Xbox One's Frame Rate: Kid Rejected, Mother Approved

[2xDouble]

I was with you guys right up until the ketchup comparison... Despite the generic label, that is clearly comparing a bottle of Heinz ketchup to a bottle of Frank's Red Hot, a vastly superior product in most situations.

 

[Piorn]

Yet people still laugh at me when I prefer the 48fps Hobbit...
"Ruins the movie feeling" they say...
"It's not blurry enough" they say...

 

[Rtoip]

When will they finally admit that XBone is technically inferior ? How long are they going to claim that 720p 30fps is somehow better than 1080p 60fps ? In that case the higher numbers the better. You may claim that you don't really see the difference, but the difference is there. Even if a game is playable at 30 and fine while you don't think about it at 60 it's much smoother and feels more responsive.

I don't really know how this whole thing about not noticing more than 24/30fps started. I usually consider 30 to be bare minimum not the maximum noticeable value, anything less feels choppy with a lot of movement going on.

 

[Ninmecu]

It bares reposting because:

A: It demonstrates the difference simply and beautifully.
-and-
B: People STILL assert there's no difference.

So here it is - https://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

If you can honestly sit there and tell me that there's no visible difference between the fluidity of the 30 and the 60 fps samples, then I bow to you. Or I may call you a liar. Not sure.

My one major gripe with that comparison is they don't load at the same time to make a true comparison possible. Speaking as an autistic with above-average eyesight and ability, I personally favor 30 fps. 60 fps honestly makes me feel ill. I don't care which one is "better" I just want to play the one that won't make me feel ill.(Though I'll add that it's not for all animations, some just rub me the wrong way, like in WoW for example, others I can't tell the difference, or if I can, it's so minute as to not matter.)

 

[The Lunatic]

I find it pretty hard to believe that "It looks worse and runs slower, this is better" is anything more than just silly fanboyism for crappier hardware.

Okay, if your eyes are magically incapable of seeing the difference between these two, and somehow the notion of motion makes you ill, you still can't deny that having the power to run things in a way which will insure the performance doesn't drip below your desired frame rate is not better.

Resolution, again, you can't be subjective about resolution. 3D Projections don't look worse with more pixels. That's just not how it works.

 

[Vigormortis]

That was more noticable to be fair.

I should honestly start posting the appspot.com link before the other. It's just that the appspot one is a bit more intensive on the CPU than the former, so I usually go with the boallan.com link.

As to saying framerate matters in first person shooters and rts games
Lag is such a big problem for me that the framerate become trivial whether or not it matters normally, and I don't play offline on them so I can't say in that regard. Plus your problem seems to be the stability of the framerate, which does annoy me, as opposed to the 30/60 argument. (I probably misunderstand what you mean)

As for RTS games, I wouldn't know cus I suck at them, so I dont play them

There are a lot of factors that play into the frame rate issue.

A LOT.

And it all differs depending on the medium. So where 24 frames per second is often ideal for films, it would be utterly abysmal for gaming.

My interest in the science and technology behind this started years ago during a debate over the very same topic as this thread. Someone had mentioned that, in some instances, lower frame rates are better than high frame rates. The notion seemed so counter-intuitive to me that I decided to look it up. I learned quite a lot from that point.

As result, I could regale you with everything I've learned on the topic over the years, typing out an unnecessarily long post (and we both don't want that. it would be boring as hell), but I think it might be easier (on both of us) if I just present you with some written articles and discussions on the topic.

http://movieline.com/2012/12/14/hobbit-high-frame-rate-science-48-frames-per-second/

http://collider.com/hobbit-hfr-48-frames-science/

http://www.gamesradar.com/why-60-frames-second-should-be-next-gen-standard/?page=2

http://www.3dgaming.com/fps/fps.html

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

A lot of people, myself included for a time, don't really appreciate just how complex the topic of frame rates is.

edit: also, I seem to be getting the impression the that pro 60 fps people are PC gamers, while don't care/see no diffrence people are console players.

Console "pro's" actually do complain about the lack of consistent frame rates and 30 frame caps. You just don't hear it as often since any complaining on the matter is often moot. Since the hardware can't really change, the devs and the players have to deal with whatever the console can dish out.

 

[Arawn]

On a side note, I wish dev's would stop trying to output graphics.......and have games performance be a higher priority. I'd rather have a game with tight responsive controls than slightly more polygons and particle effects.

