My Eye Cannot See More Than 30fps!

[fargo]

Ok, this might sound stupid, but I always wonder why games are designed to show 60 frames per second while our eyes cannot see more than 30 frames per second. Are not the extra 30 frames just waste of resources and games can look smooth with just 30fps?!

:unsure: h34r:

 

[Unfathomable Depths]

Im told my ear cant hear better than 22050 Hz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_rate#Sampling_theorem

 

[woogal]

Frame rates are an artificial creation. Eyes work in a completely different way to computer hardware, and depending on exactly what it is they are viewing they adjust from only seeing low 'frame rates' (for looking at detail I'd guess) to seeing very high 'frame rates' (a few thousand? can't remember now), to spot the slightest movement of something you're hunting. Whoever told you eyes can only see 30fps is an idiot.

 

[gp32rich]

For screens where your head is still and you are concentrating on an slow changing image that is metres distant 30 fps is more than adequate, eg. tv, movies.
You actually start to lose the ability to differentiate frames at around 20fps.
Movies run at 24fps, PAL tv is 25fps, NTSC is ~30fps


But ... as soon as you move your viewpoint, are close to the screen or are staring at a fast moving image you need more fps to make it appear smooth



The faster things move across your field of vision, the more fps you need to fill in the gaps.



Did you know that you can detect the 50/60hz flicker of electric lights by using a reflective surface to 'move' the light.
Try it by swirling a cup of tea or coffee


And have a look at this ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_of_vision

 

[sam fisher]

for slow moving images its ok as the "burn in" caused on your eye and the way your brain handles the input causes blurring to merge the slides. However, faster motion will mean bigger gaps, and too big a gaps end up choppy due to the blurring not compensating. I always prefer above 45fps.

 

[Fishbong]

Ok, this might sound stupid, but I always wonder why games are designed to show 60 frames per second while our eyes cannot see more than 30 frames per second. Are not the extra 30 frames just waste of resources and games can look smooth with just 30fps?!

:unsure: h34r:

Games don´t have 60 real fps. They´re interlaced, that means they get refreshed 60 times a second, but only every 2nd scanline is changing, e.g. only 60 "half" fps are shown.

 

[fargo]

Lots of new information

Thank you guys

 

[purple_goat]

Lots of new information

Thank you guys

 

[icurafu]

I was told that my eyes can't differenciate more then 8 million colors. But most video cards display at 16.8 Million colors.

 

[Squidge]

Games don´t have 60 real fps. They´re interlaced, that means they get refreshed 60 times a second, but only every 2nd scanline is changing, e.g. only 60 "half" fps are shown.

what?

 

[sand_man]

Games don´t have 60 real fps. They´re interlaced, that means they get refreshed 60 times a second, but only every 2nd scanline is changing, e.g. only 60 "half" fps are shown.

what?

Finshbong...go back to your bong

 

[Fishbong]

Ok, so please explain to me how interlacing works.

 

[moz]

Ok, so please explain to me how interlacing works.

not every output of video is interlaced some draw the picture "line by line" thats the future that is

 

[evol]

Ok, so please explain to me how interlacing works.

i think you got it right, but not ALL games work that way. for example many gameconsoles did not have a internal chip that handled interlacing. so they output progressive scan pictures but, the SD-TV converts the 60fps Progressive input to 60fps Interlaced output.


interlacing is a bandwidth reducing technique so in some cases its just dumb to add cost to a device and implementing chips that handle them internaly

so many machines sends progressive scan pictures directly (mainly 2d consoles)
and some sends already interlaced signals (mainly early 3d consoles)

 

[Fishbong]

You ´re right, however the image you see on a TV is still interlaced, that means 60 half frames (or fields) per second. Of course that doesn´t apply to PC games and recent console games with progressive scan support, played ona HDTV. But for the most time of console gaming history, Players have been looking at interlaced images.

 

[woogal]

Older consoles/computers used resolutions like 320x240 which meant that they could display the full screen on both the odd and even frames and have a 60fps progressive display (no need to interlace something thats shorter than the height of the screen).

 

[Fishbong]

Yeah, i knew that, but the TV would still output it as interlaced video, seeing as that´s the standard for both PAL and NTSC.

 

[evol]

Yeah, i knew that, but the TV would still output it as interlaced video, seeing as that´s the standard for both PAL and NTSC.

good point ! (im to stuck in looking at hardware so i tend to deviate from the physical world once in a while) :rolleyes: