|
Your donations keep RPGWatch running!
15 vs 30 vs 60 fps
August 14th, 2015, 08:20
I wonder if seeing the difference is related to having the technology to label the difference. I'm thinking of how studies have shown that people who don't have words for colors, don't actually see that color (Google it, I'm lazy and late for work). But back in the old days, say watching tv or a movie at the theater, we wouldn't have had the framework to talk about fps, much less be able to notice a slight difference. Now we can label the differences and maybe that helps us see the differences as well.
August 14th, 2015, 09:11
It's hard to say, but I think we all see the difference between 15 and 30, or 30 and 60. It might not "register" or "matter" to us all, but I have a feeling I could sit down with any one of you and get you to acknowledge the difference, just by pointing it out a few times.
Guest
August 15th, 2015, 05:49
Originally Posted by DArtagnanBetween 15 and 30 I notice the difference. It might or might not affect my game experience depending on the game, but I do notice it. From 30 to 60 I may notice the difference if I stare at screens hard enough and looking left and right for it, but it doesn't affect my game experience.
It's hard to say, but I think we all see the difference between 15 and 30, or 30 and 60. It might not "register" or "matter" to us all, but I have a feeling I could sit down with any one of you and get you to acknowledge the difference, just by pointing it out a few times.
August 15th, 2015, 08:55
Like sound, I think the brain is quick to adapt and smooth out the experience. So if you see 30fps and 60 fps side by side or someone points it out you may notice.
Don't forget microstutter either, I'm more concerned about that then fps.
And I'm with wolfie on this one as far as my own tolerance go.
Don't forget microstutter either, I'm more concerned about that then fps.
And I'm with wolfie on this one as far as my own tolerance go.
Keeper of the Watch
Original Sin 2 Donor
August 16th, 2015, 18:40
Originally Posted by UnrestigeredThis is blatant misinformation, and it stems from the fact that people don't "notice" the low frame rate of movies and such. We perceive even 24 fps as "fluid motion" (there are a few more things to take in mind when it comes to movies & TV shows, like the inherent motion blur that happens when you record something the way we (still) record movies which helps hide the low FPS, and no soap operas don't look like crap due to being shot in 60 fps, there are other reasons for that), but we are very much able to "see" higher frame rates. In fast moving scenes, anyone who is used to playing fast games (shooters and such) can generally tell the difference between 60 & 120 fps.
I read a long time ago that people's eyes can't process more than 30 fps, so any more is a waste.
To me, I think 30 fps is "playable", but in fast paced action games, it does impact my enjoyment. The difference between 60 & 120 fps does not matter as much (so I see no reason to go out and buy a screen that supports 120 fps at this time, considering how expensive they are).
August 16th, 2015, 20:25
Originally Posted by FnordNoone really proved how fast pic processing over the optical nerve is.
This is blatant misinformation
Noone will ever know because our brain adapts and fills gaps between two static pics.
30 FPS max? I'll just LOL on his statement.
Or perhaps I shouldn't? Maybe his brain actually *is* that slow. Would explain his pathetic trolling attempts.
24 FPS is probably the bare minimum for passive enjoyment of motion blur. Minimum.
For playing games or anything interactive it's simply not enough.
--
Toka Koka
Toka Koka
August 17th, 2015, 16:50
Originally Posted by joxerYou can go into sub 24 range, and it will still look passable. Hand drawn animation is sometimes drawn at 12 FPS, without it being unwatchable.
24 FPS is probably the bare minimum for passive enjoyment of motion blur. Minimum.
For playing games or anything interactive it's simply not enough.
Anyway, what FPS you can see is not down to brain speed, but it has more to do with training, and also how well our eyes work. People can "train" themselves to be able to see the individual frames of a 24 fps movie as it's being played (either intentionally or unintentionally), and a fresh young set of eyes is more likely to be able to spot the difference between 120 and 60 fps. 120 fps is not the upper limit that you can achieve either, but you are experiencing diminishing return the higher your FPS gets, so it's questionable if it's worth trying to push past 120 fps at this point in time, as the equipment needed just ends up being too expensive. And my personal guess is that they'll try to achieve a PPi closer to that of phone screens (seriously, phone screens are vastly superior from a PPi point of view to the monitors we generally use) before they try to really push past 120 fps.
An interesting side note is that the thing that most people first react to when they use a 120 fps screen is how smooth it is to move windows around. This is something that even those who can't really perceive the difference between 60 & 120 fps in say Battlefield 4 can spot.
August 17th, 2015, 20:09
Originally Posted by joxerWait a second, my brain is slow? From the king of contradiction? Do you know what the difference between a console game and a phone game is? I can make calls on the phone when I am done playing whatever tripe I was playing.
Noone really proved how fast pic processing over the optical nerve is.
Noone will ever know because our brain adapts and fills gaps between two static pics.
30 FPS max? I'll just LOL on his statement.
Or perhaps I shouldn't? Maybe his brain actually *is* that slow. Would explain his pathetic trolling attempts.
24 FPS is probably the bare minimum for passive enjoyment of motion blur. Minimum.
For playing games or anything interactive it's simply not enough.
You don't work, you spend all day on console internet sites, you spend taxpayers money on all the big budget console games the companies you claim to hate come out with, you buy their DLC, and then call them evil and complain about DLC. You are supporting what you supposedly hate. Stop playing console games and play real games. Like crpgs. And when I say "you are funding" I meant taxpayers by proxy.
Maybe if you worked 60 hours a week like me you'd have a hard time telling the difference between 30 and 60 fps.
I am instating a new rule. Only people that have a job and an IQ above 80 can post in my threads, so that rules you out on both accounts. No more posting in my threads, got it?
I'll say it in window-licker so there isn't a chance of you not understanding - No moor posty talky in me word clicky things boo, ig da nee.
Now stop being an internet bully and start submitting resumes to fast food restaurants.
Banned
August 19th, 2015, 12:17
Originally Posted by UnrestigeredBy this time you should have realized I have an authority problem.
I am instating a new rule. Only people that have a job and an IQ above 80 can post in my threads, so that rules you out on both accounts. No more posting in my threads, got it?
Unlike you, I troll on EA, Ubisoft and other actual scam companies sites and unlike you, I'm still skilled in it enough they didn't ban me.
Unless you didn't check my profiles on official game and companies forums, here's the pic their community managers see in my acc details:

Your dictator wannabe rules, to me, are irrelevant. If you have a problem with me here, there is a nice RPGwatch forum feature called ignore. Use it.
Or simply avoid the nightmare by returning to your source of inspiration - Codex.
--
Toka Koka
Toka Koka
|
|
All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:50.
