60FPS? 80FPS? Who Cares!

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
The USAF conducted experiments showing the upper limits of human perception to be around 200FPS. With any hardware out now you use double buffering at least which means you need to double that rate to eliminate lag entirely in terms of the upper limits of human perception. Does anyone have any space where they can host FPS compare? Great app for showing people that you can easily see the difference between 60FPS and 100FPS(splits you screen and has a block rotating at a constant rate allowing you to adjust the framerate for each side of the screen).

no they didn't. they flashed a single image on the screen for 1/200 of a second in a dark room, that is compleatly different than framerate in a game.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Talking about human perception within the time that image was shown not only did they catch that there was an image shown but they were able to correctly identify varrious aircraft within 1/200th of a second. It is related to FPS in a game although not exactly a direct comparison it easily demonstrates that the human eye is not close to sampling the world at 1/30th of a second.

 

[Soulkeeper]

when people say 60fps or 80fps they are most often talking about average frame rate
the thing tha concerns me most is the lows and sagging points in games
if you run 50fps you maybe spend a lot of time hitting 30fps
wheras if you run 80fps you might only dip to 60 or 70fps

therefore i like to run as much over 60fps as i can as to not get frequent sags below 30-40fps

 

[BFG10K]

You know, I actually have to say it - I really think that 18fps is all the eye can see. No, really all that stuff I said before was just me making educated guesses, but I know in my heart that 18 is the magic number.

Yet in our other discussions you demanded a minimum of 300 FPS.

Honestly, your stance is now beyond ridiculous.

Ok, dude, you are not understanding. I know that 120fps is smoother than 30fps.

That isn't what you said or implied. You said that all you need is a constant framerate and when that happens 30 FPS is all you need. That is quite clearly rubbish and you can prove this to yourself by just running the utility.

Make a comment based on facts for a change instead of constantly drearming up something new each time you're proven wrong. Try the damned program already and stop this nonsense.

If you move indoors and outdoors a lot, why not just make the minimum 40 so that your eyes don't have to adjust to another framerate each time and, therefore, take away from the experience.

Because that's a stupid idea and I'm not going to waste my time explaining why.

 

[BFG10K]

How come we can have movies and our implement motion blur, but in games that doesnt happen?

One reason is if you're shooting at an object you want it to be sharp and defined instead of it blurring all over the place.

 

[chsh1ca]

BFG hit the nail on the head. You need to know exactly where the edge of your target is to track properly. If it is blurry, you'll likely miss a lot more shots (at least in First Person Shooters). Something like picking up any kind of Sniping weapon this especially applies.

 

[kylebisme]

ya, i have been snipeing a lot in far cry multiplayer lately and i have everything on low from a few perks and 1280x960 just so i can keep the framerate respectable in zoom. for me anything under 30fps is bad but over 40fps and it doesn't mater.

 

[VIAN]

Yet in our other discussions you demanded a minimum of 300 FPS.

Honestly, your stance is now beyond ridiculous.

I was being sarcastic in the post you responded to.

And before, I said that somewhere about 300fps maybe the limit, I never mentioned a minimum.

You said that all you need is a constant framerate and when that happens 30 FPS is all you need.

No I didn't say that. I said that you need a constant framerate at a minimum of 30fps.

Because that's a stupid idea and I'm not going to waste my time explaining why.

I'm curious.

How come we can have movies and our implement motion blur, but in games that doesnt happen?

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.

 

[VIAN]

I'm still curious.

 

[BFG10K]

I was being sarcastic in the post you responded to.

That is absolutely not true. Honestly, do you think I was born yesterday or something?

No I didn't say that. I said that you need a constant framerate at a minimum of 30fps.

And you can prove this is utter rubbish by trying the program. Have you tried it yet?

I'm curious.

Do you honestly expect me to start another three page explanation that goes nowhere while you're too lazy to even try a simple program?

It's a perception thing.

That's not even remotely the reason. The reason is that film blurs multiple frames into one while FPSes do not and operate entirely on discrete frames.

 

[Cawchy87]

BFG, you seem to know more about this, than everyone else. Could you share some insites yourslef? Or mabye direct us towards some links where you read this?

 

[us3rnotfound]

I am FULLY confident in telling you that I can EASILY tell a difference between 85 Hz and 100 Hz in Windows (2d).

