next »

[Phasma Felis]

Nobody knew or cared about the difference between 30FPS and 60FPS until the video card companies told them to.

Discuss!

[Schoq]

It's like jpeg artefacts or a 192kb/s mp3 vs CD quality: some just have such dull senses or unrefined tastes that they don't notice, but the rest of us see it clear as day so shut the hell up and stop projecting your inferiority please

[gimymblert]

Depend on the game, Play mario at 30 fps and you will see , fps game also don't fair well, old game use to be 60 fps on the nes so there is that. But who need 60 fps for an adventure game? Lag is also an issue with tv screen ... how amazing you feel when you use a old crt screen and not as teh crap dullard you failed timing before? it wasn't you it' was that fucking tv (and also some game).

[Canned Turkey]

the video card companies told them to.

[citation needed]

[s0]

i notice the difference but i dont care B)

[Nillo]

It makes a difference in gameplay (60 FPS is more responsive) but it's not a dealbreaker for me. I prefer 60 FPS but it's not going to affect my decision to purchase a game.

I'm looking forward to Phasma Felis' next controversial statement in this topic.

[oahda]

I notice low FPS up to a point but low FPS doesn't bother me. I still mostly play original N64 games, so yeah.

I don't think I could notice the difference between mp3 and CD, tho. Didn't know there was one.

[s0]

depends on bitrate. the difference between a 320kbps mp3 and a CD is small but the difference between a 128kbps mp3 and a CD is pretty easy to notice. it has a characteristic "raspy" sound. easy way to spot it: listen to music with prominent drums (or beats, same difference) and listen for the cymbals and hi-hats.

btw fun fact: young ppl actually tend to prefer mp3 artifacts over vinyl distortion (there was some recent study that showed this). 128kbps is gonna be a retro trend in 20 years lol

[Oskuro]

But... But.... Movies run at 24 fps.... And we all know games have to be just like movies! 

[oahda]

But... But.... Movies run at 24 fps.... And we all know games have to be just like movies! 

Isn't that based on actual scientific fact of what the human eye/brain is really able to perceive tho before more FPS becomes no different because we can't perceive it anyway? Possibly slightly lower, but isn't it really somewhere around 30 FPS?

Doesn't mean game logic has to run at the same FPS as the graphics of course.

[Netsu]

Isn't that based on actual scientific fact of what the human eye/brain is really able to perceive tho before more FPS becomes no different because we can't perceive it anyway? Possibly slightly lower, but isn't it really somewhere around 30 FPS?

Doesn't mean game logic has to run at the same FPS as the graphics of course.

The human eye/brain can notice and recognize shapes in bursts of light as short as 1/220 of a second or something around that, which would mean the absolute top FPS we can perceive is 220.
30 FPS is really low, but it's enough for movies because of the really heavy motion blur they use. Without motion blur and with a lot of camera movement 30 FPS looks really choppy.

[oahda]

Weird, I've heard people make such claims about the origins of 24 or 30 or w/e it was FPS. Maybe they thought that was we could see back then? Or maybe I've just been misinformed even from that perspective.

This calls for sources! Gimme!

[Netsu]

Great, now I spent half an hour looking for sources :x

Lots of people cite USAF as measuring the 1/220 of a second that I mentioned, but I couldn't find the source paper, I only found those two:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698900001115
http://webvision.med.utah.edu/book/part-viii-gabac-receptors/temporal-resolution/

Which suggest that recognizing flashes 9-10ms long (100 FPS) is not a problem, but this is not the main concern of the papers so they don't measure the minimum time required to recognize shapes.

[Netsu]

Also apparently the 30 FPS is not about how 'fast' we can see individual frames, but how fast they have to flicker so we won't see it flicker. This is because movie projectors flash the image for a moment and then go black for a moment. 25-30 FPS makes sure that we don't notice it flashing.

edit: Of course this CFF (critical flicker frequency) is differrent depending on the source brightness and varies between 5 and 50 FPS, but in cinema conditions 30 works alright.

edit2: And to make it more clear, the fact that an image isn't flickering doesn't guarantee that the movement will appear smooth, this is a separate issue.

[Manuel Magalhães]

I prefer 60 FPS — specially in action games — but I don't mind playing any game at 30 FPS.

[shinygerbil]

As Netsu states, 24 was simply the minimum framerate required for persistence of vision to be consistent.

AND, fun fact, each of the 24 frames in a (physical) film projector are actually flashed on screen twice, so in effect it's 48 frames per second. Though this is to make the image less flickery and keep light levels steady rather than anything about motion perception, as the shutter is physically closed in between frames so no light is projected.

Also related: http://www.testufo.com

30 is acceptable to me personally but, like with pretty much anything it's subjective and also it Depends on the Game™

[Alevice]

I dont quite like 60fps on lo res 3d games, it looks egregious. I can tell 30 from 60, but i cant 60 from 120, otherthan when they do that horrid interpolation thing that causes the soap opera effect

[gimymblert]

This remind me why I don't like to go to cinema again (at least one reason), It's distinctively choppy for me now, I don't know why, jarring when you have swiping camera movement

[oahda]

snob

[Alevice]

i dont recall the cinema being choppy