Some say the human eye can't see -30fps VS 60FPS-

#51 Edited by tymeservesfate (2227 posts) -

@blue_hazy_basic said:

@tymeservesfate said:

@blue_hazy_basic: i did...? i didnt realize. sorry about that...i had browser problems. i guess it made the thread repost a few times. i'll delete the others, or u could if you want.

No probs, I locked the other ones ;)

you da man B-Hazy...we all see it.

#52 Edited by Cloud_imperium (5873 posts) -

Here is better example of 15fps vs 30fps vs 60fps . Those gifs aren't doing this debate a justice .

(Recommended to watch it in Google Chrome)

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

EDIT : You can clearly see the difference in gifs posted by TC , as well . (you need to watch it in chrome . Firefox makes it look similar)

#53 Edited by lostrib (42208 posts) -

@Cloud_imperium said:

Here is better example of 15fps vs 30fps vs 60fps . Those gifs aren't doing this debate a justice .

(Recommended to watch it in Google Chrome)

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

except the ones in this thread show actual gameplay rather than floating blocks

#54 Posted by Wasdie (50596 posts) -

@tymeservesfate said:

@Wasdie said:

Those GIFs are both at lower than 30fps on my PC and I'll bet on most others.You can and always will be able to see the difference between 30fps and 60fps. Denying that there is little or no difference is just staying ignorant at this point.

It's sad that in 2014 there are still people denying there is a difference all because of console fanboyism.

again, neither console was mentioned. you're the one making it fanboy wars, not me. it was just a general question to the community.

i myself said i can see a difference, be it slight. so i'm not sure how this thread is being called lem damage control, or DC at any level by me. just a topic for people to discuss...try relaxing.

The 30 vs 60 fps debate is always console oriented no matter how you slice it because any person who's ever played a PC game knows that 30fps doesn't just look sluggish, it feels sluggish.

It doesn't matter if you didn't mention a console, the only people this entire debate affects are those who own consoles and do not have an option to play games at 60fps.

#55 Posted by Cloud_imperium (5873 posts) -
@lostrib said:

@Cloud_imperium said:

Here is better example of 15fps vs 30fps vs 60fps . Those gifs aren't doing this debate a justice .

(Recommended to watch it in Google Chrome)

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

except the ones in this thread show actual gameplay rather than floating blocks

Except I never said , it isn't . What did I miss .?

#56 Edited by scatteh316 (5021 posts) -

Some people may not be able to 'see' 60fps but you can damn well 'feel' the difference

#57 Posted by PrincessGomez92 (3788 posts) -

Meh, there is no difference.

#58 Edited by lostrib (42208 posts) -

@Cloud_imperium said:
@lostrib said:

@Cloud_imperium said:

Here is better example of 15fps vs 30fps vs 60fps . Those gifs aren't doing this debate a justice .

(Recommended to watch it in Google Chrome)

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

except the ones in this thread show actual gameplay rather than floating blocks

Except I never said , it isn't . What did I miss .?

English class?

#59 Posted by APiranhaAteMyVa (2990 posts) -

I think frame rate should be prioritised over resolution. I would take 720/60 over 1080/30, for every type of game. Of course I would prefer 1080+/60+ in every game but that isn't the case, even on PC you will get the odd game that struggles on the most powerful of hardware depending on settings.

#60 Edited by Cloud_imperium (5873 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@Cloud_imperium said:
@lostrib said:

@Cloud_imperium said:

Here is better example of 15fps vs 30fps vs 60fps . Those gifs aren't doing this debate a justice .

(Recommended to watch it in Google Chrome)

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

except the ones in this thread show actual gameplay rather than floating blocks

Except I never said , it isn't . What did I miss .?

English class?

I can see how you changed the subject . Not going to take you seriously from now on .

#61 Edited by scatteh316 (5021 posts) -

@APiranhaAteMyVa said:

I think frame rate should be prioritised over resolution. I would take 720/60 over 1080/30, for every type of game. Of course I would prefer 1080+/60+ in every game but that isn't the case, even on PC you will get the odd game that struggles on the most powerful of hardware depending on settings.

Not really... I run a 5Ghz Core i7 3770k with overclocked Crossfire 290's with a 2560x1440 monitor.

I have v-sync turned on in every game ( Except for counter strike ) and I'm locked 60fps on everything, even Crysis 3 stays locked at 60fps.

Staying at 60fps or higher is mainly about CPU performance as that's what dictates your minimum fps.

#62 Edited by lostrib (42208 posts) -

@Cloud_imperium said:

@lostrib said:

@Cloud_imperium said:
@lostrib said:

@Cloud_imperium said:

Here is better example of 15fps vs 30fps vs 60fps . Those gifs aren't doing this debate a justice .

(Recommended to watch it in Google Chrome)

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

except the ones in this thread show actual gameplay rather than floating blocks

Except I never said , it isn't . What did I miss .?

English class?

I can see how you changed the subject . Not going to take you seriously from now on .

That really hurts my feelings

#63 Edited by tymeservesfate (2227 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

@tymeservesfate said:

@Wasdie said:

Those GIFs are both at lower than 30fps on my PC and I'll bet on most others.You can and always will be able to see the difference between 30fps and 60fps. Denying that there is little or no difference is just staying ignorant at this point.

It's sad that in 2014 there are still people denying there is a difference all because of console fanboyism.

again, neither console was mentioned. you're the one making it fanboy wars, not me. it was just a general question to the community.

i myself said i can see a difference, be it slight. so i'm not sure how this thread is being called lem damage control, or DC at any level by me. just a topic for people to discuss...try relaxing.

The 30 vs 60 fps debate is always console oriented no matter how you slice it because any person who's ever played a PC game knows that 30fps doesn't just look sluggish, it feels sluggish.

It doesn't matter if you didn't mention a console, the only people this entire debate affects are those who own consoles and do not have an option to play games at 60fps.

you feel i implied it, that's fine. moving on.

#64 Posted by good_sk8er7 (4322 posts) -

I actually prefer 30fps actually. 60 just looks strange and unnatural to me.

#65 Edited by clyde46 (47475 posts) -

This whole "eye detecting FPS" is bullshit. The human brain can detect motion of up to 140FPS or so however anything above 60 appears as smooth motion, thus the more frames per second a clip has, the smoother the brain will perceive the motion.

Case in point, go watch a fast sport like football. First watch it at 30FPS, then watch it at 60FPS, then watch it on a 200Hz HDTV. You will be able to see the difference in motion.

However, its not that straight cut. games are odd in the fact that they are run at 60FPS or more and still appear normal. This is because its digitially generated content which is that much different from real world examples. For example, go watch a TV show on a PC with a standard TN monitor then watch the same TV show on a new 200Hz HDTV. Notice the odd fluid like motion on the HDTV?

However I can be very wrong and mixed up Hertz and FPS all together.

#66 Posted by inb4uall (6390 posts) -

There is a difference but it really doesn't matter all that much to me. So long as the frame rate is locked and doesn't drop or speed up randomly.

#67 Posted by musicalmac (23547 posts) -

I think this issue is actually SW lore, that you can't tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps. It's an endearing phenomenon. Brings me back. :)

#68 Posted by Netherscourge (16354 posts) -

It's really irrelevant if everyone in YOUR game is running at the same FPS.

It only matters on PCs where everyone has all crazy configurations and some people are running on 4-year old $100 hardware vs. some people running on 2-week old $2000 hardware.

On consoles, the playing field is level so nobody cares.

#69 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (17338 posts) -

@clyde46 said:
However I can be very wrong and mixed up Hertz and FPS all together.

I'm also skeptical of the HZ and FPS being mixed together. Perhaps we should go back to basics when framerates merely indicate how much reserve horsepower a a system has to run a game fluidly.

Anyway, I grew up gaming when PC games rarely reached 24fps. So, 30fps is playable enough to me. Unfortunately, YT drops a lot frames during uploading. So, this video seems jerkier than the original.

Loading Video...

