-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Is Motion Interpolation a thing for you in console gaming?
- Thread starter Elysiums
- Start date
I tried it once years ago in Assassin's Creed: Black Flag. The game sure looked nice, but the input lag was intolerable, so I've left it off ever since.
I mean, sure, if you're comfortable with the fact that what you're seeing is in no way true or accurate to the native motion.
Interpolation, whether it's when upscaling from low resolution or through additional frames of motion, is always wrong. Always.
In no way did I say it was improved. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Because you're not seeing unique frames with every frame update. You're seeing duplicates every other frame (or more).
It's actually less smooth than just presenting a lower native framerate because you'll always see hitching or artifacts when motion starts/stops.
This reminds me of a technique that the developers of Force Unleashed II created, where new intermediary frames are created by using information of the previous frame and the one that is being generated. Contrary to what we see on televisions today, this technique actually reduces input lag as well as visual artifacts.
For anyone that wants to see this in action, you can click on the link below for a video.
Specially with cloud gaming becoming more popular going forward, this is the type of ingenious technique we will surely see on future games.
www.eurogamer.net
For anyone that wants to see this in action, you can click on the link below for a video.
Specially with cloud gaming becoming more popular going forward, this is the type of ingenious technique we will surely see on future games.
LucasArts' 60FPS Force Unleashed II tech demo
At the recent SIGGRAPH 2010, LucasArts coder Dmitry Andreev showed off a quite remarkable tech demo based on work he ca…
www.eurogamer.net
You are seeing unique frames - that's what the interpolation is for. It makes new frames based on previous frames and estimated motion.
I will agree that it can be less consistent, but I don't know about calling it "less smooth". Interpolation can be far smoother than a native 30 FPS.
It seemed like you agreed with the post about it improving motion resolution, but your complaint was that they aren't "real" frames.
I said that it is meant to help with motion resolution, which is the whole point of interpolation.
I didn't say it made it better, because it in fact makes everything look like sloppy dog shit. I can help to fix your car, but in all likelihood I'll completely fuck it up.
I didn't say it made it better, because it in fact makes everything look like sloppy dog shit. I can help to fix your car, but in all likelihood I'll completely fuck it up.
Oh dear. My mind, it has been blown.
I always thought that the high framerate crowd was well informed, and the push for 1080p/60+ was all about making games feel nice by reducing the lag between input and action, which is a real thing (kind of -- human reaction times aren't as fast as people seem to think*), rather than just trying to get a better persistence of vision illusion, which is ... kind of silly. Especially when you're doing it with a post processing effect that looks weird and stilted.
This makes me suspect that a lot of this high framerate stuff is more of a placebo. Not quite as silly as buying gold plated cables, because there really is technically a perceivable difference. But *almost* that silly.
* On human reaction times: you can perceive stuff that happens faster than you react, though the perception happens after the fact. Batters report having the experience of being able to track a baseball in flight, for example. But that perception is largely a post processing fudge on the brain's part. A baseball flies too fast for a batter to react while its in flight -- the actual signal commanding the muscles to swing happens before the ball leaves the pitcher's hand. The swing is made based on the brain's subconscious prediction, rather than a conscious reaction to the actual path of the ball. I think that this is why a consistent framerate feels better, regardless of whether it's a consistent 30, 60 or 120 -- your brain is better able to guide your reactions with accurate predictions if the game is behaving consistently, and there is a consistent lag between action and result on the screen. I'm not a neuroscientist, though, so take that all with a grain of salt :-)
I always thought that the high framerate crowd was well informed, and the push for 1080p/60+ was all about making games feel nice by reducing the lag between input and action, which is a real thing (kind of -- human reaction times aren't as fast as people seem to think*), rather than just trying to get a better persistence of vision illusion, which is ... kind of silly. Especially when you're doing it with a post processing effect that looks weird and stilted.
This makes me suspect that a lot of this high framerate stuff is more of a placebo. Not quite as silly as buying gold plated cables, because there really is technically a perceivable difference. But *almost* that silly.
* On human reaction times: you can perceive stuff that happens faster than you react, though the perception happens after the fact. Batters report having the experience of being able to track a baseball in flight, for example. But that perception is largely a post processing fudge on the brain's part. A baseball flies too fast for a batter to react while its in flight -- the actual signal commanding the muscles to swing happens before the ball leaves the pitcher's hand. The swing is made based on the brain's subconscious prediction, rather than a conscious reaction to the actual path of the ball. I think that this is why a consistent framerate feels better, regardless of whether it's a consistent 30, 60 or 120 -- your brain is better able to guide your reactions with accurate predictions if the game is behaving consistently, and there is a consistent lag between action and result on the screen. I'm not a neuroscientist, though, so take that all with a grain of salt :-)
I love the auto motion feature on my samsung, for some games it can create a bit too much blur but for the most part it works amazing with 30fps console games.
On my 2018 TCL there is noticeable input lag but for some games it's absolutely worth the trade off. It really is a decent impression of 60 FPS. Panning the camera around looks so much smoother.
