Ishnuvalok said:
Strazdas said:
Ishnuvalok said:
for example: A 48" 4K display is indistinguishable from a 1080p display past 2 meters or so.
this is false. there is a circling false graph that seems to claim that, however the graphc is incorrect because it assumes we are using only small part of our vision to see the screen. it also worth mentioning that our concetration point (whithc shifts around hundreds of times per second btw, our eyes move like crazy) has up to 457 megapixels resolution. thats over 21000p on only our focus point. so the whole "you cant see 4k on small displays" is pure bullshit.
Our eyes don't see in "megapixels", the limit to what we can see is determined by its angular resolution. Which, for the human eye, is about ~1 arc minute (1/60th of a degree), slightly more or less depending on individual vision acuity.
At 200-250mm, this means that the smallest objects we can see are around 50-70 micrometers.
Resolution suffers from diminishing returns, though, just look at 1440p and 1080p ~5.5" smartphones.
We can't appreciate a difference in resolution between those displays. Although the moment a dead or stuck pixel presents itself, we tend to notice it.
That's why 4K displays are, for large TVs viewed at distances between 2-3 meters, for the most part worthless.
But this is a thread about framerate, not resolution.
they dont see in megapixels, however for comparisons sake we simplify all the biological science of our eyes because lets face it it would bloat this discussion immensly. Theoretically, our eyes ability to see object size is limited by color wavelenghts width. however our eyes are more "special" Than that. for example we got a blindspot, which would be pretty much unacceptable on any monitor, and yet is on eyes. its hard to directly compare resolution and ability to see it, however it is determined that humans CAN see much higher resolution than we currently use in our technology.
Now you are right that it is diminishing returns, like almost anything. Increasing food quality is diminishing returns too, however we still do it. Thats because even though the returns arent as good as they was in previuos improvements, they are still worth doing. and same is true with resolution. higher resolution benefits are still very much worth it. the natural antialiasing thats done in your vision instead of downsampling is good enough reason to go 4k even if for some reason you are unable to see 4k resolutions (if you would youd still see aliasing on 4k TVs, and thus multisampling would still be needed). and im talking about the real antialiasing here, not the FX or MX thats popular nowadays that while using far less resources all they do is blur the image enough for you to not be able to notice the inperfections though the blur. like if you look through a wet glass and cant see that the table is stainy. its still stainy, you just cant see it.
Well i havent touched a 1440p smartphone yet so i cant tell if i can appreciate it or not, however when it comes monitors the differentece is very visible.
SmugFrog said:
you need to go to youtube, enable HTML5 play and then set playback speed at double to make this comparison doable, thus embeding it in flash form is completely pointless. youtube is a bad place for video comparisons anyway due to their compression. there are websites that support native 60fps videos, but the name slipepd my mind now sadly.
Adam Lester said:
Due to the lack of reference level and also because playing with a keyboard is a pain in the ass.
what does framerate have to do with keyboard? you do know you cant even plug keyboard into a console?
SupahGamuh said:
You should've been there when the N64 and PS1 standards were between 15 to 30 FPS, very rarely did any game saw 60 fps in any of those consoles and personally I didn't care.
"Back in my days people used to walk 5 miles top school through snow uphill both ways. now you got these "cars", meh, i personally dont care!"
just because you dont care does not mean its something worth fighting for. for example as a male i personally dont care for female rights, yet i will fight for them because i think its fair that they have them. the "personally dont care" is the shitties attitude you can have.
Jonathan Hornsby said:
Progress implies that something is being improved upon. That isn't the case here, because as has been established the "improvement" 60fps is over 30fps is negligible at best, but more often unnoticeable.
Can we please stop telling this lie?
What I mean by that is that there is no reason to keep improving rendering quality to the point that you are rending something in a higher resolution than the human eye can see, at a higher frame rate than the brain can process.
True, but we are not even close to either of those.
Danny Dowling said:
keep the frame rate down, keep the cost making the game down, keep the dev financially sound, dev keeps making games.
the rate video games have been going it's no secret it's becoming unsustainable.
so, keeping the framerate down somehow makes it cost less to develop? please explain what kind of logic you used to determine that.