30-60 Vs 60 Vs 60+ FPS, What is the true?

[SirPauly]

I am satisfied in the 40's over-all and have trouble deciphering anything above 40-45 -- been like this since 1996. Tried guessing frame-rate over 40 -- always way off. Decided to run frame limiters to see where smooth frame-rate was for me and it was 40-45.

Even will settle for less performance for sustained minimums if the gaming experience, immersion bar is raised.

There is no absolute truth for all just subjective truth based on taste and tolerance for each individual.

[lehtv]

Do you have vsync on or off?

[lehtv]

Originally Posted by UaVaj

a video playback is fluid at 30fps becuase each frame is played back perfectly at 33.33ms. that is why nobody ever complains about video output being flawed at 30fps.

No, video playback is fluid because of motion blur. If TV and movies didn't have motion blur - imagine an animated flim without motion blur added in editing - they would look just as choppy as games at 30fps.

rendering is a different animal. there is input device lag, there is software lag, there internet lag, there is processing hardware lag, and especially monitor lag all working against video ouptput being fluid.

Lag has nothing to do with fluidity (i.e. consistency and smoothness), it's just a delay.

[ICDP]

Originally Posted by UaVaj

for the last time. fps it NOT the culprit. never has. at 30fps a typical human will see fluid motion. that is a proven fact ever since human figure out the flip book playback. no need to reinvent the wheel.

Are you seriously saying 30 FPS is the most a human needs to see to make things fluid? Many here would argue and I would be one of them, it might give the feeling of being fluid, but not as well as 40, 50 or 60 FPS. I can accept 30 FPS as playable because it gives a reasonably smooth approximation, but it most certainly isn't fluid.

Originally Posted by UaVaj

rendering is far from perfection, compare to a video playback.

a video playback is fluid at 30fps becuase each frame is played back perfectly at 33.33ms. that is why nobody ever complains about video output being flawed at 30fps..

This is incorrect, video playback is perceived to be fluid at 30 FPS (or 25 FPS PAL) because it uses special motion blurring techniques to blur between frames. Without the special blurring it looks horrible, no way you can claim that video playback at 25 FPS would be anything other than a juttery mess without the special blurring techniques.

Look at these comparisons to see the difference between 24 and 60 FPS movies. Now if you claim there is no difference please go and see your Optemetrists

http://www.hfrmovies.com/high-frame-...xample-videos/

Originally Posted by UaVaj

rendering is a different animal. there is input device lag, there is software lag, there internet lag, there is processing hardware lag, and especially monitor lag all working against video ouptput being fluid. to allievate all those down falls. higher frame rate is needed so that there are more frames to pick from. although the eye can only pick out about ~30fps. at 120fps (8.3ms) - there is 75% chance the eye will not catch the flaws, hence better fluid motion. at 60fps (16.67ms) - there is 50% chance the eye will not catch the flaws. at 30fps (33.33ms) - there is no extra frame to deviate such flaws, the eye will catch all flaws any flaws.

That's why I asked is it possible the feeling of smoothness between 60 FPS and 120 FPS is more to do with input lag? Why you highlighted my quote, shot it down as BS then stated the same thing in more words is astonishing. Oh and please stop with this BS that 30 FPS is all the human eye can see, it makes you look silly.

Originally Posted by UaVaj

if you trained yourself to "highly" recognize those rendered video ouput flaws. you simply set yourself to need a monitor that deilver 120fps. you simply set yourself to need multi gpu that deliver 120fps. aka the perfectionist.

this is why one can enjoy the same quality gaming at 120fps all the while other can can enjoy the same quality gaming at 40fps.

rendering is simply not perfect.

Oh dear, I don't know how to respond to this one. Now people train themselves to see "flaws" and that is why they see 40 FPS as not fluid? I can accept 40 FPS as fluid, but 60 FPS is noticeably more fluid. That is not due to me training myself to "see" more FPS, it's just a fact.

[UaVaj]

some of you are obviously machines. more power to u.

[bergami]

I have to agree with him in some points, we get used to something better...

For example, if I show my grand mother a game at 30 FPS, she will see no problems, even if I see them,

However, if I show her 60 FPS, she might see a big difference.

At this point, she only would see problems at 30, because she saw 60.

So, if you clain 60 FPS being not enough, its because you saw something better, like 120 FPS.

And I am sure, if someone gets used to 240 FPS @ 240Hz this guy will most likely think that 60 FPS is trash and 120 is so, so...

So that stuff kind of depends on each person who had experienced something better

[Spin5000]

When i was like 18, before I was too into pc gaming, refresh rates, fps, etc, even then, I was so disappointed when I got Project Gotham Racing 2 for Xbox 1, the instant I started the game I could tell it was 30fps, and PGR 1 was at 60fps so I was so used to that beautiful fluidity that it made me notice INSTANTLY that PGR2 felt like crap compared to the first one.

Now 30fps, in general, doesnt feel like crap, and PGR2 later didn't feel like crap once I got used to it and told myself to forget about the first one's 60fps, but it does feel (and look) like crap when you directly compare it to 60fps.

Again, I noticed this INSTANTLY at a time when fps, refresh rates, etc were things I never used to even think about.

[bergami]

Damm, because of this topic I started to try to put 60 FPS (Stable) with V-Sync in all games. Had to put most of them at 1680x1050 and "high" and because of that I started to see so little spikes I had before and how fluid it feels now...

Hopefully 720p is not that bad at the graphics, almost the same as 1080p...

=/

[Borealis7]

I am a Samsung S23A700D owner, and if any of you can't tell the difference between 60Hz and 120Hz (on a true 120Hz monitor) then I feel sorry for you and the way you see the world stuttering around you.

[VulgarDisplay]

Originally Posted by Borealis7

I am a Samsung S23A700D owner, and if any of you can't tell the difference between 60Hz and 120Hz (on a true 120Hz monitor) then I feel sorry for you and the way you see the world stuttering around you.

I have that same monitor and it's amazing.

[nextJin]

Originally Posted by UaVaj

some of you are obviously machines. more power to u.

I'll take that as a compliment and acknowledgement that you're wrong. There is an obvious difference in fluidity, smoothness, etc between 30, 60 and 120. If my wife can see the difference with her horrible vision, non gaming self then anyone can.

It slaps you in the face it's so obvious.

[UaVaj]

please lay off that stuff. does not matter how much you take. you will never be a machine. even if you "think" you are.

[nextJin]

Originally Posted by UaVaj

please lay off that stuff. does not matter how much you take. you will never be a machine. even if you "think" you are.

what is the rolleyes command again?

?

EDIT: Yep thats it

[ICDP]

Originally Posted by UaVaj

please lay off that stuff. does not matter how much you take. you will never be a machine. even if you "think" you are.

You keep trying to sound smart but instead give the impression tat you are a troll with nothing substantial to say.

You have not once addressed any arguments, or offered any rebuttal that wasn't an outright childish attack. I linked to an article with many comparison video clips of 24 vs 60 FPS and you never had the decency to respond. PAL runs at 25 FPS and looks smooth due to smoothness/blurring techniques designed to "fool" human eyes and brains into seeing fluid animation. Without the special techniques it would look like the video clips from my earlier link.

Instead of the childish trolling why don't you provide a valid argument/rebuttal. I'm open to persuasion if you can present valid facts.

[ICDP]

For reference 24 FPS is the standard that movies are shot at. They add special motion blur to eliminate the juddery mess that would exist otherwise.

So while it is possible to make 24 FPS look smooth it takes optical illusions to do it. If real life ran at 24 or even 30 FPS it would look like crap.

[Black Octagon]

120fps at 120hz for the win. I will continue to sacrifice whatever visual quality I need to sacrifice in order for my rig to maintain that framerate at my monitor's native res.

Eye candy is tasty but buttery smoothness is better any day of the week

[MrK6]

Didn't read the whole thread, but a few points:

1) The human eye can see well over 200FPS given the right conditions. Our vision is based more so on contrast and movement, but you can certainly put frames well over 60FPS to use.

2) Fluidity (or lack thereof) is extremely subjective and is the root cause of a lot of the discussions/arguments around here. Some people see it and are bothered by it, others can't and aren't, some can see it and aren't bothered by it.

3) Just because your monitor can't display more than 60/120FPS doesn't mean those extra frames won't be put to use. Higher FPS render side and server side can make a game "feel" more fluid even though it doesn't LOOK more fluid.

4) Rendering below your refresh rate is easily detectable by most people. That's why Vsync exits - tearing drives some people nuts (it doesn't bother me, however).

5) To me, it doesn't matter how "smooth" an image is if it looks like crap in the first place. That's why I have an IPS monitor. But that just is an example of the many contrasting opinions on this subject.

[UaVaj]

Originally Posted by ICDP

You keep trying to sound smart but instead give the impression tat you are a troll with nothing substantial to say.

You have not once addressed any arguments, or offered any rebuttal that wasn't an outright childish attack. I linked to an article with many comparison video clips of 24 vs 60 FPS and you never had the decency to respond. PAL runs at 25 FPS and looks smooth due to smoothness/blurring techniques designed to "fool" human eyes and brains into seeing fluid animation. Without the special techniques it would look like the video clips from my earlier link.

Instead of the childish trolling why don't you provide a valid argument/rebuttal. I'm open to persuasion if you can present valid facts.

here is your claim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_blur

do i have to quote it for you or can you actually read?

[ICDP]

Originally Posted by UaVaj

here is your claim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_blur

do i have to quote it for you or can you actually read?

Go look up the word obtuse and get back to me if you can work out which definition applies to you. Every single time you post you come across as an aggressive troll with nothing to add.

Yet again you failed to offer a rebuttal and in fact your post helped my argument and negated yours. You aren't very good at this debating lark are you?

[2is]

I can most certainly tell a difference between 30-60 fps, and people need to stop talking about what the "human eye" is capable of, because just about everyone who puts a number on what the "human eye" is capable of has no idea what they're talking about and just repeating what they read someone else who has no idea what they're talking about said.

[UaVaj]

Originally Posted by ICDP

Go look up the word obtuse and get back to me if you can work out which definition applies to you. Every single time you post you come across as an aggressive troll with nothing to add.

Yet again you failed to offer a rebuttal and in fact your post helped my argument and negated yours. You aren't very good at this debating lark are you?

especially you - cannot read, however have the nerve call troll.

you and your followers cannot seem to seperate between (1) fps and (2) limitation of rendering.

take a regular cheap video camera (a 30fps camera). go outside. hit he record button. come back inside. playback. is the playback fluid?

take that same camera. turn on computer. pick any game. cap max frame to 10fps. hit the record button. playback. is the playback fluid?

take that same camera. turn on computer. pick any game. cap max frame to 20fps. hit the record button. playback. is the playback fluid?

take that same camera. turn on computer. pick any game. cap max frame to 30fps. hit the record button. playback. is the playback fluid?

take that same camera. turn on computer. pick any game. cap max frame to 60fps. hit the record button. playback. is the playback fluid?

take a same camera. turn on computer. pick any game. cap max frame to 120fps. hit the record button. playback. is the playback fluid?

for the last time. stop blaming fps for poor rendering.

get some education please.

[ICDP]

Originally Posted by UaVaj

especially you - cannot read, however have the nerve call troll.

you and your followers cannot seem to seperate between (1) fps and (2) limitation of rendering.

take a regular cheap video camera (a 30fps camera). go outside. hit he record button. come back inside. playback. is the playback fluid?

take that same camera. turn on computer. pick any game. cap max frame to 10fps. hit the record button. playback. is the playback fluid?

take that same camera. turn on computer. pick any game. cap max frame to 20fps. hit the record button. playback. is the playback fluid?

take that same camera. turn on computer. pick any game. cap max frame to 30fps. hit the record button. playback. is the playback fluid?

take that same camera. turn on computer. pick any game. cap max frame to 60fps. hit the record button. playback. is the playback fluid?

take a same camera. turn on computer. pick any game. cap max frame to 120fps. hit the record button. playback. is the playback fluid?

for the last time. stop blaming fps for poor rendering.

get some education please.

Lol, I linked to video clips comparing 24 vs 60 FPS and it shows a definite difference. I can do the same for 30 vs 60 FPS if you want? I have not been using gaming/rendering FPS in my argument for many posts now. This isn't only about gaming, it's about if the human eye can notice the difference between low and high FPS.

[2is]

Originally Posted by UaVaj

especially you - cannot read, however have the nerve call troll.

you and your followers cannot seem to seperate between (1) fps and (2) limitation of rendering.

take a regular cheap video camera (a 30fps camera). go outside. hit he record button. come back inside. playback. is the playback fluid?

take that same camera. turn on computer. pick any game. cap max frame to 10fps. hit the record button. playback. is the playback fluid?

take that same camera. turn on computer. pick any game. cap max frame to 20fps. hit the record button. playback. is the playback fluid?

take that same camera. turn on computer. pick any game. cap max frame to 30fps. hit the record button. playback. is the playback fluid?

take that same camera. turn on computer. pick any game. cap max frame to 60fps. hit the record button. playback. is the playback fluid?

take a same camera. turn on computer. pick any game. cap max frame to 120fps. hit the record button. playback. is the playback fluid?

for the last time. stop blaming fps for poor rendering.

get some education please.

Been reading through the posts, i'd have to give the troll tag to you good sir.

Who gives a shit if the difference between 60 and 120 fps is because of the actual fps or because the increased fps is masking other flaws? The end result is it gives a better experience and people CAN tell the difference. Most gamers don't give a flying flock of flamingos as to the science behind it.

[UaVaj]

Originally Posted by 2is

Been reading through the posts, i'd have to give the troll tag to you good sir.

Who gives a shit if the difference between 60 and 120 fps is because of the actual fps or because the increased fps is masking other flaws? The end result is it gives a better experience and people CAN tell the difference. Most gamers don't give a flying flock of flamingos as to the science behind it.

at least you can read and can comprehend unlike that other fool.

if you do not care about the science behind it, point taken. simply skip those posts. for other - they may want to know the science.

as for the troll tag, each to its own. btw - try to keep your post at a professional level.

[BFG10K]

This is still going on? Wow.

Someone would have to have a serious vision disorder not to see the differences here:

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

(In the second one, be sure to turn off motion blur in the two examples. Also pick the soccer ball as it really shows a difference.)