Forums | MacLife

Pariah wrote:

Zander wrote:

Pariah wrote:

I bet Snood is schweeeeeet on one of those rigs

Oh man, Snood! I haven't played that game in years.

No need to be a sad little camper...
http://www.womgames.com/games/index.php … c-snoodoku

Thanks! *goes to play '"Evil"*

IIRC, the human eye can only see 24 fps.  How would anything above 30 be visible?

EDIT:

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate#Frame_rates_in_video_games[/url wrote:

]Even with expensive monitors that can reach even higher frequencies, the effect is somewhat lost as the human eye has difficulty in perceiving differences in frame rates above around 50–60 fps. Indeed, this is why televisions operate at 50 Hz and 60 Hz with PAL and NTSC standards respectively.

Last edited by MacBoy4139 (2006-03-14 6:50 pm)

MacBoy, that article you posted said "DIFFICULTY in percieving differences ABOVE around 50-60fps," making Cynic's argument perfectly in agreement with the article.

It didn't say impossible (me personally, I can tell between 30 and 60 FPS, it's very noticeable and disorienting for me, especially when you try to play a game with vsync enabled on a system that can't provide constantly 60 fps, the constant jumping from smooth to not so smooth is annoying) but it just gets harder to do past that.

I know from experience and testing that I am worse at quake 3 at 30 fps than I am at 60 fps or higher. It's just not smooth enough.
(com_maxfps, try it)

DJ LUCiTE wrote:

MacBoy, that article you posted said "DIFFICULTY in percieving differences ABOVE around 50-60fps," making Cynic's argument perfectly in agreement with the article.

It didn't say impossible (me personally, I can tell between 30 and 60 FPS, it's very noticeable and disorienting for me, especially when you try to play a game with vsync enabled on a system that can't provide constantly 60 fps, the constant jumping from smooth to not so smooth is annoying) but it just gets harder to do past that.

I know from experience and testing that I am worse at quake 3 at 30 fps than I am at 60 fps or higher. It's just not smooth enough.
(com_maxfps, try it)

I'm just looking for the actual reason that is.  If the human eye is only supposed to be able to see no more than 24 fps, how is it possible that we can notice the difference between 30 and 60?

Interlacing maybe?

The Cynic wrote:

MacBoy4139 wrote:

24 fps

Where the hell are you getting that ridiculous info?

You see the flicker of 60 Hz, but the human eye does see at 24 fps:

The human eye sees at about 24 fps

http://www.massassi.net/articles/question1.htm

OK so here is what was perceived (by many, btw).  Movies can be seen at 24 fps, due to motion blur.  There is a debate going on about how many fps the human eye can actually see - some say 24, others 30, and some 60.

http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_1.html

Last edited by MacBoy4139 (2006-03-14 9:08 pm)

MacBoy4139 wrote:

Interlacing maybe?

Um, afaik, my eyes don't interlace

nor does my monitor when playing games, I'm pretty sure it's a progressive scan display.

I don't think you really can put a "fps" on vision since it's theoretically infinite FPS, since the eye is constantly feeding the brain info and not dividing it into discrete frames. (unless you open/close your eyelids at 60 Hz or something) This is why you see motion blur, because the eye doesn't have discrete frames. A video game will never have motion blur (unless it's artificially added) because each frame is an exact instance of time in the scene.

But I know for a fact that I can definitely feel the difference between 30 and 60 fps, and actually perform worse at 30 fps than I do at 60 fps. (blind test as well, I didn't have a fps counter or anything showing, and had my friend do the switching without telling me which one was 30 or 60. It's very obvious which one's 30.)

Think not so much about how many frames are displayed per second, but more about how different each subsequent frame is from the last. Then the whole notion of capping the human perception of "FPS" at an arbitrary 24 becomes highly illogical.

tF

MacBoy4139 wrote:

You READ ------.

Way out of line.

The way it has been showed to me is that the human eye can't distinguish the difference over around 24 fps. The only people who debate this are gamers who are using older equipment that doesn't hold the same FPS. The flucuating fps in the lower fps range can give a false impression of what the true fps of each is.

Example if your playing a game on a computer that will consistantly churn out 60 fps when you hit more heavy areas of the game the fps will not drop below the 30 fps mark and you will never know the difference. Now with a system that sits just on the thresh hold you will see stuttering and such while its being bogged down. Just because its averaging 30 fps doesn't mean thats exactly what your seeing every second.

I'll get my friend who showed me 3 movies with the exact same codec with different fps for each to throw up a website. He did this for some type of project for school, i'm not sure what he was trying to prove to who. The only thing i know is that i couldn't tell the difference bewteen 40 and 60 but could see the difference from 20 and 40. Although the 20 to 40 really wasn't that big of a deal.

Avari wrote:

The way it has been showed to me is that the human eye can't distinguish the difference over around 24

nononononononononononononononono

Avari wrote:

I'll get my friend who showed me 3 movies with the exact same codec with different fps for each to throw up a website. He did this for some type of project for school, i'm not sure what he was trying to prove to who. The only thing i know is that i couldn't tell the difference bewteen 40 and 60 but could see the difference from 20 and 40. Although the 20 to 40 really wasn't that big of a deal.

Movie ? Video Game

Very different.

Nefarious Bidding wrote:

MacBoy4139 wrote:

You READ ------.

Way out of line.

I apologize for what I said.  I simply did not take the comment "READ" very well obviously.

The issue was that I had believed something until I did further research, between posts.  The last link that I posted was an attempt to show how some people can come to the wrong conclusion.

The Cynic wrote:

Avari wrote:

The way it has been showed to me is that the human eye can't distinguish the difference over around 24

nononononononononononononononono

Avari wrote:

I'll get my friend who showed me 3 movies with the exact same codec with different fps for each to throw up a website. He did this for some type of project for school, i'm not sure what he was trying to prove to who. The only thing i know is that i couldn't tell the difference bewteen 40 and 60 but could see the difference from 20 and 40. Although the 20 to 40 really wasn't that big of a deal.

Movie ? Video Game

Very different.

Yeah i said there different, but the underlining thing is the same. The main thing is that people really can't see too high of a FPS. Gaming is different, you will want something that can consistantly push 50fps so it doesn't dip down in high stress areas, and the vsync issues you mentioned.

You know i think we argued about this same thing before Cynic and i said the same thing last time

Last edited by Avari (2006-03-16 9:39 am)

My point was that we haven't reached that threshold yet.


Thanks for still trying to be high-and-mighty, though.