Are you implying that you think the visual benefit of high frame rate amounts to placebo, and that the main reason to prefer it is for latency reasons?
Because that couldn't be further from my own experience. High frame rates are all about smoothness and motion clarity for me; reduced latency is a side-benefit. And the difference is significant, not mild.
Interpolation is clearly not the same as something running at a natively high frame rate, but it can be preferable to a low frame rate - if your display is good at it.
On my current TV interpolation adds far too much latency to be usable when gaming, but if the total latency was still under 30 ms? That's perfectly acceptable. Hell, that's lower latency than my current TV in game mode.
Sorry. I was not especially clear. I suspect that the "better" responsiveness of a high frame rate games is a placebo. Or, to abuse words less, is something that makes people feel good, rather than something that gets reflected in how well they play. Human response time is measured in hundreds of milliseconds, so no matter what, the game is going to be able to render multiple frames inside of the time it takes you to respond to seeing something on the screen. That doesn't mean that people can't "see" the different framerates. Just that they're not a factor when it comes to how quickly or accurately they can react to information on the screen (regardless of whether or not their brain decides, after the fact, that they would've made that shot, had they just been able to see the mob and click a button a frame earlier, or whatever.)
Oh I agree that you can see a difference! Interpolated framerates just look really bad to my eye. This is especially true of movies (I figured out that my projector had interpolation turned on about halfway through Baz Lurman's Romeo + Juliet, and it was amazing how the movie went from being a disappointing soap opera to actually living up to my memories when I turned it off, mid run). But if you turn it on for a game, you're taking whatever the game is doing natively to look good and run predictably, and smacking a heavy handed filter over it. I believe that this feels better to *you*, at least when you first turn it on. But I also suspect that you'd be getting a better experience, were you to just allow your eyes to get used to the lower framerate -- your brain is really good about filling in the missing information and presenting you with the illusion of fluidity. ymmv, of course. To each their own.
Before reading this thread, I just thought that I might be "wrong" about not minding 30fps. And now I'm more confident that I'm "right." Or, at least, not more wrong or less right than a 120Hz fiend :-)
If you're talking about real, native frames, higher absolutely is beneficial and players do improve with it.
Whether interpolation helps improve performance in games is another matter. You have better motion clarity, but also higher latency. Latency probably matters more.
Interpolation is about looking better (smoother) and being more comfortable to play.
Interpolation is not about making a game feel better to play from a responsiveness point of view - it's about making the game look smoother.
Looking smoother "feels better" to me, because it helps alleviate motion sickness problems I frequently have with 30 FPS games.
Here's a short clip I recorded from my TV to demonstrate its interpolation. This is from a 2010 Sony TV, which is interpolating to 120 FPS. YouTube doesn't support HFR yet, so you're not going to see the full effect with a 60 FPS video.
Please keep in mind that this is filmed on my phone, so don't expect to compare still frames against each other. This is to demonstrate overall smoothness. Shooting 120Hz at 60 FPS means that individual video frames will show two TV frames blended together.
It's obviously not perfect, but it's hardly some abomination either. The main problem I have with it is that latency is bordering on unplayable on this TV when it's enabled.
With a low-latency "game mode" interpolation option, and a decade of improvements, I could see it being something that actually gets some use while gaming on my next TV. The problem is that it only seems to be Samsung with this feature right now, and I don't want another VA-type LCD.
Haha no, what you're describing is extrapolation not interpolation. You're TV can't do that, it doesn't have motion vectors to work with so if it tried, it'd be super inaccurate.
What you're TV is actually doing is making new frames frames based on estimated motion between the previous frame and the next frame. That why it adds so much input lag, it buffering several frames deeps at any given time.
Its a neat trick for a few seconds, as it seems your console becomes like a gaming PC for a bit; but the illusion doesn't last, especially as soon as anything but the camera starts moving.
Its not worth it. You are not getting any new visual information, its just copying frames and morphing them together to make it seem like you are.
Its not worth it. You are not getting any new visual information, its just copying frames and morphing them together to make it seem like you are.
It adds way too much input lag and random visual artifacts. If those two things improved it would be a no-brainer, but right now it doesn't even enter into my mind.
Yeah, fair enough. I wasn't entirely accurate with that post and can see how it may be misleading.
The focus of it was on the creation of new frames, rather than how they are produced.
Just had a thought. I've moved to gaming on PC and play a 60fps. I accidently left interpolation on and it didn't feel to bad lag wise playing fifa. But it looked so smooth. Then I remembered that my ks8000 only has 300 line motion resolution without interpolation but 1080 line motion resolution with interpolation on. So it might be worth leaving on to get the higher motion resolution with 60fps games.
Putting aside the input lag thing, motion interpolation's inconsistency is unbearable for me. Yes, a panning shot will look good because it's very easy for the algorithm to determine what the next frame should be. But other types of motion are virtually impossible to predict so the framerate will drop back to normal for that stuff.
I absolutely notice the framerate inconsistencies and it's endlessly distracting.
I absolutely notice the framerate inconsistencies and it's endlessly distracting.