Interesting read for people who claim there is no difference between 30fps

#71elheberPosted 2/9/2013 9:24:35 PM
Vsauce is full of s***? Wow.

As for CRTs. Yes, I do. Continue.
---
"A closet intellectual, he acts dumb to impress women."
| 3DS: Ulysses | PSN: Riot_Guy |
#72DarkZV2BetaPosted 2/9/2013 9:25:52 PM
elheber posted...
Vsauce is full of s***? Wow.

As for CRTs. Yes, I do. Continue.


Apparently.
And apparently you don't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRidfW_l4vs
---
AMD CACHING = NOT YET FINISHED
a high end card gets bg3 1080p maxed around 200fps ~The Q on BF3.
#73elheberPosted 2/9/2013 10:29:12 PM
That's burn-in, not motion blur.

http://red.cachefly.net/learn/action2-60fps.mp4
This is a 60fps video. Notice how the background doesn't blur to your eyes, even if you're tracking the rider. But if you wave your hand slowly in front of a wall while tracking the wall (not the hand) waving it slower than that background in the video, it'll blur easily.
---
"A closet intellectual, he acts dumb to impress women."
| 3DS: Ulysses | PSN: Riot_Guy |
#74DarkZV2BetaPosted 2/9/2013 10:47:25 PM
elheber posted...
That's burn-in, not motion blur.

http://red.cachefly.net/learn/action2-60fps.mp4
This is a 60fps video. Notice how the background doesn't blur to your eyes, even if you're tracking the rider. But if you wave your hand slowly in front of a wall while tracking the wall (not the hand) waving it slower than that background in the video, it'll blur easily.


Burn in and motion blur are one and the same.
Also, 60 images per second isn't that much. That's why CRTs flicker, even when you look directly at them. That's why 120hz CRTs were so relevant.
---
AMD CACHING = NOT YET FINISHED
a high end card gets bg3 1080p maxed around 200fps ~The Q on BF3.
#75elheberPosted 2/9/2013 11:02:22 PM
So 60fps isn't enough to produce a natural motion blur? Well there you go. When we get to 120Hz we will no longer need motion blur in the video itself. Until then, we can do 30fps + motion blur.

Don't look at me, dude, you said it. 30fps + motion blur has is uses. And here I was ready to post a 48fps video @ 1/64th shutter speed, and a 30fps video @ 1/48th shutter speed of The Hobbit Trailer so you could see the difference between high framerate with less motion blur vs. low framerate with more motion blur. But I guess that won't be necessary anymore.
---
"A closet intellectual, he acts dumb to impress women."
| 3DS: Ulysses | PSN: Riot_Guy |
#76DarkZV2BetaPosted 2/10/2013 1:28:41 AM
elheber posted...
So 60fps isn't enough to produce a natural motion blur? Well there you go. When we get to 120Hz we will no longer need motion blur in the video itself. Until then, we can do 30fps + motion blur.

Don't look at me, dude, you said it. 30fps + motion blur has is uses. And here I was ready to post a 48fps video @ 1/64th shutter speed, and a 30fps video @ 1/48th shutter speed of The Hobbit Trailer so you could see the difference between high framerate with less motion blur vs. low framerate with more motion blur. But I guess that won't be necessary anymore.


Just because 60fps doesn't cause clear and defined motion blur doesn't mean that 30fps+blur is better than 60fps.
More information is always better. It's like saying that 480p is better than 1080p if it's all fuzzy and hard to make out in 480, but crisp and clear in 1080.
---
AMD CACHING = NOT YET FINISHED
a high end card gets bg3 1080p maxed around 200fps ~The Q on BF3.
#77elheberPosted 2/10/2013 1:54:13 AM
More information is usually better, yes. But don't forget to mention that twice the framerate is twice the rendering volume. Rendering power that could be used to display other information. A Real-Time Strategy game or Turn Based Strategy game are best served at 1080p30 over 720p60, for example.

And we haven't even spoken of diminished returns. You could use the same "more is better" argument to defend 120fps, but that doesn't mean it's better than more realistic graphics at 60fps. I know you wouldn't go that far to defend 120fps, or even 240fps... why? Because you do understand that "more information isn't always better." Or better phrased, "there are other ways of achieving more information than simply doubling the frame rate."
---
"A closet intellectual, he acts dumb to impress women."
| 3DS: Ulysses | PSN: Riot_Guy |
#78DarkZV2BetaPosted 2/10/2013 1:57:50 AM
elheber posted...
More information is usually better, yes. But don't forget to mention that twice the framerate is twice the rendering volume. Rendering power that could be used to display other information. A Real-Time Strategy game or Turn Based Strategy game are best served at 1080p30 over 720p60, for example.

And we haven't even spoken of diminished returns. You could use the same "more is better" argument to defend 120fps, but that doesn't mean it's better than more realistic graphics at 60fps. I know you wouldn't go that far to defend 120fps, or even 240fps... why? Because you do understand that "more information isn't always better." Or better phrased, "there are other ways of achieving more information than simply doubling the frame rate."


Disagree on that. If you think that performance doesn't matter for a RTS, you probably don't play very well. I've seen some crazy Starcraft micro that I seriously doubt could be done with the game logic running 30/s.
Also, there's latency to consider, which drops significantly, as well as the fact that computer generated motion blur is still garbage.

But, hey, if you like choppy, fuzzy, blurry games, I can see why you're a console gamer!
---
AMD CACHING = NOT YET FINISHED
a high end card gets bg3 1080p maxed around 200fps ~The Q on BF3.
#79shaunme(Topic Creator)Posted 2/10/2013 2:05:13 AM
30fps is a disgusting framerate that only peasants with no standards defend.
---
i72600k @4.6 // ASUS P8P67 WS Revolution // 8gb ram // 3x MSI GTX 680 sli // 1tb HD//W8pro//NNID shaunme1//PSN poselecta//XBL CursiveA//STEAM shaunmelwell//
#80Soggy13Posted 2/10/2013 2:22:18 AM
shaunme posted...
elheber posted...
Who claims that?


too many to name, usually the ones who claim 720p looks the same as 1080p.


When I take my glasses off 1080p looks no better than 480i.... My point is I'm nearsighted and didn't know until a couple years ago. Also I have a serious question. Isn't the industry standard for tv and movies something like 30 fps or less? And if that is the case how come no one complains about them? I know with a pc you sit closer to the screen and can tell more. is there really that much of a difference from a distance? I ask this because I know your eyes blur images to perceive motion and that's what makes tv games etc. work. As someone with less than perfect vision I guess i'm unable to understand the big deal without help.
---
PSN/LIVE: Massacredone
Me thinks words is hard...