Frames per second - what is smooth?

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: JE78
I was told a while back that the human eye can't notice anything better than 29 FPS. But anything above 50 and i'm happy as long as is consistant. When I play BF2 I always get these spikes that drop my FPS to like 25, then right back to 70. I'm sure its a RAM issue since BF2 is memory hog.

Not true. Notice the difference in how a movie "looks" compared to how a soap opera or home video "looks". Aside from post processing and studio magic, the fluidity has to do with FPS. Movies are 24fps, home videos are much higher (50-or-so I think). I think the human eye can see as high as 100fps in some people. It also depends on the part of the eye. The periferal fringes can see a higher frame rate than the center of your eye (probably to make up for their inability to make out details). Some people get headaches watching movies on the big screen because they can see the flicker out of the corners of their eyes (I can), versus when they look at it straight on. This is why I HATE sitting anywhere but center.

My sweet spot for FPS gaming is in the 60s average...that looks good enough to me. Too bad I never have fast enough hardware to pull it off for current games at any given time.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2

Originally posted by: JE78
I was told a while back that the human eye can't notice anything better than 29 FPS. But anything above 50 and i'm happy as long as is consistant. When I play BF2 I always get these spikes that drop my FPS to like 25, then right back to 70. I'm sure its a RAM issue since BF2 is memory hog.

Not true. Notice the difference in how a movie "looks" compared to how a soap opera or home video "looks". Aside from post processing and studio magic, the fluidity has to do with FPS. I think the human eye can see as high as 100fps in some people. It also depends on the part of the eye. The periferal fringes can see a higher frame rate than the center of your eye (probably to make up for their inability to make out details).

My sweet spot for FPS gaming is in the 60s average...that looks good enough to me. Too bad I never have fast enough hardware to pull it off for current games at any given time.

Here's the thing. Pop a DVD into your computer. Pause the movie. Take a screenshot with a special program that can read the DVD image, then play HL2 or some game BF2 or whatever. Take a screenshot. Compare.

The game will have awesome image quality with all the lines defined etc. The movie will be somewhat blurred.

Why? Movies run at 29.97 FPS and then they add motion blur so each frame is not a photographical image. If you could take photos at 29.97 FPS with your Rebel XT and put it together and run it at 29.97 fps, it would look like BF2 running at 29.97 fps which is not that great.... Video cameras and production companies have motion blur which assist in the fluidity of movement.

That said 60 fps and above usually isn't noticeable. That's why LCDs have 60 Hz refresh rates and Vsync...

That said, certain games like NFSU/NFSU2 use motion blur like hell. I used to get like 20 fps on my old computer and it still looked great. I didnt even know how slow it was running until I did some FPS tests. Motion blur fooled my eyes =P

 

[0roo0roo]

he probably means fps the eye can detect. most can obviously accept less as their minimal standards for playability. it won't give a premium game expiernece but the cost vs benifits things kicks in. course precision/speed matter most in fps. not so much in the other games.

 

[lordsaytor]

Originally posted by: GamerExpress

Originally posted by: CraigRT

Originally posted by: BFG10K
I like a minimum of 60 FPS though the more the better.

I agree... playing at 30 FPS is noticeably bad IMO.

The latest studies have shown that the human eye can perceive up to 60 FPS, the thoughts behind the max being only 30 are not true.

The same study has also shown that women see 30% more colors then men do on average.

The latest studies eh? Conducted by who? By you?

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: JE78
I was told a while back that the human eye can't notice anything better than 29 FPS. But anything above 50 and i'm happy as long as is consistant. When I play BF2 I always get these spikes that drop my FPS to like 25, then right back to 70. I'm sure its a RAM issue since BF2 is memory hog.

Nope, it's wrong. Reason why the theatres get away with 24FPS is because of motion blur. </thread>

 

[obeseotron]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
Dunno why you guys need so many FPS but on a Mac even 20 FPS looks extremely good and totally playable. Might be due to the fact that it has superior graphics capabilities than PCs. Quake 3 gets over 50 FPS on my friend's G5 but I know it's an older game and the G5 would be overkill.

If by graphics you mean photoshop and other creative apps run very well then you are right. A large percentage of creative professionals prefer and use macs, so the software for them is written very well. That said, mac 3d drivers are attrocious compared to their pc counterparts, not because graphics couldn't be just as fast on the mac, but because the mac game market is so small that there is no reason to put hundreds of engineers on making drivers like ATI and nVidia have for windows driver development. With the singular exception of Halo, any game will run faster on a PC than on a Mac with the same graphics card, period. Not interested in hearing about the G5 being a better chip because in the real world you can only run programs on it that people write for it and no one will ever write a good 3D driver for the Mac or a good Mac game engine. Halo was made by the most Mac friendly developer on the planet and is something of an exception if only because the PC version was so bad.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: JE78
I was told a while back that the human eye can't notice anything better than 29 FPS. But anything above 50 and i'm happy as long as is consistant. When I play BF2 I always get these spikes that drop my FPS to like 25, then right back to 70. I'm sure its a RAM issue since BF2 is memory hog.

Nope, it's wrong. Reason why the theatres get away with 24FPS is because of motion blur. </thread>

i know in imax movies i can see the flicker and it drives me nuts, i have only seen i imax movie. maybe it is because my peripherial(sp?) vision is picking stuff up.

 

[Maluno]

Originally posted by: Auric

Originally posted by: GamerExpress

The same study has also shown that women see 30% more colors then men do on average.

Does that help with foraging for berries or something?

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[Bona Fide]

You would want an average of 50-60, since sometimes it will drop down to 20-30, which is at the visible threshold of the human eye. Lower than that, and you'll notice the stuttering.

 

[bob4432]

i do know that i have one program (a r/c airplane simulator) that was built for older technology and when i had my 9800pro i would hit 300fps and i couldn't see a difference between 100 and 300, just an fyi...

 

[jlambvo]

4 producers try not to use panning shots with fast action as these look really bad

I wish someone would remind movie directors of this. When you play back movies in a theatre at 24fps, all the roller-coaster, wild track-the-CGI-space fighter-through-the-asteroid-field crap drives me nuts. I gave up on Star Wars III after about 5 minutes because of the camera work. Even Lord of the Rings pulled some of that.

I swear they are making movies based on what looks good on a little workstation computer screen and not what you see projected on film. I miss 60's cinematography

 

[bisqeet]

Originally posted by: itr

Originally posted by: JE78
I was told a while back that the human eye can't notice anything better than 29 FPS.

that is not true. there was an article about this but i don't remember the link.

hmm, confusing. i think this also has to do with the refresh rate. the normal eye dosnt register it but the brain will depict a difference if the refresh rate is below 70-ish Hz (70 pics/s)

so idealy the fps rate should be identicle to the refresh rate on crt monitors (LCD dont really have refresh rates as the electrons arnt continually fired to refresh the picture. the gates are either on or off) and both are above 70.

also this would cut out any moire effects as well..

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: thecoolnessrune

Originally posted by: Czar
<- 20 is unacceptable

20-30 is borderlining acceptable

30-40 is acceptable

40+ is good

Lol I play UT2K4 at 800x600 all low quality at 5-17fps

and my soul hurts just thinking about your pain

 

[GamerExpress]

Originally posted by: SonicIce

Originally posted by: GamerExpress

Originally posted by: CraigRT

Originally posted by: BFG10K
I like a minimum of 60 FPS though the more the better.

I agree... playing at 30 FPS is noticeably bad IMO.

The latest studies have shown that the human eye can perceive up to 60 FPS, the thoughts behind the max being only 30 are not true.

The same study has also shown that women see 30% more colors then men do on average.

i would like to know how the fvck they determine that

Here you go

Text