This is something that I keep thinking every time one of these resolution or fps comments come out about game X, Y, or Z. I don't care if it's on console or PC. I don't care how pretty the trees are I'd like destructible environments. Who cares how fluid the water moves, will there be more than 5 enemies on the screen at one time. Fire that behaves like fire is wasted, I just want a game that will last more than 3-4hrs. And no I'm not talking about some multiplayer fps

 

[Vigormortis]

How did you manage to get Flash running at 60fps consistently across platforms? This even works as-advertised on my old macbook pro! That thing NEVER runs flash games properly!

Minimal CPU footprint. Props to the man that coded it.

There's a reason that site/page is so often used or called upon as a demonstration of frame rate comparisons.

Though, as I've said in other posts, it's not really "the best" demonstration.

This one is actually far better, though it is more CPU intensive. - http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

 

[Vigormortis]

My one major gripe with that comparison is they don't load at the same time to make a true comparison possible.

That does occasionally happen. It's a draw back to the page. But, like I said in my post just above this, that boallan.com comparison is more CPU friendly, making it more consistent across all systems.

This is a better comparison - http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

I should probably change my original post...

Speaking as an autistic with above-average eyesight and ability, I personally favor 30 fps. 60 fps honestly makes me feel ill. I don't care which one is "better" I just want to play the one that won't make me feel ill.(Though I'll add that it's not for all animations, some just rub me the wrong way, like in WoW for example, others I can't tell the difference, or if I can, it's so minute as to not matter.)

There are a lot of tricks some devs use to mask true frame rates. Motion blur being most common. Some of these methods can have adverse effects on some people and their perception of the motion. Likewise, frame rate drops or jumps are far more jarring than consistently low frame rates. (this is likely one of the factors that plays into your ill feeling)

I posted a number of articles on the matter. They might be worth a glance, if you're feeling so inclined. Just glance a few posts up to see them.

 

[Ninmecu]

My one major gripe with that comparison is they don't load at the same time to make a true comparison possible.

That does occasionally happen. It's a draw back to the page. But, like I said in my post just above this, that boallan.com comparison is more CPU friendly, making it more consistent across all systems.

This is a better comparison - http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

I should probably change my original post...

Speaking as an autistic with above-average eyesight and ability, I personally favor 30 fps. 60 fps honestly makes me feel ill. I don't care which one is "better" I just want to play the one that won't make me feel ill.(Though I'll add that it's not for all animations, some just rub me the wrong way, like in WoW for example, others I can't tell the difference, or if I can, it's so minute as to not matter.)

There are a lot of tricks some devs use to mask true frame rates. Motion blur being most common. Some of these methods can have adverse effects on some people and their perception of the motion. Likewise, frame rate drops or jumps are far more jarring than consistently low frame rates. (this is likely one of the factors that plays into your ill feeling)

I posted a number of articles on the matter. They might be worth a glance, if you're feeling so inclined. Just glance a few posts up to see them.

Edit: feel free to ignore most of what I wrote down there, my brain isn't fully functioning and the comparison chart threw me off even more...Lol.

In the one you posted, I find the first ball considerably less jarring. The movement isn't quite as fluid nor giving the illusion of traveling nearly as quickly, but I find I can look at it a lot longer before it starts to irk me going back and forth and back and forth. As for the articles, I'll go have a read. I've long mentioned I don't notice much of a difference(if any) between most pixel rates. I won't try and say "Rawr SD>HD" because that's a crock of shit, even my cheap 200$ hd tv with 720p maximum beats out my old boobtube in terms of how nice things look. But I'm in the crowd of people who need find quality audio>video. However, I'm also the kind of person who uses his ears to sense what's going on around him almost more than my eyes, so there's that.(On a side note, it's fun to learn about the differences like these, gives me a more informed opinion and I appreciate you taking the time to try and assist me. So, thanks. )

 

[Vigormortis]

Edit: feel free to ignore most of what I wrote down there, my brain isn't fully functioning and the comparison chart threw me off even more...Lol.

Psh. If my brain was ever fully functioning, I might judge you for that. As it is, ramblings are just fine by me.

In the one you posted, I find the first ball considerably less jarring. The movement isn't quite as fluid nor giving the illusion of traveling nearly as quickly, but I find I can look at it a lot longer before it starts to irk me going back and forth and back and forth.

You can actually adjust the images, motion speeds, and frame rates. I would suggest setting the motion to 500 px/s or less and starting with the motion blur turned off. Might alleviate some of the motion sickness you're feeling.

