Slashdot Mirror

A better example:

https://boallen.com/fps-compar...

Your eyes cannot resolve more than about 50fps anyway.

Reality disagrees:

https://boallen.com/fps-compar...

We need at least 60 fps constantly to experience a normal sense of motion. GPUs need to keep getting better because very few of them are able to *maintain* 60fps in modern games when scenes become more complex in certain areas. We also need to look ahead to 4K gaming which no graphics card currently can handle at acceptable framerates. http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

There is a lot of need for faster cards, and for developers to start making use of the processing abilities of these cards in their games. I'm looking at you MMOs! ( One genre which still makes heavy use of the CPU). Now if the author had said that in gaming the CPU's speed is becoming irrelevant to frame rate, I would tend to agree. http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html

Would you rather have double the detail at 30 FPS, or half the detail at 60 FPS? Considering most people can't perceive frame rates faster than 30, it makes a bit of sense to push more polygons instead.

Stop with this misinformation. Most people definately CAN percieve framerates faster than 30.

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

If you honestly cant tell the difference between 30 and 60 in the above link, you might want to have yourself checked.

Sorry that I can't find it ATM (They are doing construction at my apt building so net has been spotty at best) but if you Google "difference between 30 FPs, and 60 FPS"...hang on...I think I found one, not the same one that I had previously seen but here is one but I'm sure if you Google what I posted above you can find others.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since it appears as though you are asking a valid question, but I do have to say I'm tired of hearing the argument implied in this question pop up in every discussion of framerates, whether in film or games.

First and foremost, everyone should visit this link: http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html Put simply, the human mind, and eyes, can perceive far more than 24, 30, or even 60 frames per second. Not consciously well enough that we can point out which image is operating at 58fps and which at 60fps, but our minds perceive the difference even if we don't know it.

As far as it pertains to film, there is a long history with 24 frames per second that we don't need to go into here, but suffice it to say it's an stylistic choice that films have been shot in for a century. The problem is that it's really a rather slow framerate, which looks just fine - I would argue great - on normal films, but on 3D, due to their doubling of frames to create the depth illusion, ends up looking muddy and, frankly, gives many people a headache. The idea behind shooting at 48 frames per second was that, since 3D is double the frames, just double the framerate and you'll solve all those pesky problems with 3D.

Apparently, people still aren't liking that, but I'll hold out judgment until I see for myself.

30fps is a joke and not anywhere near a playable framerate

It is perfectly playable, for anyone with human eyes

I can't believe anyone still tries to bring up the old "human eye doesn't see beyond 30fps so anything higher is useless" mantra. It has been debunked a hundred times.

http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html
http://kimpix.net/download/60vs24.avi

15 FPS vs 30 FPS vs 60 FPS. This is a visual representation. There are points made, however, that when you watch a movie, the image is "softened" and runs at a lower framerate [something like 24 or 25 FPS?] because your brain helps "fill in the gaps" or something of that sort. Pretty interesting stuff.