Oh yeah I totally agree with you. I responded to the wrong person, I meant most of that for OP 
2 Likes
ah that makes sense.
1 Like
The only difference is that if you work in higher FPS the animation seems like butter-smooth, while at 24 it feels like is jerky or jagged.
Though I am not exactly sure if there is a difference between ‘animation fps’ and ‘rendering fps’ in Blender, first time I though of that, and actually this trick of disabling the FPS limit was something I had not figured out @JSM.
In game programming is standard practice to differentiate these update/render fps, in order to have reasonable updating logic, while getting humongous amount of rendering fps.
Also I am not sure how 24 FPS help blender, it would be mostly in terms of having a WYSIWYG previewing of the animation, so you know what you animate and what you get during animation render.
On the contrary if you focus only on exporting animation for game engines, 24 FPS is somewhat pointless, because actually games are meant to be rendered at 60FPS in the most standard way, other than you could argue even at 120FPS for certain monitors, but just let us leave it at 60FPS for simplicity. But as I said, 24 FPS is only in terms of time keeping, but 60FPS is actually on what you see is rendered on the screen.
First time actually I though of this, am I getting somewhere?
For traditional hand-drawn animation, it’s done at 24 FPS. Most of the time, this is what people are going for with grease pencil, so I assumed OP is as well.
This is true if you’re doing animations for a game engine - if you’re just doing great pencil animations as video, the final result is going to be 24 FPS (assuming you’re going for a hand-drawn look, see above)
There isn’t, you can see in the video how the speed of the bouncing ball is directly related to the FPS. This is a major difference between Blender and game engines, frame-based animation is explicitly tied to the “animation FPS”, which makes the animation FPS and the rendering FPS the same
1 Like
In the 2D traditional animation is used often only 12fps.
3 Likes
For some specific reason it looks best at 12 FPS.
But why is that, I don’t know exactly. This I have to look at.
Movies definitely look best at 24 FPS.
I can’t say for sure exactly why, other than within 100+ years of film making and experimentation, it has been decided and proven that this number works. In both technical and psychological-ergonomic way.
Just remember what happened to “The Hobbit” where they filmed it at 48 FPS, and it was a huge flop. It caused thousands of viewers get nauseous. 
1 Like
It doesn’t though.
12 is the least amount of frames where the movement still looks like movement and not a series of images in progression, that’s why animators settled for 12.
It is “good enough”, but if animators would actually animate everything with 24 frames it would look better and more fluid. No doubt about it, but I can understand the economics that leads to this.
I am not sold on this either.
It’s largely psychological - people got used to it and it has become part of the expectation.
I haven’t seen a movie with 48 FPS in cinema so I can’t really judge it, but I am willing to give James Cameron a chance to convince me that 48 FPS + true filmed stereoscopic 3D + digital HDR camera’s can give a more immersive image and therefore - experience.
1 Like
There are couple of 60 fps movies like The hobbit for example and Transformers.
For some reason I always missed those, but I have seen 60fps footage and I am kinda conflicted about the whole 24 vs 48 or 60 fps.
I have heard people complain about the Hobbit movies, but never anybody complaining about other movies which leads me to believe there are other factors at play here…
1 Like
Whether you’re doing “retro” animation at 12 FPS, normal animation at 24fps, watching something in theaters at 60fps, I think we can all agree, you don’t need to be animating at 1000 FPS in Grease Pencil 
If 60 FPS is the upper limit of what you can see in a theater, than 60 FPS should be the target maximum speed for grease pencil, and it seems like grease pencil hits that easily
1 Like
Apparently there are even 120 fps movies. Gemini Man for example.
I think high frame rates can have a nice look but so can 24 fps. I bet this is also true for traditional animation.
In games it is different. I can’t think of a game I have seen where more is not better.
1 Like
If you have a relatively new TV you can have a taste by enabling the frame interpolation. Which is a feature that all new TVs have.
Though it not exactly the real deal, because is a fake interpolation done in terms of hardware. So you can’t say is 100% what the director and production department approved.
But it sure is weird, and it looks odd. Not that it causes any distress or nausea, but it does not look right at the same time.
As you said is mostly that we have “learnt” how movies are supposed to look and what we expect so perhaps is more of a mental issue rather than technical.
In technical terms, the wise choice is to move on 48 or 60 FPS, but actually what is holding it back, is whether or not actually is a better choice. In subjective terms 24 always wins.
I stopped owning TV’s 20 years ago when I realized the TV program is shit and infested with constant advertising and propaganda and its only gonna get worse but I stress-tested that feature on my parents new TV.
I’ve seen some old black and white movies with frame-interpolation and other image effects and I kinda liked it.
There are also some programs/codecs/filters you can install on your PC to get that feature.
I remember seeing one of the new Neon Genesis Evangelion Movies in 60 fps and it was a blast.
Very interesting that you liked it.
It looks like that your brain has been hard-wired and reconfigured to accept high fps from pc and smart phones.
Compared to for example for me that I have TV exposure since 90s-00s-10s still I can’t accept high FPS easily. It looks odd and not correct in a subjective way.
But I will have to agree that about 10 years now I have cut down all TV by 95% say for example I might just watch a movie per year, or a show per month. And it keeps getting higher.
In my opinion most people cant really spot a difference between 60fps and higher.
Same nonsense like UHD, <5% of peope have eyes to spot the pixel difference in these high resolutions.
The reason all want more fps has it origin in monitors that have fixed fps and you want to match your gfx ouput to that. If you want to play something at higher fps cause you think it looks smoother or mostly you get a higher input rate for multiplayer shooter an advantage (which is coded out of modern games afaik), you see no difference for 60 fps or 120 fps, what you probably see is when your gfx card missed a frame and the previous frame is shown twice or tripple, that is what you spot, not the frames itself.
2 Likes
To be fair, we did not complain about things like low framerates, low-quality VFX, or early 3D game graphics (with pixelated, waving textures) because the quality issues were more or less masked by them being on a CRT display (which had fuzzy pixels that were slightly rectangular even, low resolutions, varying levels of ‘snow’, and a somewhat low refresh rate). Many small flaws in the production were simply not visible.
The fact that these things seem to be worse than we remember is partly due to us now having displays with ultra-sharp pixel borders, wide viewing angles, and fast refresh rates.
I remember the most standard resolution was 1024x768 whoever could put this one was top of the top. For those kids with slow graphics cards it was 640x480 all the way (the basic minimum) and all billinear filtering without antialias.
However say for example the typical game of that time in 1998 was Quake2, and still PS1 was the king of all gaming, thus you got something like Silent Hill 1, or Crash Bandicoot 1. So either way there was no possible way to think what was HD, or not.
Most likely you would have a 2K MSPaint image and try to sell it as HD. LOL!