60fps (and 1080p to some extent) limit GT5
- Thread starter JBturbo
- 221 comments
- 19,327 views
- 135
- damaged_case
according to a lady at Cornell University who has a PhD in such things, the human brain can't track anything faster (visually) than about 16 "frames" per second.
just add that into the discussion.
http://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/education/ask/index.html?quid=435
just add that into the discussion.
http://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/education/ask/index.html?quid=435
- 1,320
- CZE
- novcze
Well, that's not the case we are talking about, isn't it. We don't exactly tracking anything in our case.
- 75
- VoletsBleus
It's like agitating a pen in front of you 16 times in a second, you no longer can say where it is exactly, not the same thing as refresh rate.
"track" is indeed the important word in this article.
"track" is indeed the important word in this article.
- 274
Everyone here should try this out: http://eapdesign.vndv.com/fps/
From what I understand, if you run a game in 30FPS with motion blur, the game designers blurs everything exept where they want you to look. While when running at 60FPS without motion blur, the brain blurs everything where you are not focusing automatically?
Therefore you will get a more "real" and accurate perception of what your seeing and your speed?
Oh, and I found this, compares 15, 30 and 60FPS, and you can clearly see that the 60FPS one is way smoother (aleast in my head)
http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html
Therefore you will get a more "real" and accurate perception of what your seeing and your speed?
Oh, and I found this, compares 15, 30 and 60FPS, and you can clearly see that the 60FPS one is way smoother (aleast in my head)
http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html
- 494
- PirateThom
- 8,723
As a professor, she should know better than to use misleading analogies. Then again, being an expert in something doesn't necessarily mean you can get the message across, especially if your aim is to dumb it right down like that!
The difference between 30 fps and 60 fps, in high contrast situations like that, is staggering.
- 32
- Warbzula
Op is a troll... Are you freaking kidding me...
This whole 30 v 60 v 120 fps deabte is a load of crap. I challenge you to go out and sit a 60hz screen next to a 120hz screen and play the same game on each, capped at 60fps Vsync on the 60hz and then 120fps Vsync on the 120hz... NOTICE HOW MUCH SMOOTHER IT IS ON THE 120HZ. Well there you go, your eyes and brain are now processing 120fps just fine. I thought this whole debate died off years ago. If 30fps is fine why dont we all just have 30hz displays... Oh thats right, because the low refresh hurts your eyes. The lower the FPS the higher the input latency and the laggier the game feels. Something you dont want for a racing game or any game for that matter. Fail thread is just fail
This whole 30 v 60 v 120 fps deabte is a load of crap. I challenge you to go out and sit a 60hz screen next to a 120hz screen and play the same game on each, capped at 60fps Vsync on the 60hz and then 120fps Vsync on the 120hz... NOTICE HOW MUCH SMOOTHER IT IS ON THE 120HZ. Well there you go, your eyes and brain are now processing 120fps just fine. I thought this whole debate died off years ago. If 30fps is fine why dont we all just have 30hz displays... Oh thats right, because the low refresh hurts your eyes. The lower the FPS the higher the input latency and the laggier the game feels. Something you dont want for a racing game or any game for that matter. Fail thread is just fail
- 135
- damaged_case
no, i know that. refresh rate is how often a television updates its image.
but if you're only able to detect 16 of those 60 frames, do you really need 4x that amount?
at 16fps, your eyes would notice each individual frame. so it'd kinda/sorta stutter. there wouldn't be any fluid motion, just 16 individual pictures.
any more than that, and your brain plays tricks on you.
have you ever noticed a film stutter?
they run at 24 or 25 frames per second (i can't remember which, exactly). faster than you can process the visual information, thus allowing your brain to see perfectly fluid motion.
30fps is more than enough to create fluidity of motion. use the extra resources elsewhere.
Human reaction time has nothing to do with this discussion. At the moment you get new info you have to react as fast as possible, but the whole point is you get this info later running at 30 fps. So you have less time to react to things.
As for the blur calculations:
could you give some explanation about that extraordinarily simple process? Because I would think its not that simple (Probably involves calculating for every object in the scene its sideway speed relative to the camera, then adding blur in function of this and its distance...)
And thats not even taking into account rotating objects (eg a car rolling over, what side to add the blur??
)Film is good at 24 frames because it contains perfect motion blur(caused by the movement while the cameras shutter is open).
Does anybody know if there are games trying to copy this motion blur?? (Im not talking about the arcadey speed blur effects some racing games have)
Edit: googled it, seems really hard to do it right on dynamic scenes(scenes with moving objects). I think we have moving objects in gt5
Last edited:
- 1,320
- CZE
- novcze
You get it wrong.
Computer generated images are completely different from film, there is no natural blur in them.
Human reaction time has nothing to do with this discussion. At the moment you get new info you have to react as fast as possible, but the whole point is you get this info later running at 30 fps. So you have less time to react to things.
As for the blur calculations:
could you give some explanation about that extraordinarily simple process? Because I would think its not that simple (Probably involves calculating for every object in the scene its sideway speed relative to the camera, then adding blur in function of this and its distance...)
And thats not even taking into account rotating objects (eg a car rolling over, what side to add the blur??
Just simple conditional texture replacement, similar to the way you build in LOD's.
And I really wish people would stop saying;
'OP is a troll this 30fps myth has been around for ages.'
Morons need to read the thread before they make such stupid comments.
- 4,323
And everyone should know your LCD monitor probably doesn't refresh at over 60FPS so the 90 and 120 buttons are worthless.
