[mindwaves]

I am not the expert here but is it true that full motion video is about 30fps. So does that mean the games playing over 30 fps should be unnoticable to the human eye?If that is tru then even the keenest of people cannot detect any difference between a game running at 40 fps or 70 fps so it does not matter really how many frames per second that you are getting from a game if it is over 30 fps or slightly higher. It is just like megahertz differences between pcs and macs. For example, if one knows that their frame rate for a particular game is 50 fps and they know that another person gets 70 fps then they will say that their friends computer runs the game smoother then their own. But if they do not know the fps between teach computer then they will most likely be unable to detect any differences in the game.

[Ruddigger]

Video is indeed 30fps. However, that doesn't mean it's the limit of what we can see. Animation on tv is usually around 15fps, and in Disney movies it's 24. I've done computer generated animations at 200fps, and believe me, it's smooooth.

30 fps isn't the limit, but people getting 200fps in quake III arena are waisting their money, in my opinion at least.



------------------
-Ruddigger
------------------
Have you had your
gigaflop today?

[blizzard]

There was a post on this subject a while ago that generated a lot of discussion. I've been trying to find it for the last half an hour, and haven't been able to do so, so maybe it's in another forum. I dunno. Long and short of it is, the actual visible frame rate limit is actually somewhere up around 75 fps, so while your argument seems like it would work, it doesn't actually. If you have the capability, then this is a simple experiment to prove the fact: run a game the way you normally run it, which would be, depending on computer, somewhere around 20-30 fps. Then, crank all the options down, set the resolution ridiculously low (as low as you can - 640 or 512, usually), and tell me there isn't a difference between what you had before and what you have now! Or, just go take a look at a PC gaming....you'll see what I mean.

Blizzard.

While it's true 30fps is the standard for full-motion tv video, it is considered the bare minimum when it comes to monitors, where images are sharper and there is less blurring.

This article was discussed on slashdot a while ago: http://www.penstarsys.com/editor/30v60/30v60p3.htm

The article says that anything over 75 fps is really all that's needed, but "between 85 and 120 fps" should be the real target for gamers- at that point the visual cortex becomes overwhelmed in the same way it does in reality, adding a whole new degree of realism.

[MezzanineKid]

30 is pretty smooth, but you need more FPS so when a lot of things come on the screeen it doesnt drop BELOW 30. Thats why 75 is good. It never gets that low.

And Im pretty sure TV is 30, not 15.

Ca$h

[Ruddigger]

Ca$h, saturday morning cartoons are converted to 30, but animated at 15. It all gets a little tricky. I used to teach animation at the local high school, both traditional and 3D, (all on macs, of course.)

I used to love the look I got from people when they asked what I did.

What do you do again?
I teach animation at a high school.
How old are you!?!?
17...

Hehe..


------------------
-Ruddigger
------------------
Have you had your
gigaflop today?

There was a link to an article on Slashdot about a week ago to another website that talked about the max fps the eye can see. First off, they discussed the myth of the eye only being able to see a max of 30 or 60 frames. If you have a monitor that can, set the Hz to 60 and then look at the monitor from the side of your eyes. Notice the flickering? That is caused by the brain being able to process the images of the monitor refreshes fast enough to see the refreshes in action. Setting a monitor at 75Hz or higher causes the monitor to refresh so fast that the brain interprets the images by blurring each refresh together. The article pointed to an Air Force test to see how fast another jet can go by (in the oposite direction) before the pilot can not make out the jet. From the tests, the ballpark fps range for a human was set at 85-120 fps. Even then, the article commented that those numbers were not infallable. There is enough antecdotale stories of gamers with the ability to tell 200fps from 150fps to suggest that it is possible the maximun human detection of frames on a computer screen could be higher.

From personal experience, there is definately a difference between 30fps and 90fps. I played a lot of Quake II when it first came out on a Rev D imac with a Rage Pro. The game never got over 30fps. I now have a G4 400Mhz with a Radeon and pull fps around 90 consistently. The motion is very smooth to the eyes.

[exa]

Actually it has been proven that in army tests, the human eyes (of the army guys at least) could detect frames shown in 1/220th of a second... our eyes CAN detect insanely high fps rates.. however fluid motion only really starts at around 30... gets smoother the higher up.

[seanyepez]

Your monitor refresh is the bottleneck.

I run at 640 by 480 because my monitor refreshes 170 times per second. Hertz equals refreshes.

I want a monitor that refreshes at one megahertz.

I get 300-400 frames per second constantly. My monitor is limited to a mere 170 frames per second.

Just kidding you guys. 170 frames per second is plenty for me, let alone 300...