60FPS? 80FPS? Who Cares!

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: futuristicmonkey
<blockquote>Quote
Originally posted by: Pete

Remember, there's a big difference between watching a movie on film and playing a 3D game. Film isn't interactive, so you won't notive the "lag" between input and response of low framerates. Film also captures motion blur, somewhat alleviating the perception of jerky motion at the low framerate of 24-30fps. But I can certainly notice the limits of film's low 24fps rate in fast-panning scenes. I'm guessing the only thing stopping Hollywood from switching to 60fps film cameras (which Sony has developed) is the almost-tripled cost of film, probably no small amount in a large film with lots of takes per scene.

Huh? Couldn't u just run the film through faster? Why would it cost more to make 60fps film instead of 30fps? It doesn't make sense.[/quote]



Get some common sense. 60 fps would use almost three times the film since you need almost three times the number of frames of film. If you run film film faster you need more film....common sense. Get some.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: SickBeast
My mind can process up to about 85FPS. I know this because I can tell the difference between 70hz and 85hz on my CRT monitor, but above that I can't tell the difference.

Refresh rate != FPS.

Tell me about it. How many times does that need to be said before these nitwits get it. The other thing I wonder about is how stupid people can argue for FPS above their monitor refresh rates.

If you can get a constant, solid 80 fps without any dips then you really can't ask for more in terms of frame rate. So people stop bragging about how you get 200fps when your monitor only refreshes 85 times a second.

I think 85fps with 85hz refresh and VSYNC on would be as ideal as it will need to be.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: SickBeast
My mind can process up to about 85FPS. I know this because I can tell the difference between 70hz and 85hz on my CRT monitor, but above that I can't tell the difference.

Refresh rate != FPS.

Yes I know this. What is your point?

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: SickBeast
My mind can process up to about 85FPS. I know this because I can tell the difference between 70hz and 85hz on my CRT monitor, but above that I can't tell the difference.

Refresh rate != FPS.

Yes I know this. What is your point?

Seeing the monitor flicker has nothing to do with detecting motion in a scene. It's the same as annoying old flourescent lights at 60Hz.
The difference between 60Hz and 100Hz refresh rate is less strain on your eyes and no headache.
The difference between 60 and 100 FPS is better motion blur.

Look at some new stuff. Like anything on MTV. It's all choppy, even though not much is going on. Short shutter speed, like seeing 30FPS in a game.
Now watch an older action movie, say from the 70s or 80s. It's pretty smooth.
Now realize that the movie actually has fewer FPS.

 

[Description]

the human mind cannot comprehend over 60fps

Bullshit.

the eye cannot see more than 60 fps AT THE VERY MOST

Bullshit.

Your eye refreshes 30 times a second.

Bullshit.

Film isn't interactive, so you won't notive the "lag" between input and response of low framerates.

It's noticeable, but hardly distracting. You get used to it after a while.

Educated guess: Try to creat a motion blur with a hand or say a ceiling fan. It only blurs because it is out of focus. If you focus in on one of the blades on the ceiling fan, you can see, it has no blur.

No, it stops blurring because it stops moving. When following an object with your eyes, net motion is zero.

Educated guess: Try to creat a motion blur with a hand or say a ceiling fan. It only blurs because it is out of focus. If you focus in on one of the blades on the ceiling fan, you can see, it has no blur. It's a perception thing. Some things move to quick for us to focus on. It may also be complicated to implement motion blur. Have you ever play NFSU. Too much motion blur. Every bit of motion gets a blur. That's not real.

No, high speed film for video is impractical in most cases. Motion blur is a good thing for film. Without it, the low frame rate would be more noticeable, like playing a video game with an old graphics card.

Motion blur is to frame rate what antialiasing is to resolution.

Motion blur would be bad for a FPS. Unlike in video games, you aren't constanty turning your head to acquire new targets, you lock onto an object with your eyes before you move your body, meaning no net motion, meaning no motion blur. Blur would not add realism to a FPS, only frustration.
A video game can't detect where you're focusing your eyes, so it's best to leave it off at all times.

:|

 

[BFG10K]

Than tell me, what am I supposed to find.

You're supposed to find evidence that disproves everything you're saying. But because you don't know what you're talking about you don't know what it is you're supposed to be disproving.

There is an LCD capable of 85Hz refresh rates.

No there isn't.

I dont understand how people can say they can see the dif between 80 and 120, when most monitors dont even go up that high.

If you turn off vsync then you get more partial frames and they show more information than less complete frames.