Thanks for 60fps
- Thread starter ChevyFan1912
- 49 comments
- 4,068 views
HKS racer
(Banned)
- 4,802
60 rock solid fps is the right pace for racing games. GT5 is not 60 rock solid but almost never drop under 50 so still good enough, blur and post processing fx helps keeping the sense of speed and fluidity.
30 fps is my acceptable limit, they must be 30 fps locked with no frame drops. 60 fps still better though.
30 fps is my acceptable limit, they must be 30 fps locked with no frame drops. 60 fps still better though.
- 432
- VIC
- torm1
From Wikipedia: 24 frames per second is the standard for video. NTSC reduces it to just under 24fps and PAL increases it to 25, so--just guessing here--unless you have problems with ordinary TV and DVDs, perhaps the frame rate is not the issue.
Many modern TVs interlace frames to make 24 fps seem smoother. And there is, admittedly, a difference to the brain between passively watching a TV screen and actively controlling the motion displayed on the screen in games.
Many modern TVs interlace frames to make 24 fps seem smoother. And there is, admittedly, a difference to the brain between passively watching a TV screen and actively controlling the motion displayed on the screen in games.
HKS racer
(Banned)
- 4,802
Sorry but NO. 24 fps is a good value only for precalculated videos, not for real time videogames.
Professional video makers know how to smooth their stuff, there are no frame drops involved no matter what happen on screen. And it does make a difference.
- 432
- VIC
- torm1
dr_slump
Premium
- 7,425
- Switzerland
- the_dr_slump / GTP_dr_slump
Not even close, the human eye can only see about 20-25fps.
What happens if you watch a 24p movie?
👍
---
Btw, constant 30fps is good, the drops are the problem. But if you have drops then you have no longer 30fps for a short time..... so you can't really blame the 30fps.
Last edited:
- 8,704
Utterly wrong.
The human eye doesn't see the world in frames at all. It has a temporal response characteristic that is dependent on both the intensity, contrast ratio, and spectrum of incident light on the entire retina, as well as the particular retina in question. We're talking about a chemical reaction in the receptor cells of the retina, which of course have a finite response time (and can be "fatigued" temporarily, like those "burn in" and "negative image" tests demonstrate, and is also why our eyes don't like to stay still.)
What this means is that if you're watching a film in a dark room on a large screen, in which the individual frames have motion blur inherent in them from the slow response time of the original recording medium that essentially bridges the gaps in motion on screen, then yes, that's fine to our eyes. That's because the high relative brightness burns the image into our retina harder, so its residual lasts longer.
Try doing the same on an LCD screen in brightly light room, especially if you omit the blurring, and it will clearly appear to jump and jerk about.
Real scientific tests have shown that certain individuals can perceive smooth motion benefits in high contrast scenes (e.g. a black cube moving over a white background, or v.v.) well above 120 fps. Many individuals won't perceive a benefit over 60 fps, though, which is why it's the holy grail at this point.
The other major benefit is reduced latency. At 24 fps each frame comes after a delay of about 42 ms. 30 Hz is 33 ms, 60 Hz ~17 ms, 120 Hz is 8 ms. Reaction times are typically in the range of 200 - 400 ms, but recognition of a change occurs well before any reaction, so there are reaction / interaction benefits up to 120 fps for a large number of people, and beyond that for a significant number. This is because with a lower framerate, you could show a frame and then something might immediately change, but you'd still have to wait the full 42 ms before you could see it - faster refresh rates reduce this latency. There's also the feedback loop between control input and on-screen reaction to that input - even though we're remarkably tolerant to large latencies, lower latencies give a much snappier and involving experience.
Another example is those frame-insertion tests, where you take a static scene and then suddenly inject a single contrasting frame and then switch back to the original scene. It might take you a while to react to its presence, but you definitely saw that rogue frame, and you could probably even say what was on it.
You have to ask why the creators of Wipeout, obviously a fast game, decided that 60 fps was far (far) superior to 30 fps. Or why hacking GPL's pre-renderer to run at 60 Hz instead of 36 Hz allowed people to improve their laptimes without any significant change in driving style or car setup (although the FFB rate was improved at the same time, the physics itself was unaltered). Of course, many people claimed there wasn't a difference, which only cements the idea that everybody's different. So, to play it safe, it's generally better to have a higher frame rate than a lower one (unless you want to level the playing field, but please use motion blur).
Interpolation is actually pointless, it's not adding any extra detail - it can smooth out certain movements and obviously choppy framerates, and any reaction benefits are likely to be marginal due to the softened transitions. Depending on the exact source material and method of interpolation, it can sometimes give the motion an unnatural feel. For example, I cannot watch TV interpolated to 60 Hz, it looks like its in fast-forward somehow, it's awful. I've not tried games interpolated.
If it "works" for your eyes, though, that's fine.
Also, this is pretty interesting, given its age.
- 1,762
- Germany
- xXGalmOneXx
- xXGalm OneXx
To me games with 60fps look well... like games! not too natural, a game with solid 30fps + advanced motion blur makes it for me look realistic. More natural. Well that I can say for me at least. When I play Call of Duty with 60fps, and then Killzone 3 with motion blur and 30fps. Reminds me more of the real world or playing a movie. Eventhough yes.. it's still a game!
- 8,704
The mistake there is comparing two different games, with vastly different art styles, post-processing, play-style and control feedback - despite both being fast-paced FPSs.
You also have to remember that a 17 millisecond frame budget gives you half as much time to make a scene look "realistic" than you do at 30 Hz.
John Carmack basically started an internal war when he insisted Rage should be 60 Hz, because that made the technical challenge that much higher and the overall art effect on consoles was severely diminished as a result, as well as causing the the development to be dragged out. But they're in a much better position now, in terms of knowledge and technology, as a result. It also allowed them to deliver their trademark, snappy FPS experience, even if it was dressed up to be something else at times.
And motion blur works just as well at 60 Hz, although, ironically, motion blur does require a bit of effort such that a good portion of the time liberated by going to 30 Hz is taken up with the necessary motion blur to restore the apparent fluidity. I still remember the improved motion blur hack that was released for GTAIV (on PC) which gave the impression of stabilising framerates (the game ran so inconsistently from hardware to hardware, but usually ran badly) - the new motion blur actually reduced the average framerate, but improved the apparent fluidity. Of course, latency was increased, but it's not the sort of game that relies heavily on input-feedback (whereas CoD is).
With the necessary increased power (i.e. a PC), the 60 Hz "experience" stands head and shoulders above 30 Hz in the same game, for any game. For a more familiar example, I can't be the only person who notices the jarring transition from 30 to 60 Hz and back in GT5's replays as you cycle views.
Anyway, the problem is that that power is not widely available to produce the sorts of visual fidelity that gamers "expect", and do so at 60 Hz (the trick is to do a lot of the non-feedback-critical stuff "asynchronously" so you can still approach that level of fidelity).
So the compromise must stay for now, but for a "racing sim" the choice is obvious.
And yes 60 Hz is by no means an upper limit, for certain circumstances there is evidence to suggest "saturation" at over 4000 "fps". The way the individual light-receptor cells in the retina work asynchronously and in synergy means that the entire system can achieve astonishing response rates sometimes. However, typically a practical limit might be 100 Hz, so hopefully more 120 Hz displays might actually start to accept 120 Hz sources. Even then, 240 Hz would offer noticeable benefits to many people. An analogy to the way the retina works would be to offer so-called "stochastic" displays that don't update the entire screen at once, but only those "priority" areas that need to be updated; because you're updating less of the screen in one go, you can do it more often and get the important information out sooner. It might present challenges to the renderer in games, though it would work very well for recorded media (we already have such prioritisation in video compression algorithms).
- 3,531
- London, Ontario
- Starky513
It would probably be in the best interest for you to just see a doctor or consult a medical practitioner and just go over the symptoms, it could be something as simple as the lighting in your room, but you wouldn't want it leading to more serious things down the road.. Just ask the Doc casually about it, it's probably nothing to worry about!
- 432
- VIC
- torm1
If movies at 24 fps aren't an issue, but games of less than 60 are, the problem can't be one of FPS alone as the OP first speculated. It could be any manner of things, related to simulated motion or smoothness of frames, or even these coupled together, but it can't merely be the rate of FPS. Hence the raising of TV/DVD footage.
Its important to remember that there is a significant difference between passively watching a movie at 24fps and trying to control the action in a game at 24fps. When you are trying to react to the action onscreen and make control inputs the lower framerate increases lag and decreases responsiveness which can play into the physical effects the OP experiences.
- 8,704
There's more to it again, in that someone commented that only CRT displays make them unwell.
That might be because CRTs don't switch the entire screen at once (or at all), but instead draw it line by line using an electron gun (Cathode Ray Tube) to excite the phosphor coating, giving obviously bright scanning artefacts. LCDs are more constant in luminance.
This video shows the difference nicely.
That might have been the actual cause of "square eyes", well, that and the X-Rays in the early days...
EDIT: There's also the competition between your peripheral vision and central vision; peripheral vision is involved with balance, so your central vision says the world is moving but your peripheral vision probably has greater influence and you "realise" you're not actually going anywhere, which agrees with your inner ear and other internal "accelerometers". Maybe when this peripheral dominance fails you get ill? Try a smaller screen, or sitting further away (or maybe the opposite, who knows?)
EDIT: Interestingly, the old-fashioned film-roll cinema isn't constant brightness either; the lamp is occluded whilst the frame is "loaded" to prevent visual artefacts, but that causes flickering which can upset people, too - which is why cinema projectors project at higher than 24 Hz by repeating frames (sound familiar?), so they actually flicker at a higher, less noticeable rate.
That might be because CRTs don't switch the entire screen at once (or at all), but instead draw it line by line using an electron gun (Cathode Ray Tube) to excite the phosphor coating, giving obviously bright scanning artefacts. LCDs are more constant in luminance.
This video shows the difference nicely.
That might have been the actual cause of "square eyes", well, that and the X-Rays in the early days...
EDIT: There's also the competition between your peripheral vision and central vision; peripheral vision is involved with balance, so your central vision says the world is moving but your peripheral vision probably has greater influence and you "realise" you're not actually going anywhere, which agrees with your inner ear and other internal "accelerometers". Maybe when this peripheral dominance fails you get ill? Try a smaller screen, or sitting further away (or maybe the opposite, who knows?)
EDIT: Interestingly, the old-fashioned film-roll cinema isn't constant brightness either; the lamp is occluded whilst the frame is "loaded" to prevent visual artefacts, but that causes flickering which can upset people, too - which is why cinema projectors project at higher than 24 Hz by repeating frames (sound familiar?), so they actually flicker at a higher, less noticeable rate.
Last edited:
- 1,762
- Germany
- xXGalmOneXx
- xXGalm OneXx
Okay so in this case let's take racing games as example.
Why not even GT5? Racing at 60FPS in GT5 looks also not natural for me. Eventhough, I prefer the 60fps over 30fps with none motion blur like (F1 2011). But as example If I watch GT5's replay on 30fps+motion blur it looks more like the real deal to me. How the real world kind of looks to me. As soon I switch the camera to actual gameplay cam it's like a sting in the eye because then it looks again just like a game (which yes it is) but too artificial.
If I play for example Project CARS on PC with the advanced motion blur, I don't get 60fps there with it, my PC is too weak, but I get solid 30-40fps. That makes me feel closer to the real world. Or let me play a while PGR4 on the 360. Which runs also at 30fps but rock solid+advanced motion blur, it gives me more the feel of being closer to reality. If I switch right after to a game like GT5 or Forza 4, I can't deny that it's really nice with the 60fps but it looks then again just like a game and too artificial compared to the other.
In this videos you maybe see what I mean. And to everybody else because it often gets taken wrong. No PGR4 isn't the better game. Just related to the topic.
This looks for my own eyes at least more like the real world than driving GT5 because of the motion blur I guess.
Greetings
- 2,128
- Australia
- N/A
- N/A
Higher framerate = better imo.
The stuff about the human eye being only able to see 30FPS is rubbish. I see differences between 30, 40, 50, and 60, and even up to 80. Since real life isn't capped to a frame rate (there is no such thing as a frame rate in real life, per say), whatever our eyes can see should be natural no matter the framerate we're seeing on a screen. The only time it should not fell natural is when it's below the framerate that each person's eye can see.
EDIT: @DonZonda The only issue there, with the video you posted, is that YouTube is capped at 32.5FPS. Even if he recorded that at a higher frame-rate (which I doubt, most HDPVR's are in the 30 - 40FPS region), YouTube will only display it at 30FPS.
The stuff about the human eye being only able to see 30FPS is rubbish. I see differences between 30, 40, 50, and 60, and even up to 80. Since real life isn't capped to a frame rate (there is no such thing as a frame rate in real life, per say), whatever our eyes can see should be natural no matter the framerate we're seeing on a screen. The only time it should not fell natural is when it's below the framerate that each person's eye can see.
EDIT: @DonZonda The only issue there, with the video you posted, is that YouTube is capped at 32.5FPS. Even if he recorded that at a higher frame-rate (which I doubt, most HDPVR's are in the 30 - 40FPS region), YouTube will only display it at 30FPS.
- 8,704
Okay so in this case let's take racing games as example.
Why not even GT5? Racing at 60FPS in GT5 looks also not natural for me. Eventhough, I prefer the 60fps over 30fps with none motion blur like (F1 2011). But as example If I watch GT5's replay on 30fps+motion blur it looks more like the real deal to me. How the real world kind of looks to me. As soon I switch the camera to actual gameplay cam it's like a sting in the eye because then it looks again just like a game (which yes it is) but too artificial.
If I play for example Project CARS on PC with the advanced motion blur, I don't get 60fps there with it, my PC is too weak, but I get solid 30-40fps. That makes me feel closer to the real world. Or let me play a while PGR4 on the 360. Which runs also at 30fps but rock solid+advanced motion blur, it gives me more the feel of being closer to reality. If I switch right after to a game like GT5 or Forza 4, I can't deny that it's really nice with the 60fps but it looks then again just like a game and too artificial compared to the other.
In this videos you maybe see what I mean. And to everybody else because it often gets taken wrong. No PGR4 isn't the better game. Just related to the topic.
This looks for my own eyes at least more like the real world than driving GT5 because of the motion blur I guess.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmeGeKL6-Mg
Greetings
Hmm, motion blur is nice, but are you sure you're not just used to film? I'm not saying that a 60 Hz game will automatically look real, that's ridiculous - you'd need far more than 240 Hz for that (although most people would be tricked before that point in certain situations).
Either that or you just have a slow eye-brain!
If there's no aesthetic benefit for you, that's fine, but in terms of the actual driving / racing, 60 Hz is miles better every time - no one would "prefer" 30 Hz over 60 Hz in terms of response, unless they couldn't feel any difference.
For me, PGR4 looks good because of the post-processing and the extra attention paid to the lighting. There's also a bit of trickery going on with FoV which might change perception.
Again, how do you know the extra "realism" isn't just coming from exploiting the doubled frame budget? If there was enough power, you could post-process the crap out of a 60 Hz game and make it look as good as a current 30 Hz game. You can't offer console 60 Hz games as examples of "deficient realism" and blame the frame rate alone for that - it's the lack of power to fill twice as many frames with the same detail that's doing it, and is not a problem on PC if you have the power or are playing a game that has actually been optimised (PCARS will no doubt run a lot better at retail).
When I watch a replay in GT5 in a 60 Hz view and then switch to a 30 Hz view, it looks awful. It jumps like crazy and looks really uncanny, at least until my eyes get used to it and blur it together for me. But then it looks like film, not real life. Obviously 60 Hz doesn't look like real life either, because real life doesn't have a framerate, but it's still a lot better - I guess most people just aren't as "used" to 60 Hz as they are 24, 25 and 30 Hz.
Honestly, I can't wait for 120 Hz to take off, bugger the "Neanderthals".