Needless to say, if a game is locked at 60 Hz, my eyes will start to hurt a little. I guess it's just a compromise from me being 50% deaf.

 

[THUGSROOK]

i will gladly take as many FPS as i can get on the highest refresh rate i can get ~ TYVM

(the faster it is, the smoother it will be)

 

[Nebor]

Oh man, VIAN vs. BFG10K.

Hopefully they'll finish each other off once and for all.

 

[biostud]

Imagine in a FPS you do a 180 Degree turn and it takes 0.1 sec. This mean that with 60 fps you'll see 6 images and with 80 you'll see 8. As long as you don't have to around or do anything fast, a high fps is not that important, but the faster you have to move you'll need more fps to make it seem less choppy. Different persons have different views on how fluid the game has to be to be fine. But high framerates also mean that you might be able to put on more eyecandy and be able to run the newest games better.

 

[Regs]

Well if someone wants to play a game like UT2k4 at 1024x 768 with med detail for 80FPS, be my guest. But ill be happier playing it at 1280x1024 high details @ 40-60 fps. Otherwise, you wouldn't pay 300 dollars for a 9800 or 5800.

 

[JackBurton]

I was told by a guy that i play Americas Army with that the human mind cannot comprehend over 60fps. So haveing an amazing computer that runs 90fps or something like that is completely useless. Can anyone conferm this?

I haven't read everyone's responses but there are two problems with the statement. First, the human eye CAN make the distinction between 60FPS and 90FPS. I may not be able to tell the difference between 60FPS and 61FPS, but I sure as hell can tell the difference between 60FPS and 100FPS. But let's pretend the human eye can only see a max of 60FPS. When playing a game, if you are getting 60FPS when walking around, as soon as some action starts, you could drop down to <5FPS. I hope you can tell between 5FPS and 60FPS. Most game benchamarks give you an AVERAGE FPS. That means your minimum FPS can drop well below the final FPS showing on that particular benchmark. If you had a machine that could guarantee you a MINIMUM of 60FPS on the newest games with all the setting turned up, you'd most likely have a very high end card (9800Pro or better). The guy that made that statement above doesn't look like he thought things through very well. It is not as clear cut as he's making it out to be.

 

[VIAN]

That is absolutely not true. Honestly, do you think I was born yesterday or something?

The 18fps post WAS a sarcastic bit.

And you can prove this is utter rubbish by trying the program. Have you tried it yet?

Let me try and rephrase. Cause your responses don't make any sense.

There must be a constant frame rate.

There must be a frame rate of at least 30fps for a good experience. This means that higher framerates are welcome and do kick more ass. I'm just limiting the smallest playable framerate to 30. Framerates higher than 30 are most definitely welcome as long as it is a constant framerate.

Do you honestly expect me to start another three page explanation that goes nowhere while you're too lazy to even try a simple program?

Yes. And I have tried the program, even before you asked me to, and I fail to realize what relevance it has towards my constant framerate post.

That's not even remotely the reason. The reason is that film blurs multiple frames into one while FPSes do not and operate entirely on discrete frames.

I was trying to say that do not see motion blur unless it is out of focus. In games, focus cannot be applied because it depends on where our eyes are looking at. Motion blur is a defect of cameras. Film captures a blur, unless it is really good film. Like kodak had some film that was blur resistant, but I guess it is either too expensive for movies or it wouldn't work as well moving at only 24fps.

I am FULLY confident in telling you that I can EASILY tell a difference between 85 Hz and 100 Hz in Windows (2d).

Try going from 85Hz to 160Hz. You will see god. The response is so insane that you need to lower the mouse sensitivity.

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by: VIAN
Film captures a blur, unless it is really good film. Like kodak had some film that was blur resistant, but I guess it is either too expensive for movies or it wouldn't work as well moving at only 24fps.

 

[BFG10K]

The 18fps post WAS a sarcastic bit.

I'm struggling to find any kind of consistency in your comments. It's almost like you erase your memory every night and then each morning you make up something different and start posting it here, totally oblivious to what you posted the night before.

There must be a constant frame rate.

A constant framerate is irrelevant. What is relevant is the minimum framerate. You could see this if you configured the program to run the tests for you but of course you're too lazy to do that.

There must be a frame rate of at least 30fps for a good experience.

Nonsense.

I'm just limiting the smallest playable framerate to 30.

