6 Frame Rate Facts You Didn't Know
- Thread starter Rhykker
- Start date
But none other then 30fps has that silky smooth cinematic experience.
On a more serious note, I agree with everything said.
On a more serious note, I agree with everything said.
Unfortunately the people MOST needing to read such articles are either willfully ignorant, or too stupid to understand it. Ubisoft comes to mind.
*shrugs* I knew every one of those facts.
I'm hoping this will help silence the pseudoscience and "I feel" argumentation in the regular forums...but probably not.
People are stubborn.
I'm hoping this will help silence the pseudoscience and "I feel" argumentation in the regular forums...but probably not.
People are stubborn.
I don't know about you guys, but I certainly can differentiate between a ball that moves so fast it becomes a blur, and a fast moving blur.
Sometimes I just sit in the cinema and the screen hasn't shown any sharp or recognizable image for 5-10 seconds because the camera is moving. Sometimes I really wish they'd just hold the camera still, or you know, actually animate and film in a higher framerate.
Sometimes I just sit in the cinema and the screen hasn't shown any sharp or recognizable image for 5-10 seconds because the camera is moving. Sometimes I really wish they'd just hold the camera still, or you know, actually animate and film in a higher framerate.
Even though I was already aware of these, I must still thank you for this. It's refreshing to see one of the gaming sites actually approach the 'debate' from an informed point of view.
I wish more people understood just how complex frame rates, refresh rates, and render technology in general really are. Certainly more complex than "Higher is always better." or "30 looks fine to me, so screw 60."
Very good read, Mr. Miozzi. I just hope other forum goers here take the time to read it.
I wish more people understood just how complex frame rates, refresh rates, and render technology in general really are. Certainly more complex than "Higher is always better." or "30 looks fine to me, so screw 60."
Very good read, Mr. Miozzi. I just hope other forum goers here take the time to read it.
I read it. I agree with it. I still don't care.
Consistency is all that matters to me. Sure, higher feels better. I can't and won't argue that. But I also don't care so long as the rate is consistent. That's it. It comes down to the fact that I just can't afford the hardware required to run at higher rates. It's not an issue of willful ignorance, it's an issue of dealing the best with what I have. Which is why I don't ***** when frame rates are locked at 30 because funnily enough, that's a rate I CAN do consistently. See how that works?
I just wish some people would actually understand THAT.
Consistency is all that matters to me. Sure, higher feels better. I can't and won't argue that. But I also don't care so long as the rate is consistent. That's it. It comes down to the fact that I just can't afford the hardware required to run at higher rates. It's not an issue of willful ignorance, it's an issue of dealing the best with what I have. Which is why I don't ***** when frame rates are locked at 30 because funnily enough, that's a rate I CAN do consistently. See how that works?
I just wish some people would actually understand THAT.
Ubisoft is neither. They merely put on a facade of ignorance in order to use it as an excuse.Aaron Sylvester said:
Their console games run at 30 FPS because that's all they can handle. The PC versions run at 30 FPS either because they are lazy in porting, or to promote the console versions. Probably the latter, and the popular theory is that they are being paid by the console companies to do it.
The people who need to see this sort of article are the ones who buy Ubisoft's line of bullshit that they are using to distract from their actual failings or dirty deeds.
Actually, I would rather have 60 with occasional drops to 45 than 30 with no drops, because when 60 drops to 45 you either don't notice it at all or even with the change it still looks and feels better.1Life0Continues said:
The problem is when it drops below 30, at which point things start to look very bad.
I've been playing on a 144hz monitor for the last ~1.5 years and become so used to it that 60fps feels choppy to me now...unless it's a much slower-paced game like Skyrim or an MMO.DoctorM said:
For any fast-paced game like shooter or racer it's gotta be at least 90-100fps for me to feel fully "in perfect control" of my camera/aim, preferably 110fps+.
If looking at visual aspects only, it's quite hard to tell the difference between 60fps and 120+ fps. But the FEEL is a whole other story. You feel 100% connected and "in sync" with your controls, everything is soooo buttery smooth and responsive (like rubbing yourself with baby lotion). Now I can't go back
Okay, what is the stuff we probably didn't know? This all looks like the same stuff that's trotted out in every framerate argument.
Atmos Duality said:
You guys should chat.Aaron Sylvester said:If looking at visual aspects only, it's quite hard to tell the difference between 60fps and 120+ fps. But the FEEL is a whole other story. You feel 100% connected and "in sync" with your controls, everything is soooo buttery smooth and responsive (like rubbing yourself with baby lotion). Now I can't go back
Eh nobody can really argue against the fact that 120-144hz feel smoother and more responsive (assuming your hardware can push those framerates). Any sane reviewer and gamer who has played on one will tell you it's an objectively better experience.Zachary Amaranth said:
Also BenQ XL2420TE (and other 144hz panels) are quickly becoming the official standard at professional gaming leagues.
The one I'm using right now is 144hz.DoctorM said:
That's the current highest as far as I can tell. Unless there's some crazy stuff I'm not aware of.
So, I suppose the question is "Does 144hz feel smoother".
Well, yes. It feels a bit more reactive, and animation appears more fluid.
Is the difference as big as 30 vs 60? Well, no, nowhere near as massive.
I consider 60 to be the goal. More than that is great, it makes the game feel better, but, If I can't achieve 144hz, I don't find it worthwhile to downgrade visuals to reach it.
G-sync or FreeSync is also really nice and you don't notice what you're missing until you have it.
Injecting actual science articles about this on the Escapist? MADNESS!
Knew the fact about audio making 24FPS film standard already though.
Knew the fact about audio making 24FPS film standard already though.
Well this is why the discussion will continue for a few years longer without progress, half factual information pieces heavily padded with opinion. Which are then taken as gospel over and over again.
Really sucks that my monitor does 240hz but there isn't a driver for it so windows defaults to 60hz. Would love to see the 240hz in action.