Why do I keep seing people fighting over 30fps and 60fps and 120fps?it's already scientifically proven that real life runs at 24fps and thus the human eye can not see past that. Why would you pay more for a lie?
>>685333485
Does this even qualify as bait?
>>685333485
>real life runs at 24fps
you need to level your eyes up
>>685333485
http://imgur.com/a/BEUQw#23
>>685333637
This is not bait. It's a a legit thought
>>685333485
If you are a visionally impaired elder cuck, then yes 24 fps is what you see.
>>685334069
Listen here kid, if you want people to get upset about the stuff you post, you at least have to lead in with something that's semi-believeable.
And then you get more and more ridiculous as you go on. It's like the frog in the boiling water. If the water is boiling right away, the frog jumps out. But if you heat the water slowly,it'll cook him alive.
It's the same with baiting retards on the internet.
>>685334004
holy fuck
>>685334004
I hope they are dead. For others sake.
>>685333485
hahaha XD
> Popcorn.jpg
>>685334004
Is there post to be something good about that?
Alright OP, say you're right...
If real life were to move at 24 fps how could we have high speed cameras.. I think what you mean is that the human eyes only work at about 24 fps... This still isn't true because as long as your eyes are open and light is coming in, nerve cells are continuously sending signals to your brain way faster than 24 times per second..
It has to do with how your mind processes the input coming from your eyes.. On a computer screen you may see 24 frames per second, it's not hardly noticeable, but you can see little jumps from frame to frame. There's a less chance that you'll notice a jump if you're running at 120 fps, even though as you pointed out, it's not too bad at 24 fps.
Its not about the speed
Its about how smooth it looks
Wait we can only see life in 240p is 1080p bait even real?
>>685335172
This. Hogher frames per second is discernable because it LOOKS smoother, even if you can't react fast enough, it will still appear as a smoother video to you.
>>685333485
easy office troll
> get on coworkers pc
> drop monitor framerate to 50fps
> watch them start rubbing eyes and get headaches
>>685333485
Even if you were right (which you're not), you might want to read the following article...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_rate#Nyquist_rate_relative_to_sampling
>>685335334
If we can only see at 240p, then how does the youtube quality system work?
How do HD TVs work? They're at least 720p
>>685335786
>Saying that I'm baiting
Are you OP?
>>685335926
Answer your questions in no perticular order:
No and No
>>685333485
Even if it is bait, this is actually a good conversation because I'm getting starting to get into film.
24 fps is a great framerate for capture because it captures blur with the shutter speed settings. This is the easiest way to make something appear to have realistic movement.
In the PC / gaming world, you do not get this blur motion that is tricking your eyes into thinking you're seeing a smooth movement, so we need to increase the framerate and fill in the information that is usually blurred.
In reality, the average person can see ~100 fps of information if there is no blur. So it's not a "dick size" type of thing that some car enthusiasts suffer from (Sure, it's nice to have 500hp and have the capability of driving 250+ mph, but you're never going to use that realistically).
>>685333485
Yo sauce on the picture?
>>685333485
try it yourself, if you can't spot the difference you are a lesser quality human
>>685336537
I like you. Thanks for this post.
>>685336537
Samefag here, also wanted to say here's a video showing the examples of shutterspeed on different things.
Think of digital rendering as having a ridiculously high shutter speed. There is motion blurring in some games, but there are cons to that effect if your framerate is not where it shoudl be (100+ fps for a close experience to reality would void that argument if everything was perfect.).
>>685333485
>Real life runs at 24 fps
>Kek
Alright OP, nice bait but I'll bite.
Firstly, life doesn't run in fps.
Secondly, our eyes can see wayyyyy beyond 24 frames per second, it's just that after 24 fps our eyes percieve it as smooth motion and not individual pictures.
>>685333485
Those standard definition eyes tho..
>>685337127
>>685336537
still samefag, fuck forgot to post the link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGQ3DNLkp_4
>>685336537
Can you explain why movies in 30/60 fps look like shit, but games look continuously better with higher framrates?
How does that make sense? You're seeing the same amount of pictures per second. Aren't our brains just refusing higher fps movies because we've seen 24 frames all our lifes? Isn't it just a matter of habit?
>>685337448
>>685337335
Watch the video I posted and that should help you understand.
I apologize if I'm not making the best sense. A better example would be if you would set a high shutter speed and shoot at 10 fps, 20 fps, 30 fps, etc. I'll try to find that for you.
>>685333485
Anyone got more like this? Fucking hot
>>685337661
That still doesn't answer my question.
You specifically said 'In the PC / gaming world, you do not get this blur motion that is tricking your eyes into thinking you're seeing a smooth movement'.
Why would that be the case? Why does your blur theory not also apply to games?
>>685338043
because the effect is caused by the camera, where is the camera that filmed your game? eh?
>>685334069
that is just baitception
>>685338281
Why not add artifical blur instead of increasing fps?
That would be a hell of a lot cheaper.
High fps swallows recources like nothing else.
>>685338454
would it?
>>685338043
This isn't exactly going to show you the possible variance, but it is rendered properly and will show you the difference.
Set the first Soccerball to 24 FPS with no motion blur and the second at 60 FPS with no motion blur. Tell me which one looks smoother to you.
>>685333485
In actuality, the human eye 'refresh rate' is most comfortable with motion blur in cinema at about 18 fps. The slower the thing to be seen, the lower the required fps. Slow moving fog, an unmoving wall, that requires very little fps. A lot of action, a great deal of motion, if there is not a lot of blurring, that requires a higher fps OR motion blur being applied.
The human brain would cognitively detect about 150 fps, but above that, it simply reduces the random feeling of stuttering.
Put simply, 24 fps, 30 fps, 48, 60, 96, 120 fps is not the relevant thing to focus on - it's the clarity of the image to be seen. The higher the clarity, the higher the frame rate needed to not 'see' stuttering.
There is no useful upper limit to how high a frame rate should be.
>>685333485
present this 24fps theory to any pro fighting game gamer and then please post result of such conversation in this thread again
after having a monitor that supports a refresh rate of 120 I am not going back to 60
smooth ftw
>>685338454
To answer this question (as I'm also interested in game design), Motion blur is only useful if you're standing still. You will start to see jumpiness as you move the camera / look around and it ruins the effect. That's why you'd need both high FPS and blurring to create the illusion of realism.
Blurring also uses a lot of resources, just so you know (that's why when you disable it, your performance / fps increases).
>>685338947
Exactly, I have a 144hz monitor sitting to the right as my second monitor. My ultrawide has better colors, but only supports 60-70 fps... Feels bad man, but it does help with immersion :P.
>>685338629
Jesus christ... https://frames-per-second.appspot.com/
>>685334004
>http://imgur.com/a/BEUQw#23
Haven't fapped like that in a while.
>>685338645
>unmoving wall
>low frame rate
We call those pictures: one frame per ever
>>685339703
>0:02 of a wall not moving is not one frame in a movie.
>>685339336
huge difference, at 120 fps you don't notice the blur, could safely be turned off
>>685340192
I meant to tell him to turn the blur off for all of them. That way you can see the difference between the fps. Set it to 30/60 to see the "30 fps argument" and if you have a 120+hz monitor set it to 120 to join the master race.
>>685338645 here again.
The main intent for game output is to have the image output at a precise multiple of the display outputting it.
If you have a game running at 15, 30, 45, etc fps on a 60 Hz screen, you will see stuttering, screen tearing, etc unless you enable settings that minimize the undesirable effects.
If you have a game running at 60 fps, 120, fps, 180 fps or 240 fps on a 60 Hz screen, you will notice no stuttering, as it is a multiple.of the monitors refresh rate, but a frame rate of 64 fps on a 60 Hz screen will not look smooth.
It is why the video card and monitor manufacturers have released adaptive synchronization to allow for dynamic refresh rates, so if your video card is outputting at 72 fps, the monitor will output at 72 fps.