Which has absolutely no basis for reality. Or to put it another way, you have pulled that number out from who knows where.

I was trying to say that do not see motion blur unless it is out of focus. In games, focus cannot be applied because it depends on where our eyes are looking at. Motion blur is a defect of cameras. Film captures a blur, unless it is really good film. Like kodak had some film that was blur resistant, but I guess it is either too expensive for movies or it wouldn't work as well moving at only 24fps.

I'm at a loss to even come up with a reply to this.

 

[VIAN]

I'm struggling to find any kind of consistency in your comments. It's almost like you erase your memory every night and then each morning you make up something different and start posting it here, totally oblivious to what you posted the night before.

Point out an instance where you are confused.

A constant framerate is irrelevant.

It is only irrelevant to you, however, I find inconsistancies in framerate to be very annoying. They also gives way to edge tearing seen even with Vsync on.

Nonsense.

Why is it nonsense. What do you consider the smallest playable framerate.

you have pulled that number out from who knows where.

Personal experience. 30 is an even number. If you go down to 25fps, it just hurts my eyes like a bad refresh rate.

I'm at a loss to even come up with a reply to this.

Let me fix somethings about that statement.

"I was trying to say that I do not see motion blur unless it is out of focus. In games, focus cannot be applied because" no depth exists. "Motion blur is a defect of cameras. Film captures a blur, unless it is really good film." Try pausing a movie in an action seen. It is not many frames blurred together. It is just blur. Kodak "had some film that" caught fast action without blur, "but I guess it is either too expensive for movies or it wouldn't" play as smooth without the blur "moving" only "at only 24fps."

 

[BFG10K]

Point out an instance where you are confused.

Ah-ha-ha.

You are the one who is confused my friend, not me.

It is only irrelevant to you,

Oh? So you've tried the program, tested a wide range of scenarios and have determined that your original argument was correct?

Tell me, have you even tried it yet? Do you have any intention of trying it? Or are you just content to continue trolling the forums with whatever you dream up for that day?

however, I find inconsistancies in framerate to be very annoying.

Which would be invisible if your minimum framerate was high enough.

Personal experience.

That same personal experience that was telling you that 15 FPS was completely smooth in Unreal II?

I question the personal experience of anyone who can't even detect a low framerate and incorrectly reports it as mouse lag (like you did). Such a person is likely a complete noob, probably playing their first game ever.

That in itself isn't the problem; the problem is when this noob comes into the forums, passes their lack of knowledge as fact and argues with anyone who says otherwise despite having repeated opportunity to test for themselves that they're wrong.

30 is an even number.

This is beyond comical now. If you really aren't trolling then you simple must be on medication or drunk. There is simply no other way to describe your nonsensical comments and the crap you seem to dream up every few minutes.

If you go down to 25fps, it just hurts my eyes like a bad refresh rate.

A bad refresh rate is 85 Hz or less. If you want to compare refresh rates then that blows your 30 FPS theory right out of the water - again.

Let me fix somethings about that statement.

Translated to "let me make up something else and try to pass it off as a fact".

 

[Cawchy87]

Thank you JackBurton and biostud666 for answering my question. I never understood (or thought about) turning and how many frames i would get in that instant. Also, for telling me that benchmarks give avg FPS. I would like to thank the guys who have helped me understand this more clearly.

I advise that this thread be locked, my question was answered and all the people responding are just flaming eachother.

 

[Fricardo]

1. There is no magic number that represents an optimal fps.

2. The human brain can produce "motion blur" for any video that has ~24 frames per second or more.

3. As with most things, more detail makes video clearer. This improvement follows the law of diminishing returns. Moving video from 30 fps to 40 will have considerably more of an effect than going from 40 to 50.

4. The viewable fps for computers is restricted by the monitors refresh rate. If a monitor runs at 75 Hz, if the video card sends it 80 fps video, 5 frames are never shown on the screen. 80 fps looks exactly the same as 75 fps.

5. The human eye is very discerning. Government research has shown that people are capable of viewing and analyzing events that occur for only 1/220th of a second! We really don't know how much the human eye can see. We do know that it is considerably more than current computer hardware can produce.

While I was researching this several years ago, I came across this very informative site, check it out: http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
It gives some technical background as well as an excellent in depth summary of the current knowledge of human motion vision. I hope that helps

 

[VIAN]

BFG, you are crazy and I can't stand to argue with you anymore.