PDA

View Full Version : The FPS debate


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

j0j081
08-01-05, 06:10 AM
So how many fps (frames per second) can we see? Old article but very interesting. Beware its fairly technical at least at this time of the morning. I posted in here because this is where the fps junkies hang out most of the time.

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

gram_vaz
08-01-05, 06:42 AM
bah! i'm still sticking to eyes can only see 30fps. articles like that are written by pc enthusiasts. for the time being i'm believing what the general consensus is with the doctors.

j0j081
08-01-05, 06:59 AM
I don't really know what to believe. I only notice in games when it gets under the 30-40 range. Although it's nice to know I'm getting in the 100s of fps sometimes I wouldn't be able to tell without a benchmark proggie running.

gram_vaz
08-01-05, 07:10 AM
i've done testing on my own just in case i would notice the difference but i can't even notice the difference between 25fps and 30fps much less between 25fps and 80fps.

i remember once in nfsu2 on my 9600xt i thought i was getting 60fps+ then when i ran fraps i was shocked that the average fps was 23-25fps.

Bluekkis
08-01-05, 07:53 AM
Human eyes fps is quite low as only 24 is needed to make illusion of moving picture. Only thing higher than.. let's say 60 fps.. will only reduce the chance for eye catching up "blank" frame and those makes image appear more stable. anything over 100 fps dosen't make a difference.

gram_vaz
08-01-05, 08:01 AM
^ movies work in that manner. they are solid pictures displayed on screen one at a time 24fps. there is no blurring but the human eye does naturally blur things.

MUYA
08-01-05, 08:06 AM
you sure about that? i am sure i read somewhere that there is a slight blur due to exposure time..ie shutter click...

macatak
08-01-05, 08:19 AM
I think once FPS drop below 30 you start to notice it, just my own expierence :)

Zurble
08-01-05, 08:31 AM
thoose who saw my posts on Q4 60 fps cap knows my position :), it was a hot discussion.
anyway, thoose who realy tried to check by themselves, knows we can still see differences between 80 fps and 120 fps. There where a lot of program to show a split screen spining cube running at different fps for comparison.
the one spinning at 80 fps still looked shaky compared to 120 fps.
of course your monitor have to be able to run the 120 fps, thus running at least at 120 Hz. You absolutly can't see any difference on an LCD/TFT or on a 60Hz tube, this is pure common sense.

the key is WHAT type of game you play. The more fast moves you do, the more fps you need.
a race game don't need more then 30 fps because frame delta angle is not more then a few degrees.
BF2 style games are FPS and needs at least 60 but not many more since you rarely do 180 moves in all direction like in 1-1 Q3 games where you need at least 100 fps (nothing to do with that **** argument about tricks)
like it's said on 100fps.com (it's an exemple, i am not fanatic of this site) some air fighter can even recognize aircraft shown to them for only 1/220 of seconds.
a flashed light in the dark can even be seen at 1/500 th of seconds.

By the way, movies are blurred at 24 fps, just press pause on your DVD player to check by yourself, and no doctor said you can't see past 30 fps. and look carefully when the camera travels on a movie: even with blur it is shaky.
Yes human eyes do bluring himself too, but it works only in a continuous movement caption. In discrete mode, this bluring doesn't work:
it's like in the mud: if you put your finger in the mud and displace it 1 meter away, there will be a clear line drawn (blur effect: it keep tracks of you finger movement).
but if you move your finger 1 meter away but only every 1/60 th second, you'll only see a doted line (mud blur doesn't work anymore)-> transition is visible.
the faster you'll move your finger the less dot you'll see (fast games).

gram_vaz
08-01-05, 08:47 AM
^ you remind me of said53 from rage3d.

btw, the 24fps from theaters and the 24fps from dvds work in completely different ways. in theaters they solid frames while the dvd is limited by the televisions we use to display them. and depending on where you pause it the blur may be due to natural motion blur.

