Jan 7 2010, 5:00 pm
In response to Mega fart cannon
|
|
Moonlight Memento
 |
No? Every TV I've ever seen went at 60FPS. Unless it was PAL, then 50 obviously.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC
Maybe you should learn to use Google, because he is actually right. The 60 "FPS" NTSC TVs use is FIELDS. Two fields = one frame. As such, 60 fields per second is equal to 30 FPS. | |
Some games have FPS counters. Also, I've done my fair share of research about this recently, due to playing music games frequently (people were claiming on a PAL TV it would have tons of lag, so I decided to do research).
| |
Moonlight Memento wrote:
Some games have FPS counters. Also, I've done my fair share of research about this recently, due to playing music games frequently (people were claiming on a PAL TV it would have tons of lag, so I decided to do research). I've had 'games' running at 500+ FPS. FPS counters in game are the number of frames getting rendered, not necessarily the number of frames being displayed. FPS counters are essentially just a gauge for people to use for bragging about how good their systems are. FPS isn't linear, so when you start to get more and more FPS you aren't necessarily getting as big of a performance boost as it may seem. | |
Moonlight Memento wrote:
Anything over 60FPS sucks to begin with, and why is games in quotations? There's nothing wrong with having high FPS, it just acts as a buffer before you get down to the point where you would start noticing it. Games is in quotations since just about everything was turned off making it not much of a game at that point. But, Player sprite on plain background = Insane FPS! | |
Moonlight Memento wrote:
Player sprite on plain background = ran on an emulator. Or just a game engine with the appropriate debugging tools built in. | |
Not really. A flash game I used to play had an FPS counter, it was usually at 90-110, unless I was downloading, then it was like 70-80 and I noticed intense lag. FPS counters can do more than one thing I guess.
| |
See, when I'm playing a game, it certinly *feels* like I can notice the difference between 30 and 60, it just dosen't feel as smooth. When running at 30, things appear jagged (I'm not talking about AA) but running at 60, things feel fluent.
Perhaps it's just subliminal? | |
Moonlight Memento wrote:
Not really. A flash game I used to play had an FPS counter, it was usually at 90-110, unless I was downloading, then it was like 70-80 and I noticed intense lag. FPS counters can do more than one thing I guess. FPS Counters do nothing beyond telling you how many frames are being rendered. It has nothing to do with how many are getting displayed. | |
Then I do think FPS counters would be damn near useless if it wasn't for how many you are seeing per section.
| |
Flame Sage wrote:
See, when I'm playing a game, it certinly *feels* like I can notice the difference between 30 and 60, it just dosen't feel as smooth. When running at 30, things appear jagged (I'm not talking about AA) but running at 60, things feel fluent. Jumping from one to the other it certainly is possible to notice a difference. When you drop to around 30 you enter the realm where your eyes CAN tell the difference. Going from 60 to 45 though, you probably wouldn't notice so much, if at all, while at the same time going from 30 to 25 is a big difference. The thing about 60+ FPS is it enters the realm where people's monitors/TV just don't display more than that. Basically you can take the refresh rate of your monitor and whatever Hz it's running at, that will be the maximum number of frames per second it'll display. | |
Moonlight Memento wrote:
Then I do think FPS counters would be damn near useless if it wasn't for how many you are seeing per section. Frames per second just makes a poor measurement tool because it's not linear. Assuming 1 second... 900 FPS is a frame being rendered every 1.111ms. 450 FPS is a frame being rendered every 2.222ms. It makes sense, your FPS halved, so the time its taking to render a frame has doubled. Now 60FPS, is a frame being rendered every 16.666ms. Dropping to 56.25FPS, you now have a frame being rendered every 17.777ms. It's actually the same 1.111ms decrease in rendering time as dropping from 900 to 450. | |
Android Data wrote:
Humans cannot perceive any differences after 20-30 FPS Correction: 60-80+ FPS. There exists a "flicker-fusion point" at roughly 80 FPS to where the eye perceives a constant image rather than flickering. That is, if your screen were to loop between white and black roughly 80 times per second, you would only see gray, but lower than that you would see the white/black flicker. Naturally there is some variation here and some sources would claim this number even higher than 80 (hence I said 80+), and others such as this article claim it to be closer to 60. In some cases, fast-motion sequences in PAL (50 Hz) video will show more "jaggedness" than its NTSC (60 Hz) counterpart. For this reason some newer technology effectively doubles the refresh rate of PAL devices (to 100 Hz) to reduce this factor. | |
Anything above 30 and solid(meaning it doesn't go wildly between framerates) is fine for humans. What doesn't work well for us is below 30 or rapidly changing framerates. Generally when a game feels "smooth" that is because it is frame locked/limited at either 30 or 60. I'm not going to claim to know how fast people's eyes can see but I have no doubt that a solid 60FPS is as good as is ever needed(although need and want are two different things).
There are 120hrz TVs(there have been monitors that can do that for a long time) out there now that could display at 120FPS if being driven by something capable. I'm not sure if I saw 60 and 120FPS side by side if I could tell the difference or not, but it would be cool to try("I had to upgrade the TV Honey, it was for science!"). | |
I was looking this up a little while ago, and the human eye doesn't see in FPS so there's really no limit to how fast we can perceive frames since we take in a constant stream of data. However, the less difference there is between frames, the harder it is for us to perceive the change. So if the frames change very rapidly, it will be very hard to perceive the changes between each frame since they would be so minute.
One site also pointed out how, if you were looking at a foggy, blurry picture, you wouldn't need a very high FPS since the details would be so obscured that you wouldn't be able to perceive much change in them. And if you were looking at at a wall, it wouldn't make much difference whether you were viewing it at 1000 FPS or 1 FPS, because there's hardly any visible changes. Its all about perceived differences between frames. That's also why animation with motion blur looks so much smoother. | |
