sooo....I always turn off motion blur, but I've seen reviewers mentioning that some action games are really good/playable even though they are capped at 30-fps.
PS: I have 144Hz monitors, but I keep it at 120Hz so it will be a multiple of 30/60 for when I do record (no, I avoid vsync...let's not go into that discussion). I don't get why they made 144 and not just 120 or 150.