Everyone should check this out
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
Last edited:
- 4,323
Contrast is still far too significant.
Show me green over red over blue over green over different shade of green over different shade of green over......
...not to mention that the gray bar is your sole focus, which is completely the opposite to what it would be in game.
...not to mention that how many times in game does an object go backwards and fowards across almost the entire width of the screen at that speed?
Even if PD dropped it to 50fps there'd be a huge reserve of power released.
- 135
- damaged_case
at 60fps, there's not.
not even at 30fps.
which is why games now have to incorporate Motion Blur technologies into games to make them seem more realistic. Motion Blur is the unfortunate afterbirth of high frame rates.
when something is moving at high speed, things blur naturally except for what you're focused on or anything that's moving at the same pace as you.
the higher the frame rate, the less this blur happens because images are sent faster.
it's like a high speed shutter on a camera. moving at the same rate, a high speed camera will take a cripser image, but it loses the sense of speed you get from a lower speed camera because there's less blur.
moving at 60fps, things around your car (the walls of the track, the people in the stands, etc) are clearer images than at 30fps, but that's totally unnatural. so game developers, along with other mediums who say higher frame rates are better, have to develop motion blur to make it seem more real. a resource that could be used elsewhere as well.
60fps is not better. you can't process the images that fast. all 60fps does is make the things you're moving passed more crisp. the motion will still be as fluid at 30fps.
so you're wasting resources on updating images quicker than you need to, and you're also wasting resources on Motion Blur to make the things you see more clearly at 60fps... blurry.
(edit)
when you're moving around in a 3D world (let's use Indy Speedway since i'm doing that endurance race right now), the faster you move through it, the more the other objects in that 3D world are blurred. your car is not static on the track, the track and the grandstands are static. moving around in this 3D world would have the same effects of moving around on the real thing.
- 4,323
Wouldn't red over green be far more contrasty than gray over gray? I mean red and green are complimentary colors... the only thing more jaring is white on black.
Also while it's not the only thing you focus on in the game, the question was what can you percieve... whenter you are looking at that at the moment doesn't change whether you can percieve it.
As for dropping to 50s... have you seen this?
http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/gt5-performance-analysis-compilation?size=hd
Watch those FPS numbers... 60FPS is about the LEAST common number you see up there...
1080p was pretty much a lie (the term 1080p is in fact an industry standard name for 1080 vertically at 16:9 which means horizontal has to be 1920, in GT5 its 1280x1080).
60FPS was pretty much a lie as really the game is UP TO 60FPS and more often than not NOT 60FPS.
I completely disagree. You may not be able to make out exact detail at that rate depending on size, distance and speed but you can definitely discern a difference.
The biggest difference I can EASILY pickup is the gap between edges during frame change. At 30 FPS a fast moving corner of a building crossing my screen may have 1 inch gaps between each frame, at 60FPS it will have .5 inch gaps.
While I may not be able to count the FPS I can certainly discern the discrete gaps the object makes between frames and THAT gets better with higher frame rate.
Beyond that there is still a fluidity increase at even higher FPS. Over about 70fps you can really only "feel" how smooth it is. I played CS for years and I can easily tell from 70FPS and 90FPS just moving around a bit which one is higher (obviously that was back on CRTs that could actually refresh that high).
There is a reason that 120hz and 240hz TVs have a discernable feel to the image. While I know the 120 and 240 is not truly a 120/240 surce, it's still important to realize there is a difference beyond simple image prcessing there that can only be attributed to frame rate.
Last edited:
The eyes see anything above 25 fps as motion. At 60 you arent seeing half the frames. Our eyes arent quick enough to notice the difference.
Ive never gone back to play an old game (GT1 for example) and said "OMG this is unplayable at only 50fps, it looks like it is jerking all the time."
Ive never gone back to play an old game (GT1 for example) and said "OMG this is unplayable at only 50fps, it looks like it is jerking all the time."
....
- 135
- damaged_case
it really IS 1080p, though.
GT5 has 1080 vertical lines and progressively scans them.
it's not the full HD 1920x1080 display, and is misleading, but not incorrect.
i do agree though.
720 is plenty defined (though that's merely personal opinion).
30fps is plenty fluid.
put those wasted resources to good use.
Well yes, by definition it's correct but that doesn't mean much. It could be 10 x 1080 and still be 1080p but that's gravy.
I can see the benefit of 1080p over 720p but in actual gameplay GT5 doesn't even have the power to make anywhere near the most of it.
Ironically 720p would probably make the shadows look a little bit less crap
- 4,323
I've made it clear through the thread that you can perceive much higher than 30fps, but in certain circumstances you just can't.[/quote]
And in many you can, the problem is to make the blanket statement, you have to make the statement that actually covers all bases.
I totally agree fluctuating framerate is far more damaging than lower locked framerate, but if you watch that video, it drops to the mid 20's in some places
That makes the 60FPS seem more of a lie and I wouldn't want the game locked at 25FPS.
I am not sure why it's worthless... for some of us 1080 is a very detectable difference. For instance if you have an 85 inch projector screen that you sit a few feet from to give you full imersion 1080p is definitely a different look than 720p.
No. The term 1080p is an industry standard term that means 1080 lines vertically at 16:9 ratio. This means that the other direction must be 1920lines. Nothing besides 1920x1080 should be using the 1080p monicker.
Say 1028x1080 or say 1080 vertical lines of resolution is fine, but the term "1080p" is a standardized term that means more than just 1080 lines in one direction.
Similar threads
