We don't need no 9800 PRO or XT!!!

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Maskirovka

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Maskirovka

Do you have your display set to 60 Hz? If not, perhaps you should practice what you preach.

That's why I refuse to use LCDs. The slow refresh drives me nuts.

when did i say 60fps was the limit of human perception? 60Hz doesn't bother some people...but not too many people aren't satisfied with 75-85 Hz...i haven't met anyone that can tell the difference between 85 and 100Hz and if you can, fine...of course each person's visual perception is different. but there's a point where no human can really tell the difference.

edit: visual difference...i know there are gameplay advantages to having higher fps

You did say:

regardless of this, you simply cannot visually tell the difference over a certain limit, which even assuming genetic differences between people's eyes, etc. is much lower than 100fps. it's more like 60-75.

So you capped it at 75, with 60 as an acceptable limit, which I don't believe at all. I think the people who are fine with 60hz on their monitors just don't know any better and put up with the headaches that it gives you.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Maskirovka
that's what i was saying...that i'm pretty sure there's a perceptual limit, and his example was a bad one. don't fkn flame me because he knows a lot about comptuer graphics...settle down, chief. you can prove people wrong without insults...christ.

Actually, I was talking to phantron. He's the one who told him to get a life. So unless that's you with a different login, don't get your panties in a wad.

 

[Phantron]

Check out the settings the pros run some time, 100FPS average is far too slow for any really competitive FPS gamer.

Oh ok, so the peeps who play games 24/7 and compete in championships to win prize money to upgrade their computers and barely manage to squeek by on a meger budget and fail to have a meaning in their lives are who your we are talking about then? Well, fortuantly for most of us, we have a life, so worrying about FPS to the extent you are, is irrelavent to most of us.

 

[VIAN]

I hate goin to the movie for a couple of reasons. The really crappy 24 fps and the crappy picture quality.
The speed of one's eye might be the speed of light, but it is hard to tell. Cause remember, you aren't seeing an object, you are seeing light being reflected off of the object. taking into consideration the delay of the speed of light traveling from its source to the object and back to your eyes. And a little dely might occur again with our brain processing the image. A good way might be to find out how fast the light will get to your eyes and then finding out how fast your brain cells communicate with each other, this might give you an approximate framerate. But then again, the world doesn't work in frames, it works in movement.

 

[VIAN]

Refresh rate is different that frames though. Refresh rate gives you headaches because its how many times a light will flash in your face per second, while frames are images on lights. Based on motion of the refresh rate, 60 fps is not smooth, I don't see any flickering at 85Hz so I guess 85fps would be the most acceptable framerate. But to some people 100Hz is what they need and 100fps is what they want, so I think that 100Hz@100fps should be the standard for unvisersal satisfaction.

 

[rbV5]

so you thinking you see your fan turning faster is proof?

I think it is one of many proofs actually. The fact is, the brain can process more information than it is presented and has to interpolate by actually adding additional information to complete the minds picture in many cases. We don't see the world in frames, we process information.

of course 24fps has to do with economics...it being the cheapest acceptable framerate. if the movie industry could get away with 23 or 20, of course they'd use it.

Then did get away with less initially. People were absolutely amazed with moving pictures so poor framerates were perfectly acceptable.

did you ignore what i said about motion blur? look it up on google. your brain blurs images together to produce motion...haven't you ever used a flip book?

I'm simply disputing your claims. Just because I don't address every point you make doesn't mean I need to "look it up". Motion blur has nothing to do determining how high of framerates can be perceived, it simply the result of the motion being faster than the shutterspeed. It can be manipulated and used as a method to make motion appear smoother at low framerates, or to show the perception of high speed like "warp speed" or to add emphasis....but it says nothing for what the limit to the brains perception is at all.

a computer doesn't have motion blur, so the framerate needs to be higher, but there is still a limit.

If you're talking computer game generated graphics, motion blur is used. MotoGp(1&2) makes great use of Motion blur.