PSO2: 60 FPS or 30?

[Malachite]

does 30 or 60 fps even matter? i heard that after 24 FPS the human eye can't even detect the difference anymore

Oh wow, no. If you play a game at 24 FPS, it feels INCREDIBLY laggy. Almost unplayable, in my opinion. Anything less than 30 is just unpleasant.

60 however feels smooth as silk, and anything higher is just frosting on the cake.

[kyuuketsuki]

No, you can definitely tell the difference.

Just one of those things that depends on the person. Some people can look at SDTV and just shrug when you show them an HDTV playing a Blu-ray, and for others (like me) the difference is night and day. Some people couldn't care less about 30 FPS vs 60 FPS vs 1495840598 FPS, for some anything less than 60 FPS is intolerable. I can tell the difference, myself, and although I prefer the smoothness of 60+FPS, I will generally accept around 30-40 FPS and even tolerate dips into the 20s in order to turn graphic options up.

If you've ever used a 120Hz monitor, you can tell the difference between that and a 60Hz monitor (if you're sensitive to that sort of thing). Even simple things like moving a window around on the desktop looks a lot smoother. It also practically eliminates ghosting, all other things being equal.

IIRC most movies run at like 24 FPS, but if you look at most Blu-Ray quality movies, they run upwards of what feels like 60.

The 24 FPS thing is what the film industry settled on as a standard forever ago for various technical reasons, and most Blu-ray movies actually display exactly (more or less) 24 FPS if that's what the film was originally shot in. The 60Hz/120Hz/240Hz thing is done by the TV itself and has nothing to do with the source media.

My eyes can easily tell the difference, and it bothers me because they no longer look like movies anymore, they look like Videogames or something. Not to mention, older special effects look terrible on Blu-Ray / HD with high refresh rate because they just were not designed for such display.

What you're talking about is the so-called "soap opera" effect that occurs because the source material is not originally shot in the 60/120/240 that the TV is displaying it at and the TV uses interpolation (rendering approximated frames in-between the actual frames that were recorded) to fill in the extra frames required to get it to 60/120/240. It's smoother, but, due to the interpolation, it doesn't look right and you get that effect that bugs you. Honestly, it's nice for watching sports, but otherwise, you should turn your TV's 120/240Hz interpolation feature off (it's under various proprietary names depending on the TV manufacturer).

If movies were actually shot at 60 FPS, it'd be a different story. Of course, that would also be twice as much video information per movie, and we just got to the point of wide-spread adoption of a media that can hold high-definition movies (Blu-ray), so it require yet another new and expensive format to do so. Plus, the film industry itself is resistant to the idea due to various technical and nostalgic/stubbornness/money/old-people-running-companies reasons.

Plus, 24 FPS really looks just fine, really.

Anyway, on topic...

I very much hope that, this being a PC-exclusive, there is no "lock-in" to 30/60 FPS, as that's a hold over from consoles. PC games generally just render as many frames as the hardware can and then frame skip as necessary to display it at the monitor's refresh rate, unless you use v-sync to force it to render at the monitor's refresh rate (only necessary if there's noticeable tearing).

[Kent]

The human eye can handle a number that's something closer to the equivalent of 75fps. Past that you can still tell a difference (for various reasons - mostly due to proper interpolation), but it won't be a very huge one. Games running at a solid 60fps sure do look nice though (especially that delicious Revengeance footage).

Ideally, considering it's a PC game, it should run at... whatever your rig can push out. Capping framerates is a red flag when it comes to designing a game engine to run on a PC.

[Ezodagrom]

Some people can look at SDTV and just shrug when you show them an HDTV playing a Blu-ray, and for others (like me) the difference is night and day.

The video for SDTVs is interlaced though, it kinda gives a 60 fps (or 50 fps in the case of PAL TVs) feeling, so it's not a surprise that some people don't notice the difference between an HDTV and an SDTV.

In progressive scan video, the difference between 30fps and 60fps is really noticeable though.

[Kyrith_Ranger_Pso]

ah, so it turns out the 25 FPS thing is just a myth,

"The key point to take away from this discussion is that there is no set scientific value for minimum FPS. Your eyes and brain don't have a precise trigger point at which, say 23 FPS appears stuttery but 24 FPS is smooth. It's more complex than that and all the factors above need to be considered. If a game looks and feels smooth to you, you are getting 'enough' FPS as a minimum, but don't expect other people to agree with or experience the exact same thing - it is in large part subjective." i guess my eyes are just ok with having 30 FPS while some others are not

[SolRiver]

If you guys are curious, there is actually a study that had an air force pilot being able to spot AND identify a jet fighter within 1/2000 in a second.

Google it.

[kyuuketsuki]

If you guys are curious, there is actually a study that had an air force pilot being able to spot AND identify a jet fighter within 1/2000 in a second.

Google it.

If the study was about a single air force pilot, then that's not exactly a sample group that can conclusively prove anything. All sorts of things could have tainted that result, not to mention the fact that a highly trained air force pilot's very quickly identifying something of certain size and shape which has, doubtlessly, been drilled into his head endlessly is not applicable to the general populace's ability to distinguish between various frame rates. I also question how they determined how quickly he recognized said object given that it would have taken far longer than 1/2000th of a second for him to relate the fact that he had recognized it.

Though I doubt you're actually suggesting that we move to 2000Hz TVs with games rendered at 2000 FPS to match.

[SolRiver]

lol, someone is in a debate mood? (probably just bored of waiting for PSO2)

The point of the study was to explore human eye's limit. (to my understanding)
It really just provide evidence for further study of how/why/when/etc.

[pikachief]

Just one of those things that depends on the person. Some people can look at SDTV and just shrug when you show them an HDTV playing a Blu-ray, and for others (like me) the difference is night and day.

Too true. My eyes are just lame though. I watched The Dark Knight in standard definition then in High Definition and in High definition right after another on an HDTV and I couldn't tell any difference. They looked exactly the same to me. :/

I also can't see 3D very well. Most 3D movies and games look either the same or slightly different. I played Ocarina of Time 3D, all the way up to the end of young link, and i couldn't really notice the 3D effect the whole time :/ In avatar it just made the foreground pop up way too much and i couldn't focus on the movie.

[RemiusTA]

If you guys are curious, there is actually a study that had an air force pilot being able to spot AND identify a jet fighter within 1/2000 in a second.

Google it.

Uchiha Itachi


no seriously, back before i realized naruto was the shittiest story on earth, i was intrigued enough to look to see if the human eye had the capacity to actually be made to see much faster than it currently can.


I think the search was "At what FPS does the human eye see", but the answer is basically "too complex to answer since the human eye doesn't work like that."