Zurble
08-01-05, 08:53 AM
you are wrong about theater solid frames. they are the same as DVD: blured.
they use some tricks to avoid flickering (displaying the same frame several times, for human eyes remanescence).
this trick is only to avoid us seing the transistion between movie frames and black frames (necessary for the next frame to be positioned)

what do you mean by natural motion blur???
this is motion blur on the pelicule, not on your eyes. and this is not natural, this is a technique for tricking eyes (exposure -> 1/24th second to keep it continuous)

gram_vaz
08-01-05, 08:55 AM
in the theater it's solid frames. it's on dvd where some frames are repeated because you need more than 24fps for ntsc and pal televisions.

sorry but i don't trust that you know what you are talking about. not saying i'm a genius either. i don't claim to be a genius on this. i only believe what i have a general conception about.

but i'll leave this thread now. i always get into monkey poo flinging ego sh1tfests in threads like this...

Zurble
08-01-05, 08:58 AM
if think you mix things.
in theater a frame is repeated 3 times before goinf to black for the next frame. and they are not interlaced if this is what you mean by solid frame(which as nothing to do with bluring).
on DVD frames are interlaced (3:2 or 2:2) and depends on PAL/NTSC standard, but once again it has nothing to do with bluring.
some players can do progressive scan, thus no more interlace, like in theater, but agin....nothing to do with blur

but i'll leave this thread now. i always get into monkey poo flinging ego sh1tfests in threads like this...

you mean like the thing you just did? I am not the one mixing interlacing and bluring....

jolle
08-01-05, 08:59 AM
TVs interlaced 25 and 30 fps displays are acctually working at twice that rate since they are Interlaced.
Odd fields updated 25 times per second, Even Fields 25 timer second after eachother.
So 25 fps on TV (PAL) contains 50 fps worth of data, and is updated 50 times per second, altho not the entire image at the same time as a computer Monitor.

Zurble
08-01-05, 09:04 AM
yes but it's like in the doom3 engine, it's only frame repetition, and doesn't help making it smoother.
tha's displaying 25 frame at 50 Hz. it's the same as displaying 25 frame at 25 Hz (independantly of the de-interlace process)

displaying BF2 at 2-3 fps on a monitor that does 100 Hz doesn't smooth the game at all. and displaying it in interlaced or deinterlaced mode doesn't change anything to the smooth. the only thing is that in interlaced mode you can have POOR deinterlacing, and then being able to see it in frame transistion.

gram_vaz
08-01-05, 09:05 AM
you mean like the thing you just did? I am not the one mixing interlacing and bluring....
no, it's this sort of thing i mean! LOL quell down your ego son. do not assume what i said.

i did not mix interlacing and blurring. i know very well what interlaced and progressive are.

but this time i mean it! i'm gone!

jolle
08-01-05, 09:09 AM
yes but it's like in the doom3 engine, it's only frame repetition, and doesn't help making it smoother.
tha's displaying 25 frame at 50 Hz. it's the same as displaying 25 frame at 25 Hz (independantly of the de-interlace process)

You sure?
cause when you take a screenshot from Interlaced content the fields dont match up if there is movement in the image when you took it..
If it was like you say, it wouldnt be storing 50 fps worth of image data with 25 fps.
Like Even field1 = frame 1, odd field1 = Frame 2, Even field2 = Frame 3, odd field 2= frame 4.

You couldnt deinterlace 25fps content and get 50fps progressive, since that would be a flickering nightmare, you have to assemble the fields, and then your down to 25 fps again, since you need 2 fields for one complete frame.

Zurble
08-01-05, 09:11 AM
no, it's this sort of thing i mean! LOL quell down your ego son. do not assume what i said.

i did not mix interlacing and blurring. i know very well what interlaced and progressive are.

but this time i mean it! i'm gone!

first, it was your quote so i can assume what kindof guy you where pointing at.
second you are mixing things, didn't explained you solid frame point of view (because it was refering to interlacing and not bluring).
third, you leave the conversation without argumenting and with some sort of bashing (you can threat whoever you want being ignorant....prove it)

so....this is a discussion, just take it for what it is.

gram_vaz
08-01-05, 09:12 AM
yes, your right jolle, like i said, the boy doesn't know what he's talking about. he's just trying to be elitist.