As for the articles, I'll go have a read. I've long mentioned I don't notice much of a difference(if any) between most pixel rates. I won't try and say "Rawr SD>HD" because that's a crock of shit, even my cheap 200$ hd tv with 720p maximum beats out my old boobtube in terms of how nice things look. But I'm in the crowd of people who need find quality audio>video. However, I'm also the kind of person who uses his ears to sense what's going on around him almost more than my eyes, so there's that.

Oh, I don't entirely disagree. I'm just as much reliant on quality audio as you seem to be. It's one of my primary sticking points when it comes to analyzing or critiquing a piece of media.

Poor audio will usually ruin an experience for me more often than poor video will.

(On a side note, it's fun to learn about the differences like these, gives me a more informed opinion and I appreciate you taking the time to try and assist me. So, thanks. )

You're quite welcome. I found the topic oddly fascinating when I started researching it some years ago.

 

[K12]

It can't be that hard to set up a simple double-blind study measuring the perception of framerate, both in terms of "can you tell the difference" as well as "which looks better".

You could even do this across several different art styles and game types (I bet you notice in a realistically rendered racing game more than a cartoon puzzler for example).

Does anyone know if this has been done because until then I'm sticking with my anecdotal experience as well as the "bigger numbers are just better" assumption.

 

[The Lunatic]

I don't get how people can actually buy inferior hardware, and then act surprised when they find out it's inferior hardware.

You knew what you were buying when you saw the specs.

And now, bitter fanboys decide "Oh, well, actually, it totally doesn't matter".

Yeah, right... Despite, pretty much everything saying it's not the case.


Even if it "Doesn't matter", because by some medical disorder, your eyes are cameras and just cannot perceive movement beyond a very specific number of frames, surely, having the option of the additional power just makes more sense.

 

[Denamic]

My main gripe with this debate is the "60 fps makes me play better" argument. Yes, the difference between 30 and 60 exists, but it's miniscule and won't make a difference unless you have über-twitch reflexes of an insect. Never have I though "If only my FPS was 60 instead of 47!" in a game. Unless I died in a noticeable lag I always blamed my skill (or lack thereof), not the game or my hardware (experience from MOBA games, in case you wanted to point to my not playing much shooters).

Anyone who's played an FPS with 60 FPS, like say TF2, and then started recording with an older version of Fraps that limits the framerate to the framerate you're recording at. Playing at 60 FPS then suddenly going down to 30 is a world of difference, and it absolutely DOES affect how well you play. It's like setting a time on a 100m dash, then trying to beat that time while wearing snowboots.

 

[J Tyran]

This comic reminds me of Peter Kays "why do mums buy crappy pop" joke, So damn true sometimes.

 

[Holythirteen]

Who is saying this specifically? Possibly that Ben Kuchera dipshit? He already said the same thing about the lower resolution, so a safe bet maybe.

I'm not sure why he feels the need to rush to microsoft's defense every goddamn time they fuck up. I like to assume he's taking bribes from them. Wonder how much game journalism whores are worth nowadays?

He's just so well respected too, is he an idiot? Or just dishonest?

Makes me feel really guilty for slagging on some of Jim's dumb opinions. At least I never felt like he was manipulating me for the benefit of some massive corporation.

 

[TelHybrid]

This just shows that the games industry views complacent customers in the same light as a mother views a child throwing a tantrum.

Just think about that...

Offended yet?

 

[LetalisK]

It bares reposting because:

A: It demonstrates the difference simply and beautifully.
-and-
B: People STILL assert there's no difference.

So here it is - https://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

If you can honestly sit there and tell me that there's no visible difference between the fluidity of the 30 and the 60 fps samples, then I bow to you. Or I may call you a liar. Not sure.

Well, yes, I can see the difference. However, I'd note two things. First, the jump from 30 to 60 seems much smaller than the jump from 15 to 30. Second, I can only tell the difference because they're right next to each other and I can notice these smaller differences. If they were separated, I wouldn't notice it.

 

[Vigormortis]

Well, yes, I can see the difference. However, I'd note two things. First, the jump from 30 to 60 seems much smaller than the jump from 15 to 30. Second, I can only tell the difference because they're right next to each other and I can notice these smaller differences. If they were separated, I wouldn't notice it.

Okay. I definitely need to change my original post. CPU friendliness be damned...

This is a better demonstration - http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

And as for the difference, when in motion and at consistent rates, you will notice a difference between 30 and 60, even if viewed separately.

The difference would be even more jarring if you were used to one with what media you were viewing and then switched to the other at a later time.

I could go into further details, but I've repeated it several times already. You can see my other posts just above this one.