Action anime need to be 60 fps!

rlaugh0095 · 05-04-2015, 01:33 AM #1

Using svp manager I made this video a while back to showcase how badass 60 fps anime is. I think the tradeoff of more work for the animators make it totally worth it!

sunnaryt · 05-04-2015, 10:31 AM #2

(05-04-2015, 01:33 AM)rlaugh0095 Wrote: Using svp manager I made this video a while back to showcase how badass 60 fps anime is. I think the tradeoff of more work for the animators make it totally worth it!

Anime is not even 30, and a lot of the time is like 0.5 fps, this is a medium where budget directly correlates with the amount of frames they can put in an episode, so the animation getting that far, keep dreaming, unless you think cg anime is okay (I really don't because uncanny valley). But what you've done, the camera effects could easily be sped up to 60fps, that wouldn't even be extra work, it's just the fact that it's not industry standard, nobody is using a high framerate except for Peter Jackson and it wasn't well received at that.

DrHouse64 · (This post was last modified: 05-04-2015, 06:38 PM by DrHouse64.)

Yep anime uses to be low-budget animation.
Sometimes we have some stuff with smooth animation, but it's quite uncommon. It's for anime movies or some epic scenes (like the Naruto VS Sasuke fight, just before Shippuden)

(Actually I enjoyed Peter Jackson's high framerate for The Hobbit)

sunnaryt · 05-05-2015, 03:39 AM #4

(05-04-2015, 06:35 PM)DrHouse64 Wrote: Yep anime uses to be low-budget animation.
Sometimes we have some stuff with smooth animation, but it's quite uncommon. It's for anime movies or some epic scenes (like the Naruto VS Sasuke fight, just before Shippuden)

(Actually I enjoyed Peter Jackson's high framerate for The Hobbit)

I do hope high frame rate catches on, at least 40 fps, I'm starting to be able to notice the frames at the standard just-below-30 from my experience with PC gaming, I think 40 is a sweet spot, because I see TV's with the built in "natural motion" accelerating parts to 60+ Hz and it actually makes good acting seem unnatural and forced, there is truth to what Ubisoft said about 30 being more cinematic, even though they used it as a cop out. The Hobbit though, being at 40 really didn't do this, I mean the acting was bad but that's mainly because the movies weren't that good in the first place. LOL

**AnyOldName3** · 05-05-2015, 05:06 AM #5

The main issue is that when your brain sees low framerate content it gives up trying to see it normally (kind of in a "f*** this, I'm drunk" way) and just does it's best to guess what's happening, so you can get away with a bunch of stuff you can't with a better framerate. Also, if it's done properly, you'll get quite long exposures, so everything will be blurry as hell at 24 FPS so you can't see any detail, and you effectively get temporal antialiasing, as you're not seeing one discrete state of the world, but instead the average light level over a period - a lot of film CGI is rendered at a very, very high framerate and then downsampled back to 24. Anything that's done real-time, though, is unlikely to have time to render at a high frame rate and then downsample, as you could just display the original high framerate. This means that games etc. will look pretty bad at a low framerate even if you're just watching them. In general, with film, if it looks good in real life, it'll look good at an arbitrary framerate, but will be better if it's higher. If it looks like a guy in a rubber orc costume, it may well continue to look like a guy in a rubber orc costume at a high framerate, but with a load of blur and a low framerate it may convince people, and the same applies with poorly done CGI - the low framerate covers up bad animation, and the blur covers up low poly meshes and mediocre lighting and shading. One final point - in certain cases, films use low framerates with short exposures for certain effects, e.g. in Saving Private Ryan's opening battle scene, this was done in order to make everything seem surreal and panicky. This isn't wanted in most games, so more frames is good.

**NKF98** · 05-05-2015, 07:57 AM #6

(05-04-2015, 10:31 AM)sunnaryt Wrote: and a lot of the time is like 0.5 fps

lol i don't think so one frame every 2 seconds would be a picture gallery

**AnyOldName3** · 05-05-2015, 08:01 AM #7

Some anime has a really crappy framerate, though. Sometimes it's covered up by tricks like having a sword leave a long trail behind while the enemy pans across the background and the foreground character doesn't move.

**NKF98** · 05-05-2015, 08:03 AM #8

No I totally understand. If you watch old Simpsons, for example, you can see if there are people in the background they will only have one of them blink every once in awhile so they don't have to do as many frames.

DrHouse64 · (This post was last modified: 05-05-2015, 06:21 PM by DrHouse64.)

I think talk about frame rate is not very appropriate for animation.

I mean, this is not like games or movies. Animators uses many tricks like loops, static background, camera moves or zoom in static pictures, sound, music, etc... so the brain feels like timeline keeps going smoothly even if it's only one frame that is displayed for 5 seconds, but with zoom in and voice acting.

**AnyOldName3** · 05-06-2015, 07:27 AM **#10**

There are definitely times when just displaying more frames would help more than any combination of tricks, and some of the tricks would work even better at a higher framerate. I do see your point, though. 120 FPS as standard in realistic stuff cinema is going to have a much bigger effect than 60 in things which are hand-drawn.