/flame

gram_vaz
08-01-05, 09:12 AM
first, it was your quote so i can assume what kindof guy you where pointing at.
second you are mixing things, didn't explained you solid frame point of view (because it was refering to interlacing and not bluring).
third, you leave the conversation without argumenting and with some sort of bashing (you can threat whoever you want being ignorant....prove it)

so....this is a discussion, just take it for what it is.
again, I DID NOT MIX THINGS. quit trying to read too much into my posts. i don't care to get into a conversation with you because i don't like your manner of writing and the way you construct your posts and imo you don't grasp what your saying.

Kamel
08-01-05, 09:19 AM
bah! i'm still sticking to eyes can only see 30fps. articles like that are written by pc enthusiasts. for the time being i'm believing what the general consensus is with the doctors.

actually, i'm positive my eyes can see over 30fps because i am a video director/producer, and i can tell when my camera men have put the shutter speed to 1/30th instead of 1/60th (30fps vrs 60). i can actually tell the difference between 76 and 125, because i had my FPS limited to both of them in enemy territory and can tell. i'd be willing to prove this somehow, but i have no idea how i would.

anyway, in the least i know that i personally can see the difference between 30 and 60 fps because i have even advised other video directors to tell their camera men to watch their shutter speed.

Zurble
08-01-05, 09:21 AM
yes u did mix thing....we where talking about bluring weren't we?
and i repeat, it has nothing to do with interlacing.

for the interlacing part i still say that it doesn't smoth the movement (u still get 25 fps), it only tricks your eyes for the transisiton....but again nothing to do with blur

gram_vaz
08-01-05, 09:24 AM
actually, i'm positive my eyes can see over 30fps because i am a video director/producer, and i can tell when my camera men have put the shutter speed to 1/30th instead of 1/60th (30fps vrs 60). i can actually tell the difference between 76 and 125, because i had my FPS limited to both of them in enemy territory and can tell. i'd be willing to prove this somehow, but i have no idea how i would.

anyway, in the least i know that i personally can see the difference between 30 and 60 fps because i have even advised other video directors to tell their camera men to watch their shutter speed.
yea, i've always thought 30fps was the average but there are people out there that can see higher. for me i actually think it's lower, like i said i couldn't even tell the difference between 25fps and 30fps.

gram_vaz
08-01-05, 09:25 AM
yes u did mix thing....we where talking about bluring weren't we?
and i repeat, it has nothing to do with interlacing.

for the interlacing part i still say that it doesn't smoth the movement (u still get 25 fps), it only tricks your eyes for the transisiton....but again nothing to do with blur
wow, just wow.

when did i even utter the word 'interlacing' in the posts your referring to? what does the process where half an image is drawn for each frame has to to do with anything? do you even know what interlacing is and what it's for? hint: it's not mean for blurring effect.

Zurble
08-01-05, 09:26 AM
You sure?
cause when you take a screenshot from Interlaced content the fields dont match up if there is movement in the image when you took it..
If it was like you say, it wouldnt be storing 50 fps worth of image data with 25 fps.
Like Even field1 = frame 1, odd field1 = Frame 2, Even field2 = Frame 3, odd field 2= frame 4.

You couldnt deinterlace 25fps content and get 50fps progressive, since that would be a flickering nightmare, you have to assemble the fields, and then your down to 25 fps again, since you need 2 fields for one complete frame.

that's exactly what i said. in interlacing you only do frame repetition (except that you mix content here). thus u only have 25 fps even if you display 50 fps (interlaced).
i talk about real FPS (independant of tricks)
I know some assume that we are all english people here, but i am not. So sorry for phrase construction.