• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

FPS and distance to display.

Quartz

Quartz

Quartz

Soldato
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Posts
19,072
Location
Aberdeen
Has anyone done the maths on FPS and the distance to the display? VR - distance a few inches - requires 90+ fps, PC - distance under a yard - requires 60+ fps, consoles - distance a few yards - require only 30 fps, and cinema - distance perhaps 10 yards - makes do with 24 fps.

The maths on display resolution and distance are well-understood, but what about FPS?
 
Quartz said:
Has anyone done the maths on FPS and the distance to the display? VR - distance a few inches - requires 90+ fps, PC - distance under a yard - requires 60+ fps, consoles - distance a few yards - require only 30 fps, and cinema - distance perhaps 10 yards - makes do with 24 fps.

The maths on display resolution and distance are well-understood, but what about FPS?
Click to expand...
The more fps the better at any distance.
 
It's got nothing to do with distance, or at least, if it is a factor it is so insignificant compared to the main factors. These factors are controls and motion blur. Cinema is acceptable at 24fps because each frame contains motion blur. Console gaming is acceptable at 30fps because they're almost always played using control pads and often use motion blur, however are almost always better with higher FPS. PC gaming is acceptable (game dependent) from 30fps, however as they overwhelmingly use the more responsive mouse and keyboard they are almost always far better with higher FPS, and some have motion blur (almost always an option to turn it off). VR requires high FPS because the control scheme is linked to your body much more tightly than with the others, so much so that anything but very high FPS and very low latency will likely cause motion sicknesses.
 
Zefan said:
Cinema is acceptable at 24fps because each frame contains motion blur.
Click to expand...

Also lack of interactivity - if you were controlling a movie in real time with a mouse in some kind of equivalence to gaming you'd immediately have to double that to find something that was acceptable to a lot of people. Though movies at 48 FPS tend to look a little odd for some reason and some people can't watch them at all.
 
Rroff said:
Though movies at 48 FPS tend to look a little odd for some reason and some people can't watch them at all.
Click to expand...

Soap Opera effect.

However, I must be one of the only people who enjoyed The Hobbit: Battle of the five armies at the cinema in 48FPS 3D. The higher frame rate, seemed to make the 3D effect seem better (and felt less straining on the eyes than usual)
 
Higher frame rate is always better, at least up to a point anyway, then it becomes so negligible a difference and it requires stupid power, then it doesn't matter, numbers go up and ms response barely goes down.

Don't see what distance has to do with it
 
Armageus said:
However, I must be one of the only people who enjoyed The Hobbit: Battle of the five armies at the cinema in 48FPS 3D. The higher frame rate, seemed to make the 3D effect seem better (and felt less straining on the eyes than usual)
Click to expand...
Funny, I saw Smaug in 3D/48 and thought it looked like a 1970s BBC drama; that distinctive visual you get from the Arriflex SP camera with 16mm film.
 
Although the proper justification for those differing frame-rates has been mentioned above, I just wanted to throw in that viewing distance should affect the visual impact of fps, albeit in too much of an obnoxious way to care about.

Given a specific viewing distance, to avoid a moving object at a lower fps from being noticeable when compared to at a higher fps, you'll have to be far enough that the limit of detail isn't on pixel pitch of the monitor but rather on our visual systems (as a baseline that's our typical ~1 arcmin visual acuity up to ~0.1 arcmin hyperacuity. Side-note: viewing-distance charts can be incorrect for gaming because of hyperacuity and how that directly affect how noticeable untouched geometry aliasing – aka. jaggies – are). You'll also have to make sure the moving object is going slow enough relative to your viewing distance. 2px movement per frame means you'd need to increase your distance so that you can't discern that 2px separation, and so on. The faster the movement per frame, the farther you need to be to keep the limit on our vision. At that point you'd be hard-pressed to spot a difference, as both will seem blurry to slightly different extents. The visual system is pretty complex, so I'm sure various rendering techniques and display technologies would reduce or extend that required viewing distance. That distance would also differ from game-to-game and even scene-to-scene.

All in all that's pretty awful. Then there's the importance of input latency for gameplay and it's all out the window anyway.

You can probably check one of those 'online frame-rate comparison' websites yourself (eg. https://frames-per-second.appspot.com) and vary your viewing distance to see the point at which the high and low fps objects are barely discernible from each other. It's a pretty rough example. Turn off simulated motion blur, and keep the object velocity near your monitor's refresh rate for the high fps object, reduce it as you like for the low fps one.
 
Rroff said:
Also lack of interactivity - if you were controlling a movie in real time with a mouse in some kind of equivalence to gaming you'd immediately have to double that to find something that was acceptable to a lot of people. Though movies at 48 FPS tend to look a little odd for some reason and some people can't watch them at all.
Click to expand...
Omg yes. I couldn't quite put my finger on it whilst watching a movie at my mates house on his new telly but to me it looked awful. Whoever said "soap opera effect" yeah that nails what I was trying to say on the head. It's almost too smooth and characters looks more like your watching something in real time on TV instead of a movie and I don't like it.
High fps whilst watching a movie is just wrong.
 
VR is a fixed refresh and fps, otherwise it will make you chuck.

If the fps drops it will insert duplicate frames to try and keep it where it should be. If it gets really low though, it gets a bit spazy and everything goes out of sync.
 
Quartz said:
Has anyone done the maths on FPS and the distance to the display? VR - distance a few inches - requires 90+ fps, PC - distance under a yard - requires 60+ fps, consoles - distance a few yards - require only 30 fps, and cinema - distance perhaps 10 yards - makes do with 24 fps.

The maths on display resolution and distance are well-understood, but what about FPS?
Click to expand...

Depends I have tested before.

Console with controller. 85fps anything above is unnoticeable even up close. Further away you would struggle to see between 60-85. Again anything above 85hz unnoticeable.

PC with K+M is around 144-165hz. Again anything above not much difference. Have had a 240hz display didn’t feel much different.
 
Armageus said:
Soap Opera effect.

However, I must be one of the only people who enjoyed The Hobbit: Battle of the five armies at the cinema in 48FPS 3D. The higher frame rate, seemed to make the 3D effect seem better (and felt less straining on the eyes than usual)
Click to expand...

Thought it looked cheap. The blur is almost essential for movies, or as above the soap opera effect. Nothing worse than spending time at your rents and they have stupid motion settings set on, so everything looks like an episode of eastenders. Eurgh :/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom