Can you tell apart the frame rates?

[NielsS 10]

Unless you can provide proof stating that all console games are locked at 30 FPS, they are not. I have a console, I've played many games on that console, and many of them run at 60 FPS. The Call of Duty games are specifically engineered to run at 60 FPS on consoles, but DICE are not afraid to have the better looking game but have it run at 30 FPS. And yes, there is a huge difference for me between playing, say, MW2 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 on my PS3 at 720p.

I found out that in order for MW2 to have 60 fps Activision/IW lowered the resolution to 600p. I posted this yesterday with a link but maybe the forum mods don't like that site very much or it's still being looked at, i don't know but you can look the source of my findings up with google.

It's obvious that Activision used the 60 fps as a selling point but couldn't get the game to run 60 fps with a resolution of 720p.

[Baff1 0]

That's correct, it's lower res for higher FPS in COD.

I think 30 FPS would be a reasonable figure to assume for a console title.

[gossamersolid 155]

there's a pretty noticeable difference between 30fps and 60fps.

The animation is butter smooth at 60fps, at 30fps you can see that it's clearly not.

[twisted 128]

30 FPS when falling i see strobo

60 FPS is smooth

they say human eye see no difference over 25, but why we see difference than ?

there was a real diff between 30fps and 60fps. the strobo description is very accurate in the way it looks when compared.

[dmarkwick 261]

I think the idea is that if motion blur was added to both 30 and 60 FPS examples, that you would not be able to tell the difference.

[celery 8]

I think the idea is that if motion blur was added to both 30 and 60 FPS examples, that you would not be able to tell the difference.

I'm pretty sure I would, and even so it's a moot point because motion blur to cover up bad frame rate in games is very far from unproblematic. It can cause nausea, eye strain or just crankiness over not seeing anything clearly.

[dmarkwick 261]

I'm pretty sure I would, and even so it's a moot point because motion blur to cover up bad frame rate in games is very far from unproblematic. It can cause nausea, eye strain or just crankiness over not seeing anything clearly.

Well, to this I would ask: do you get nausea, eye strain or cranky from watching a movie?

[celery 8]

Well, to this I would ask: do you get nausea, eye strain or cranky from watching a movie?

No. This kind of echoes what was discussed just a few posts ago:

Movies already have it built in... and cg in movies has it.. why do you think it would cause eye strain?

Because you are a passive observer in movies. The progress of a movie doesn't depend on how well you pick up visual cues and react to them.

[[frl]myke 14]

If you're passive or active doesn't change the way how your brain handles visual input given by the eyes. If the presented input is equal to what you're used to see, you wont notice if there are 30 FPS or 60 FPS or 120 FPS.

Game graphics actually aren't drawed the way you're used to see. Else BIS wouldn't haved made blurred rotors on choppers.

[maddogx 13]

Myke;2004636']If you're passive or active doesn't change the way how your brain handles visual input given by the eyes. If the presented input is equal to what you're used to see' date=' you wont notice if there are 30 FPS or 60 FPS or 120 FPS.

Game graphics actually aren't drawed the way you're used to see. Else BIS wouldn't haved made blurred rotors on choppers.[/quote']

That's correct, and part of the point I was trying to make a few months ago in this thread. The reason why films are watchable at ~24 fps and games aren't isn't due to the passiveness of the viewer; it's because a frame recorded by a camera contains more information than a frame rendered by the average game.

If a game renderer could properly simulate a longer "exposure time" for each frame and render it accordingly, I'd say a steady 30fps would be enough.

EDIT: Ah, now I know the phrase to describe why games look crap at low framerates - it's because they suffer from "temporal aliasing". Films don't.

Edited August 16, 2011 by MadDogX

[mrcash2009 0]

15 up is obvious 30 to 60 the best place to look for clues is as the box drops from its highest point, in that linear curve speed motion on the descent you can see a slight "tightness" to its movement in 30 compared to 60.

[ziiip 1]

Cant believe I see a topic for this ridiculous thing.

[dmarkwick 261]

Cant believe I see a topic for this ridiculous thing.

Increase your emotion blur.

(see what I did there? ;))

[ziiip 1]

That drops my framerate way too much.

(nice one btw)

Edited August 17, 2011 by ziiip

[mrcash2009 0]

Cant believe I see a topic for this ridiculous thing.

I got lag reading this.

[Sennacherib 0]

I can't, and when I play a game at 30FPS, opposted to a game at 60FPS (Yes, I do have games that run at both.... ) I can't tell the difference either.

I think if they swapped the 2 boxes around and told people the 30fps one was 60fps, people would still say it looked smoother than the 60fps. Just because they know the framerate, just, the placebo effect.

I don't see any diferences; and i'm totally agree

[celery 8]

I don't see any diferences; and i'm totally agree

You don't believe that anyone can tell the difference because you can't. Got it. :)

[Sennacherib 0]

no, I believe that i can't see the difference; i'm agree with Ben's idea, but everyone can have his own opinion, i don't care.

[celery 8]

no, I believe that i can't see the difference; i'm agree with Ben's idea, but everyone can have his own opinion, i don't care.

In other words, like I said.

[gossamersolid 155]

no, I believe that i can't see the difference; i'm agree with Ben's idea, but everyone can have his own opinion, i don't care.

You must have something wrong with your eyes then as the difference is pretty much easy to see.

[Sennacherib 0]

yes you are right, i'm blind. wow! in fact this is a miracle if i can write these lines, oh! and i'm also an idiot who can't have his own opinion :bored:

btw you attack me but i'm not the only one who voted "i can't see the differences".

nevermind, old habits are still alive here

[celery 8]

yes you are right, i'm blind. wow! in fact this is a miracle if i can write these lines, oh! and i'm also an idiot who can't have his own opinion :bored:

btw you attack me but i'm not the only one who voted "i can't see the differences".

nevermind, old habits are still alive here

If you come to declare your opinions on a forum, you will be met with counterarguments if you're basing them on fallacies such as "I can't see it so you can't either" and "it's my opinion". If opinions are sacred to you, why are you disrespecting the opinions of the 81% majority that actually can see the difference?

[Sennacherib 0]

yes, but I was just agree with Ben, so why don't you attack him?

If opinions are sacred to you, why are you disrespecting the opinions of the 81% majority that actually can see the difference?

i don't disrespected different opinions, I was just agree with the "placebo idea". But if you see a difference, well ok. This is like religions, I don't trust in them, but if people trust in them; I respect that; even if I continue to think about their relevance.

damn' if I can't be agree with an other member, this forum becomes a little bit strange. And I gave my opinion, and you gave your opinion; do i attacked your opinion?

maybe, a thread about the philosophy would be more suitable for this conversation:confused:

[celery 8]

yes, but I was just agree with Ben, so why don't you attack him?

I already questioned his stance with the following post, and he did see a difference there.

That's a common argument that can be easily disproven. It's hard to imagine how someone else could perceive things differently from you, but there are differences.

---------- Post added at 15:30 ---------- Previous post was at 15:24 ----------

Here is another comparison in video format (smaller video featuring balls further in the thread). I have a feeling that even Ben can see the difference.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1069482

i don't disrespected different opinions, I was just agree with the "placebo idea". But if you see a difference, well ok. This is like religions, I don't trust in them, but if people trust in them; I respect that; even if I continue to think about their relevance.

damn' if I can't be agree with an other member, this forum becomes a little bit strange. And I gave my opinion, and you gave your opinion; do i attacked your opinion?

maybe, a thread about the philosophy would be more suitable for this conversation:confused:

You're still talking as if an opinion was a holy thing that everyone has a right to express without getting criticized. By saying that the majority voted yes only because of a placebo effect, you're belittling their conclusions and being a hypocrite about "attacking opinions". If you don't want to get into an argument after writing a misguided and offensively insinuating post, that's exactly what you shouldn't do.

[mrcash2009 0]

After reading the most recent posts, my FPS went from solid 40 down to just 5, then I got an illegal operation error :(