Frames per second

hargi said:
24 fps as this is about the limit what we can see.
so why the need for more:?
Click to expand...

Go play a game like UT3 at 24fps, it will be crap.

60 is more than enough for me, anything more just feels like minimal difference.
SuBsTaNcE said:
Plus, why the hate for the people who can get 60+fps in crysis? willy waving? jealous much?
Click to expand...

60+ fps on Crysis with current hardware isn't possible, unless you're talking about running it on Medium with a 8800 Ultra or 2 in SLi, then sure you can enjoy that 60 fps.
 
Jihad said:
60+ fps on Crysis with current hardware isn't possible, unless you're talking about running it on Medium with a 8800 Ultra or 2 in SLi, then sure you can enjoy that 60 fps.
Click to expand...

Q6600 8800gts 2gb ram, i get 60 fps on high regularly, dips to the 30's at intense times
 
bobert50 said:
Yea :p

24fps in games would be horrendous yet watching tv programs @ 24fps would be fine / normal.


Totally different things
Click to expand...

I actually disagree with the notion that 24fps is acceptable for film. Its just about fine if you have still cameras which only focus on the main characters, but in any film where the camera pans over a wide environment i find it horrendous enough to give me a headache. For instance, there is a scene in gladiator where the camera pans over the stadium, or possible rome or something. The stutter is noticeable because so much ground moves per frame.

Ie, if i move through 800 pixels in 48 frames at 24fps, (2 seeconds) thats just over a 16 pixels per frame 'jump'

Frame 1:
......(Object)*
Frame 2:
......(Object)................(Object)

This will not yield smooth animation because the jump is just too big. However if i Quidruple the fps:
Frame 1:
......(Object)
Frame 2:
......(Object)....(Object)

Much smoother!

This is the reason i get frustrated with films that over-use shaky cam.

*Where object is 1 pixel wide
 
Last edited:
windows xp and only high settings, works a treat, i think it may be because it uses all 4 cores around 70% a friend has a 8800gtx with an e6600 on vista and only gets 35-40 fps on very high
 
SuBsTaNcE said:
windows xp and only high settings, works a treat, i think it may be because it uses all 4 cores around 70% a friend has a 8800gtx with an e6600 on vista and only gets 35-40 fps on very high
Click to expand...

35-40 fps on Very High?

Why do people lie about fps...I don't get it. :o

and I seriously doubt you're getting the fps you say you are, go check the Crysis thread, performance even on 8800GTX with Quad Core is far worse than what you are getting.
 
fps requirement is all based on what youre looking at and in what situation. It can vary between 0 and 5000 for perfectly smooth vision.
 
Clinkz said:
I actually disagree with the notion that 24fps is acceptable for film. Its just about fine if you have still cameras which only focus on the main characters, but in any film where the camera pans over a wide environment i find it horrendous enough to give me a headache. For instance, there is a scene in gladiator where the camera pans over the stadium, or possible rome or something. The stutter is noticeable because so much ground moves per frame.

Ie, if i move through 800 pixels in 48 frames at 24fps, (2 seeconds) thats just over a 16 pixels per frame 'jump'

Frame 1:
......(Object)*
Frame 2:
......(Object)................(Object)

This will not yield smooth animation because the jump is just too big. However if i Quidruple the fps:
Frame 1:
......(Object)
Frame 2:
......(Object)....(Object)

Much smoother!

This is the reason i get frustrated with films that over-use shaky cam.

*Where object is 1 pixel wide
Click to expand...

This is down to the TV being 60hz/50hz and it having to "pulldown" the image.

a 24hz film on a 24hz TV is fine. LCDs tend to run at 60hz so I turn on Vsynch so games play at 60. any more and it can tear, any less than 40 and I can tell, especially in multiplayer FPS games.

You can even see past 60hz, I could tell between 60 and about 80 but past that and you need to be a pro with good CRT playing competatively.
 
D.P. said:
The "frame rate" of the human eye isn't muhc more than 10FPS,, but it is not constant so to avoid aliasing we nee need to sample at around a factor 10 times that.

It takes around 100ms to fully process a visual image, leading to 10FPS maximum processing rate. But certain senses such as motion can be perceived much faster, even if the motion is not accurately observed and measured it is detected as part of a flight or fight "early" vision system in the old cortex.
Click to expand...

10 frames per second? Theres several study videos that show otherwise, where videos are played and a frame is stuck in randomly as one frame in a video running at over 100fps. If the eye is limited to 10frames per second thered be times when we miss the image entirely, yet we don't.

Broadcast television also uses interlacing, making the effect frames per second around 60 not 30 like everyone is saying. The interlacing provides extra sections between frames to smoothen the footage and if you stop an interlaced video and capture the individual frame you'll see it as black and white lines around moving objects.

This site disagrees with your 10fs cap.
http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
 
Clinkz said:
I actually disagree with the notion that 24fps is acceptable for film. Its just about fine if you have still cameras which only focus on the main characters, but in any film where the camera pans over a wide environment i find it horrendous enough to give me a headache. For instance, there is a scene in gladiator where the camera pans over the stadium, or possible rome or something. The stutter is noticeable because so much ground moves per frame.

Ie, if i move through 800 pixels in 48 frames at 24fps, (2 seeconds) thats just over a 16 pixels per frame 'jump'

Frame 1:
......(Object)*
Frame 2:
......(Object)................(Object)

This will not yield smooth animation because the jump is just too big. However if i Quidruple the fps:
Frame 1:
......(Object)
Frame 2:
......(Object)....(Object)

Much smoother!

This is the reason i get frustrated with films that over-use shaky cam.

*Where object is 1 pixel wide
Click to expand...

Yes, but with real film such fast motion will result in motion blur and smooth frame transitions. The effect you are seeing is probably from some cheap CG effects.
 
krisboats said:
10 frames per second? Theres several study videos that show otherwise, where videos are played and a frame is stuck in randomly as one frame in a video running at over 100fps. If the eye is limited to 10frames per second thered be times when we miss the image entirely, yet we don't.

Broadcast television also uses interlacing, making the effect frames per second around 60 not 30 like everyone is saying. The interlacing provides extra sections between frames to smoothen the footage and if you stop an interlaced video and capture the individual frame you'll see it as black and white lines around moving objects.

This site disagrees with your 10fs cap.
http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
Click to expand...

No, because you are missing the point. Motion detection and odd-frame detection behaviour are not the same as perceiving fluid motion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom