Welcome, Guest. Please Login 3dfx Archive
 
  HomeHelpSearchLogin  
 
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 
Send Topic Print
Who do we look up to now? (Read 1870 times)
amp_man
Ex Member


Re: Who do we look up to now?
Reply #60 - 03.03.04 at 21:27:37
 
Quote:
Ahhhh... those demons... won't let me alone... There is a question that haunts me continuously... Well, sorry, I can't help myself, so I have to ask: this subforum has "off-topic" description. Does this mean _ALL_ threads must be off-topic? ...


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!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Blazkowicz
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 132
france
Gender: male
Re: Who do we look up to now?
Reply #61 - 04.03.04 at 20:52:13
 
Quote:
That is a very good motto by Abraham Lincoln.

I do apologise Andre if this causes any offence, but your English does leave something to be desired and I struggled to see the point you were making.

About the framerate debate, Scientifically, the human eye only sees a limit of 24 fps (this can be made debatable give or take a frame depending on the refresh rate in 'Hz'.  This would have to be a drastic difference e.g. 60Hz compared to 120Hz). Anything above 30fps, the eye fails to keep up and notice the difference in the change of the frame.  The game may seem faster at 100fps than 30fps, although the eye does not seem the frame change, it just sees an increase in speed of the game (the game moves faster).

My opinion is, is that PC's will ALWAYS be ahead of consoles, performance and quality wise, due to the high demand in newer technology and the frequent ever-changing architecture of modern systems.


..
When will the 24-30fps myth end?  Cheesy
just see the 60/30/15 Hz demo from 3DFX
http://falconfly.de/artwork.htm
Back to top
« Last Edit: 04.03.04 at 20:55:08 by Blazkowicz »  
 
IP Logged
 
Lecram25
Full Member
***
Offline


DOUBLE the Processor  
     DOUBLE the Bandwidth

Posts: 212
Melbourne, FL, USA
Gender: male
Re: Who do we look up to now?
Reply #62 - 04.03.04 at 22:57:29
 
Quote:
..
When will the 24-30fps myth end?  Cheesy
just see the 60/30/15 Hz demo from 3DFX
http://falconfly.de/artwork.htm


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".
Back to top
 

| AMD Athlon XP (Barton) 2800+ @ 3200+ (11x200) | Cooler Master Jet 7 | ABIT NF7-S Rev 2.0 (nForce 2) | Corsair TWINX1024-3200C2 | Sapphire ATi Radeon 9500np>9700np | Sound Blaster Live! X-Gamer 5.1 | 3dfx VoodooTV 200 PCI | Western Digital 40GB & 120GB HDD | Pioneer 106s DVD | LG 52x24x52 CDRW | Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Theater 5.1 DTT3500 Digital Speakers | &&&&"Maybe if Mesa and Amigamerlin, along with Koolsmokey will work together, this thing could become reality" - Boiu_Andrei
 
IP Logged
 
FalconFly
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


3dfx Archivist

Posts: 2445
5335N 00745E
Gender: male
Re: Who do we look up to now?
Reply #63 - 04.03.04 at 23:07:30
 
*ugh*

While the untrained eye alone might only process something around that figure passively viewing something, the process of  human recognition  and interaction can (depending on training) by far exceed this figure.

I can tell 25 from 40 fps just by looking at it, and depending on Interaction level, anything sub 80fps can feel sluggish and very disturbing.

Hardcore Quake 3 Arena players literally puke on their machine, it if drops below 120fps ever.

The 25fps is a myth, and basically defines the absolute minimum fps for basic Cinematic experience (barely sufficient to fool the eye into seeing a 'Motion Picture' , based on zero Interaction)
Back to top
« Last Edit: 04.03.04 at 23:08:16 by FalconFly »  
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Andrew Boiu
Senior Member
****
Offline


LDE-BDreams

Posts: 267
LDE-BDreams
Gender: male
Re: Who do we look up to now?
Reply #64 - 05.03.04 at 09:31:24
 
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.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
janskjaer
Ex Member


Re: Who do we look up to now?
Reply #65 - 05.03.04 at 14:58:48
 
Quote:
*ugh*

While the untrained eye alone might only process something around that figure passively viewing something, the process of  human recognition  and interaction can (depending on training) by far exceed this figure.

I can tell 25 from 40 fps just by looking at it, and depending on Interaction level, anything sub 80fps can feel sluggish and very disturbing.

Hardcore Quake 3 Arena players literally puke on their machine, it if drops below 120fps ever.

The 25fps is a myth, and basically defines the absolute minimum fps for basic Cinematic experience (barely sufficient to fool the eye into seeing a 'Motion Picture' , based on zero Interaction)



Lecram25 has a point here.  Games that do run at 80 or 120 fps do so for the reason to compensate the frames in computer slowdown when complex things happen on screen.

Out of the 24fps you see every second, the 56 or 96 left over are used as a buffer or conditioner to keep the framerate above the 24 frames that the eye sees in that second.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
janskjaer
Ex Member


Re: Who do we look up to now?
Reply #66 - 05.03.04 at 15:04:06
 
Quote:
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.


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

Quote:
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...


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

Quote:
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.


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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Micha
Senior Member
****
Offline


Got milk?

Posts: 317
Gender: male
Re: Who do we look up to now?
Reply #67 - 05.03.04 at 16:01:36
 
guys, has anybody of you ever had biology in school??
in fact, what human can see varies between 20-25fps - not more. the thing you think you can see more on desktop, falcon, is because of the technology of tube monitors, or have you ever seen a flickering on a modern flat panel? see: the screen may flicker @50Hz, but if the game runs @30fps it runs smooth. but depending on the the tube technology, you see a flickering which has nothing to do with the fps of your games.
well, i agree a shooter is nicer @50fps than below, and nfs underground should run smooth @25fps. and this is the case where monitor refresh rate and game refresh rate combined cause problems. try games with activated vertical screen sync and your problems will all disappear *amazes me* hehe, at least, if your gfx and cpu is fast enough  Grin

>>adding<<
i'm trying to figure out what's the use of 120fps in qIIIarena when your monitor is locked to 85Hz or something...as in this case Hertz = frames per second (--> the use of vsync  Wink )
Back to top
« Last Edit: 05.03.04 at 16:10:20 by Micha »  

AMD Athlon XP Thorton 2400+/2GHz (256KB L2, FSB DDR266MHz) @ Barton 2800+/2.083GHz (512KB L2, FSB DDR333MHz), HIS Radeon 9800Pro, Kingston 768MB PC2700 DDR-RAM (CL 2-3-3-7), Asus A7V8X-X, Creative Soundblaster Audigy 2 ZS, Seagate 160GB 7200rpm ATA100 HDD, be quiet! 400Watt PSU, Windows XP Pro MCE05
WWW  
IP Logged
 
nudgegoonies
Full Member
***
Offline


C64

Posts: 182
Germany
Gender: male
Re: Who do we look up to now?
Reply #68 - 05.03.04 at 19:26:46
 
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 Wink
Back to top
 

Board: Asus CUSL-2-C (Chipset: Intel i815), CPU: Intel PIII 933, RAM: 2 Infineon 128MB (1 PC133-333, 1 PC133-222) and 1 Infineon 256MB (PC 333-333) SD-RAM, Video: 3dfx Voodoo 3 3000 AGP, TV: LifeView FlyKit (Chipset: BT848, Tuner: No), Sound: Creative Labs Soundblaster PCI 512, NET: 3COM Etherlink XL Combo OS: Windows 98SE with SESP21D, Video Driver: 1.07.00 with GLIDE and OGL from 1.07.00b
 
IP Logged
 
FalconFly
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


3dfx Archivist

Posts: 2445
5335N 00745E
Gender: male
Re: Who do we look up to now?
Reply #69 - 05.03.04 at 21:19:36
 
Quote:
guys, has anybody of you ever had biology in school??
in fact, what human can see varies between 20-25fps - not more. the thing you think you can see more on desktop, falcon, is because of the technology of tube monitors, or have you ever seen a flickering on a modern flat panel? see: the screen may flicker @50Hz, but if the game runs @30fps it runs smooth. but depending on the the tube technology, you see a flickering which has nothing to do with the fps of your games.
well, i agree a shooter is nicer @50fps than below, and nfs underground should run smooth @25fps. and this is the case where monitor refresh rate and game refresh rate combined cause problems. try games with activated vertical screen sync and your problems will all disappear *amazes me* hehe, at least, if your gfx and cpu is fast enough  Grin

>>adding<<
i'm trying to figure out what's the use of 120fps in qIIIarena when your monitor is locked to 85Hz or something...as in this case Hertz = frames per second (--> the use of vsync  Wink )


Trust me, I have seen military Prototype Simulators in demonstration at exactly 24fps, and the effect was horrible  (visible, sluggish motion on a widescreen Projection).

So the naked eye can clearly see more than 25fps Wink
The biologists might argue with an "average" human's capability, but well I'm not "average".

Also, the "Motion Picture" already has quite alot of "Motion compensation", in order to camouflage exactly this Problem :
Having the Scene on the screen "jumping" around during camera slews due to the way too low fps. If 25fps was all we could see, then no Motion Compensation would ever be needed. On small screens the effect is minimal, but in large Cinemas, it can be extreme (despite Motion compensation or special postprocessing and/or recording FX).

And I have played with VSync on (left on accidentally), rendering a Game almost unplayable at ~80-85fps, because all my timing was constantly off.

And a last example :
I played on my Notebook at something like 30-40fps, which was "viewable" to the bystander, but far not enough for competitive play. (and that's on a TFT)

To me (and many others), 30fps are not smooth, not on a CRT, nor on a TFT. (actually doesn't matter)

The use of fps > refreshrate is, that the game feels free, uninterrupted and undisturbed. The faster the Action, and the required Interaction, the higher the fps needed for silk smooth gameplay. And depending on Training, this can exceed some 150fps for the absolute Pro Gamers.
Back to top
« Last Edit: 06.03.04 at 01:28:21 by FalconFly »  
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Blazkowicz
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 132
france
Gender: male
Re: Who do we look up to now?
Reply #70 - 06.03.04 at 00:03:59
 
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..
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Micha
Senior Member
****
Offline


Got milk?

Posts: 317
Gender: male
Re: Who do we look up to now?
Reply #71 - 06.03.04 at 14:58:22
 
please: ask your former biology teacher. you can't see more than average 25fps. you shouldn't orientate on screens, that's about true nature.
example: ever tried to catch a fly? you must have noticed the fly is very quickly moving away. why? the fly is able to see about 50fps or more, don't know exactly. if you could see @ the same rate, you would be able to kill the damn fly! but you aren't, you can't even see every move of the fly, but the fly instead is able to see more of your movements than you do. many animals can do movements  human can only see under special cameras catching all "frames" & showing it at lower frame rates because the human eye isn't able to see the whole movement by nature.
the screen thingy is different. it's a matter of the matrix if you believe to see more than average 25fps. so, ever seen a flickering in nature (without being drunken)  Grin i don't know the technical details why man sees a flickering @ less than 75Hz, but i truly know: you aren't able to see more than 20-30fps in nature.
convinced?
Back to top
« Last Edit: 06.03.04 at 14:59:54 by Micha »  

AMD Athlon XP Thorton 2400+/2GHz (256KB L2, FSB DDR266MHz) @ Barton 2800+/2.083GHz (512KB L2, FSB DDR333MHz), HIS Radeon 9800Pro, Kingston 768MB PC2700 DDR-RAM (CL 2-3-3-7), Asus A7V8X-X, Creative Soundblaster Audigy 2 ZS, Seagate 160GB 7200rpm ATA100 HDD, be quiet! 400Watt PSU, Windows XP Pro MCE05
WWW  
IP Logged
 
FalconFly
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


3dfx Archivist

Posts: 2445
5335N 00745E
Gender: male
Re: Who do we look up to now?
Reply #72 - 06.03.04 at 16:08:52
 
Nope, since I know I can "see" more Wink
(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.
Back to top
« Last Edit: 08.03.04 at 10:08:44 by FalconFly »  
WWW  
IP Logged
 
dborca
Ex Member


Re: Who do we look up to now?
Reply #73 - 08.03.04 at 08:15:52
 
Quote:
Then color the top half bright, and the lower half dark.

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

I'd like to mention another aspect to this matter. I dunno whether I'm right or not, but maybe it's worth mentioning: the eye doesn't work in an "analogous" mode, but a "sampled" mode instead...
Take this example. Place yourself 2, 3 meters away from a long wall, then "move" your sight back and forth (from the nearest point you can see, to the furthest point. You will notice how the eye "jumps" from one point on the wall to the next. This is sampling. Perhaps this applies to motion, too... I dunno. But if _IS_ true, then take a look at the Nyquist theorem and you'll have the maximum observable framerate.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Andrew Boiu
Senior Member
****
Offline


LDE-BDreams

Posts: 267
LDE-BDreams
Gender: male
Re: Who do we look up to now?
Reply #74 - 09.03.04 at 10:56:25
 
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.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 
Send Topic Print