>>685339703
In the case of an unmoving wall, 1 fps might as well be 1,000 fps. No change means no tearing. I assure you, if you have 48 frames of an unmoving wall you have two seconds at 24 fps of an unmoving wall. You will not need to do anything to keep the screen from tearing. It's still 48 pictures of a wall in two seconds.
Because games aren't real life faggot
>>685340793
more interestingly, is there any good reason as to why synchronization often is turned off by default?
>>685340793
I don't think you understand what tearing is...
You will have no screen tearing at ANY FPS as long as your frame rate remains constant.
I'm just teaching people left and right in this thread -_-.
>>685333485
Because PCasuals need to argue about something because they don't get the best games like bloodborne
>>685333485
i know you're trolling but the human eye can see around 72 - 75fps... Google it.
>>685341430
Emoticons on 4chins, get the fuck of my board you fucking newfag normie REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>685341813
> 2016
> thinking your opinion matters on 4chan
Ok, I'll get off of your board.
>>685333485
damn ur dumb :/
>>685338927
>pro gamer
Here's another thing that needs to die
>>685333485
the framerate is important when you are depicting fast moving objects
ie a static image only neads one frame
a slow movig object will be percieved as smooth at lower framerates like 24fps
if you have a fast moving object you will be able to percieve the jumping of the object from frame to frame (in the real world objects would appear blurred to the eye). You can percieve this jumping as seing the object multiple times (see persistence of vision). You can replicate this by moving the mouse cursor as fast as possible
if you keep increasing the framerate the distance between the positions per frame drops and the movement will eventually not appear as individual steps but as a blurry streak.
>>685341318
Your video card AND your monitor have to support the adaptive sync (AMD Freesync and nVidia G-Sync). If one or the other does not, you cannot use it. It defaults to off because if you have a monitor that supports it, but not a video card, the monitor might go out of its range, and the monitor stops displaying.
The video card gets told by the monitor via EDID what the range capabilities are, and limits itself to a) anything at all in the range, (say, 12Hz to 120Hz, so, 96.7 is okay) or b) precise multiples of specific frequencies that the monitor will support (example: the monitor supports anything from 12 Hz to 120Hz, so the video card might be told it can do any multiple of 30 fps over 120 Hz, so 150, 180, 210, etc fps is okay, but not 148, 187, or 201.)
>>685341430
That is correct. I wasn't clear. It's one of the basics of adaptive synchronization. No fps change = no screen tearing.
>>685333485
>>685342777
In the case of adaptive sync, the video card sends information to the monitor that it is sending the data at a specific rate if it is changing, and the monitor 'immediately' outputs that data at the rate the video card is sending it.
It's much like the 29.97 aspect of video. It's actually sending 30, but the last .03 is time code data (drop frame vs non-drop frame)
>>685342777
so far v-sync have been enough for me, with decent hardware it won't stutter and thus you end up with the same result
>>685343680
Yep. If you don't have AST, v-sync is best Korea.
>>685334004
Can someone explain why there seems to be a lack of blood pouring out of them?
>>685334004
Aaand goodbye boner
>>685345194
you have weird fetishes bro
>>685345302
No I mean I had a boner.. now it's gone because of that rip
>>685345577
having that boner in this thread is odd enough though
>>685345923
My boner wasn't caused by this thread, I am a normal fag
>>685334004
I aint clicking that shit
>>685333485
There is no difference and it looks all the same.
>>685334441
>the frog will just jump out
put a fucking lid on it. jesus fucking christ
>>685333485
Actually, the only scientific research done on it shows that most people can easily discern up to around 70-80fps. Above that, for the average human, there's no visible improvement.
Some (don't think you're the exception, it's likely placebo), can tell up to ~100fps.
Life is primarily analog, however, and the brain doesn't work on FPS. We all likely have a variable frame rate PERCEPTION, too. Keep that in mind when making assumptions.
Google it hard enough and you'll find it. I read it all about a year ago.
>>685346668
that means you are untermensch
>>685347057
its not about your eyes though, it is about how the machine display the information
