Quote:


LMAO! I think it's a competition, whoever can't go more off topic (from the already "off-topic" topic) loses, and so far, Andrei's in the lead!

Quote:


It's not a myth, lol. It's actually the max the human eye can see. The only reason more FPS are needed is to compensate for massive explosions and world details in games. I would love to have my games locked at 30fps. The 24-29.9 fps thingy is from movies; ever notice how hollywood/professional movies always tend to look different from home movies and the like? It's all about FPS. Hollywood movies are usually filmed at 24fps, which gives it that "effect".

I totally agree with Falconfly on the fps choice.
I have to add only one thing to that: if the above discussion was true, then above 25fps we would see no difference. But then comes to the fair problem: why is it that there can be subliminal messages in a frame (or split-frame one) above 25 fps, to affect your psychic. So, above 25 fps it is more than clear you can see the difference.

Making a bit of a comparison, human hearing is also said to be limited to 16 (or 17 kHz) frequency. Yet the human can hear beyond this frequency or below, depending on audio system, ear characteristics, training and not last but least, attention. This definitively proves that limits are quite variable, and the same applies to Video. And thanks Daniel. It was voltages (not tension), I maked a little mistake were it shouldn't be...

In fact, 3dfx representatives once said (I don't remember exactly were), that a constant frame-rate around 60fps is the main goal when talking about PC games performance.

Quote:


Depends how many frames long a subliminal image is!      This is no comparison or evidence to back up your claim on the topic I am talking about

Quote:


You clearly have won the title for the most Off-topic conversation! 

Quote:


If you read my topic on framerate conditioning and buffering, the reason was because 60fps could guarantee that 24 frames a second will be read by the eye, depending on the complexity of graphics on screen.

When talking about the fps thing i remember the 2d scrolling problem on the C64. When scrolling a 2D level to the left with 1 pixel per frame (the c64 always runs 25fps on a pal machine and displays them in 50hz tv-mode) it is absolutely smooth. If you want to scroll faster with 2 pixels per frame it is also absolutely smooth. But what if you want to scroll only a bit faster  then you had to do 1 pixel per frame, then two pixel per frame, then one again etc. And this looks bad. In a 3D scenario there are so many 3D objects moving at different changing speeds. If you have a 3d object rendered to a 2D framebuffer with accelerating speed moving from the left to the right (for example) from 0.1 pixel per frame to 30 pixels per frame then all ppf rates that are not divideable by the refreshrate and are under 24fps are jerky. The higher the resolution and the higher the refresh and framerate the less visible are those effects.

Another thing is that PC monitors are optimized for a clear stable picture rather than TV's that are optimized for moving pictures.

Regards,
Andreas

P.S.
I really know what i'm writing about but i don't know if my thoughts are readable after they went to through my language processor (6 years english in school) so i really hope you understand what i am writing about

I actually saw a bit of 60fps cinema at the Futuroscope (french theme park). Images were MUCH more lifelike than crappy standard 24fps cinema, which gets really sluggish if the camera moves too fast..

Nope, since I know I can "see" more
(explanation below)

Why ?

Take a very big Screen (Plasma, TFT, CRT, whatever) @ 140Hz if you like (or more).
Then color the top half bright, and the lower half dark.

Now rotate the contained image, with the Image being displayed at 25-30fps.

The Result :
The Motion especially at the Borders will jump some distance every frame, and everyone will see it (including you).
(as a simple result of physical laws)

This is the worst case Result.

Why don't we see anything like that in nature ?
Because Nature doesn't "run" @ 25-30fps, it runs basically at unlimited fps. If it did, we'd see the same disturbing effects we see on anything physically limited to such low fps.

Even an Oscilloscope, drawing onto a phosphorous Layer (which fades only slow in brightness) will show the effect of flickering, if it draws the Curve at only 25fps (despite the after-glowing Screen helping alot to fool the eye).

I agree, the human eye cannot deliver a full, high resolution Image at unlimited rates. BUT, it is the human brain, that takes only the Information off that image, that it is focussing on.
This (I must assume) is naturally only a certain percentage of the total field of view (e.g. a limited area of a Monitor).
With the brain focussing on it (or even only specific parts of it), I reckon this remaining, small percentage of the Total Image can be scanned for Information of Interest much more often than 25-30fps.
============
I think the reason we disagree on the Topic, is that there is a tremendous difference between "seeing" and "sensing".

Seeing is defined as the raw, naked and unprocessed Image that the eyes can deliver to the brain.

Sensing is what is left, after the brain performed one of its most powerful functions critical to our survival and effectiveness : Filter irrelevant details

So I should have written, that I meant the sensing process actually. I hope that makes things a bit more clear.
I would agree that no human would be able to actually detect/sense all detail changes within an Image at more than 25fps (it's simply beyond the brain's capacity).
A full detail Image-by-Image comparison can become impossible (provided enough details are taken into consideration) at even 1fps, it's just a matter of overtasking the brain's capacity to process all the Information, at which it naturally must begin to filter what it deems less relevant.

This is definitively a very interesting discussion, and a bit unseen in normal situations.

What I am wondering is how many people actually believe in the strong-steel approach of the biologists that sustain the 25fps. Definitively, no matter how much time has passed since then (not including the name of who stated this vision), people still believe in this, fairly strong. However, movies have been done and advertised to be close to real (hence the name moving-images), but accordingly to the technology and vision of that period of time. 

As technology evolved, some have proved that the 25fps approach can be looked as a compromise, and proved why. Immediately the people that have money from movies industry fighted back this, and with force, compared to their opponents. This is why many people are still too keen on 25fps "so-called reality" and "optimum result". However, with the aid of scientist and advertisers this vision of "25fps perfection" is starting to fade out slowly.