So essentially what you're saying is that motion blur doesnt exist in games and that because of this we need >30FPS to achieve a fluid gaming experience?
30 fps vs 60 fps
- Thread starter seumasbeathan
- Start date
So essentially what you're saying is that motion blur doesnt exist in games and that because of this we need >30FPS to achieve a fluid gaming experience?
name='Rastalovich' said:
Yeah I understand that, but what exactly are you getting at?
No, that's just one piece of the puzzle. This is the age old argument I've seen since I started PC gaming in the 90's. Pause a movie during a fast action scene. 9 times out of 10 the frame isn't even sharp. You don't see this when it's in motion. They are compensating for the lack of frames.
Rastalovich
New member
You may, but from the posts before hand, I fear the relationship between a monitor's refresh rate is being too closely tied with the gaming fps question.
At the end of the day it all comes down to what the human eye can perceive. Theres no point running 200fps if we cant notice a difference between say 50fps, agree?
I'm willing to be opened minded about this, if someone can me show a significant difference in quality between a solid and consistant 30fps and 60 fps i better go buy a gtx 680 lol
When you get to higher frames there isn't a noticeable difference. It's when you are in the lower range when it matters. I think the link in this thread really shows it well. It also depends on the type of game you play. Something slow paced can run at low frames and still be playable, but a twitch shooter at low frames definitely is not.
Lollipop
New member
Back when i used to play WoW, i couldn't play below 50 FPS, my eyes would start to hurt and the game would feel slow.
I'm so tired of this topic, i cba to explain how your eyes work...
Master&Puppet
New member
Well it's totally subjective - if you need 50 you need 50, if you don't you don't. No need to explain "how the eyes work" as if it makes any difference to the argument at all...
dukeReinhardt
New member
just go on that link. seriously. it gives such a visible example of everything discussed here. frame blending on or off, there's a difference between 48 and 60fps on any speed setting. i'd try 120fps but i'm currently using my integrated chip which can't display more than 60hz. the difference between 48 and 60 is very visible even at the lowest speed and the most optimal frame blending method. at higher speeds, the difference becomes very very visible.
also frame blending or not, movies are not smooth! there are some scenes in movies where they either didn't bother blending frames, or it makes no difference, because you can easily see all the individual choppy frames. didn't you hear the criticisms of the hobbit (which is being filmed in 48fps) where people are complaining that it looks "too realistic" and "like a documentary"? if -everyone- who's seen it can distinguish between 24fps and 48fps (including the film crew, who enjoy it now), i'm going to say there will be a "large proportion" of people who can see the difference between 48 and 60fps, and a "large but perhaps smaller" proportion who can see the difference between 60 and 120fps, and so on. but i'm guessing from my experience of my new monitor that the people who really see nothing between 60 and 120hz are few and far between, and somewhat lacking in the vision department. the difference really becomes very blatant with fast moving objects.
also frame blending or not, movies are not smooth! there are some scenes in movies where they either didn't bother blending frames, or it makes no difference, because you can easily see all the individual choppy frames. didn't you hear the criticisms of the hobbit (which is being filmed in 48fps) where people are complaining that it looks "too realistic" and "like a documentary"? if -everyone- who's seen it can distinguish between 24fps and 48fps (including the film crew, who enjoy it now), i'm going to say there will be a "large proportion" of people who can see the difference between 48 and 60fps, and a "large but perhaps smaller" proportion who can see the difference between 60 and 120fps, and so on. but i'm guessing from my experience of my new monitor that the people who really see nothing between 60 and 120hz are few and far between, and somewhat lacking in the vision department. the difference really becomes very blatant with fast moving objects.
SieB
New member
All I know is people blow this well out of proportion everywhere, not being able to play games at less than 60 fps is total bull, I know because I play some games at below 60 fps.
I don't need to know how my eyes work to tell me what I see with them, I know what I see because I see it.
I don't need to know how my eyes work to tell me what I see with them, I know what I see because I see it.
Rastalovich
New member
That's the quality of the monitor really. Different people do perceive picture the same as they perceive sound tho. Everyone is different.
Lollipop
New member
The point i was trying ot make was, that the eye can see well above 30 FPS... and even over 200fps in certain conditions. It's complicated.
JMMP
New member
In my opinion, a person that can´t play a game because his avarage fps it´s on 30+ on full resolution and defenitions and see´s diference between 30 fps and 60 fps, is a very picky person and should not play any games and focus only on benchmarks cause he's not paying attention to the game at all!!
Rastalovich
New member
What you want ? Someone who works in broadcasting and computers ?
Lollipop
New member
Do you play any fast paced games? If so, play at 60fps for 10 mintues, and then play at 30fps.
SieB
New member
I agree with the picky part but only at 40fps+ at 30fps compared to 60 it is noticeable but between 40+ - 60 not so much and it is being a bit picky.
Someone who can explain why we all have different opinions.
I'll put this out there for the people that can notice a difference between 30fps and say 60fps, can you acurrately describe the quality difference. Are things smoother? Quicker? More fluid?Less laggy? Just saying that 60fps is noticiably better isnt enough. An accurate explaination of the difference would be nice.
Gothique Doll
New member
You could look at the wikipedia links I posted a page ago? Those explain things pretty well. Much better than my post did perhaps. It is to do with a concept called the flicker fusion point, the pages there explain it in pretty good detail and my summary was rather brief.
Rastalovich
New member
For the same reason some people wear glasses and some don't and some don't that should. What looks great to one person may look shite to another.
The technical facts with the equipment can't change but the humans do.