#70 Edited by wis3boi (31957 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

Those GIFs are both at lower than 30fps on my PC and I'll bet on most others.You can and always will be able to see the difference between 30fps and 60fps. Denying that there is little or no difference is just staying ignorant at this point.

It's sad that in 2014 there are still people denying there is a difference all because of console fanboyism.

you have to view them on the actual linked site, where they are hosted as HTML5, not gifs

#71 Posted by clyde46 (47475 posts) -

@jun_aka_pekto said:

@clyde46 said:
However I can be very wrong and mixed up Hertz and FPS all together.

I'm also skeptical of the HZ and FPS being mixed together. Perhaps we should go back to basics when framerates merely indicate how much reserve horsepower a a system has to run a game fluidly.

Anyway, I grew up gaming when PC games rarely reached 24fps. So, 30fps is playable enough to me. Unfortunately, YT drops a lot frames during uploading. So, this video seems jerkier than the original.

Loading Video...

Dropping frames isn't really a Youtube problem, thats a recording and encoding problem. I always try to record at 60FPS whenever possible because if you do a dropped frame or two, its fixable.

#72 Edited by JangoWuzHere (17342 posts) -

Why are your gifs so shit? Seriously, there is like a hundred other comparisons that are better then what you have.

#73 Posted by wis3boi (31957 posts) -

@JangoWuzHere said:

Why are your gifs so shit? Seriously, there is like a hundred other comparisons that are better then what you have.

try viewing the actual source HTML images next time ;) http://30vs60.com/bf4-running.html

#74 Posted by R3FURBISHED (10818 posts) -

I see no difference between stable framerates, the only difference I can make out is when framerate either increases or decreases.

#75 Posted by CrownKingArthur (5262 posts) -

yes i can see the difference, it's like chalk and bloody cheese.

i'm a 60 fps gamer.

#76 Posted by JangoWuzHere (17342 posts) -

@wis3boi said:

@JangoWuzHere said:

Why are your gifs so shit? Seriously, there is like a hundred other comparisons that are better then what you have.

try viewing the actual source HTML images next time ;) http://30vs60.com/bf4-running.html

Maybe the TC shouldn't post gifs that only serve to mislead.

#77 Edited by Couth_ (10311 posts) -

@wis3boi said:

@JangoWuzHere said:

Why are your gifs so shit? Seriously, there is like a hundred other comparisons that are better then what you have.

try viewing the actual source HTML images next time ;) http://30vs60.com/bf4-running.html

Not sure why OP bothered posting shit quality gifs.. WebM's do much better or better yet direct source b/c webM's won't run well on a weak PC..

If you can't tell the difference between 60fps and 30fps you may have been born with an eye defect. And they don't make glasses for that :[

#78 Posted by SonySoldier-_- (852 posts) -

It is a huge difference. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot. Also, using GIF's to try and compare FPS is so much fail..

#79 Posted by R4gn4r0k (17478 posts) -

Don't need to look at crappy gifs to know that the difference is huge. People can even notice the difference between 60 FPS and 120 FPS.

Some people also say that 480p is still a good resolution, at a distance.

#80 Edited by cainetao11 (19289 posts) -

@tymeservesfate:

Wish you hadn't told which was which. I wanted to laugh at those who picked wrong. The difference is so barely noticeable, if at all. I can enjoy playing either.

#81 Posted by GhoX (5269 posts) -

You can even see the difference between 60 and 120 fps.

#82 Edited by cainetao11 (19289 posts) -

@StormyJoe said:

@ribstaylor1 said:

@StormyJoe: When on my ps3 or even my computer playing on a 60inch plasma tv, I can notice a difference between 720 and 1080p. I must have amazing eyes, since so many people can't seem to see with clarity. 720 on any game on my 60inch is a blurry jagged mess unless I crank the aliasing up or do super sampling. 1080p is far better clearing up the image and making it far more crisp. I can even take it a step higher on my 1440p monitor, and get an even clearer and crisper image. Even on it I can notice a change sitting back a few feet between the three resolutions. There is a difference and noticeable one for both resolution and frame rate. There is no real debate on this just people on forums who don't know too much about anything or have horrible eyes talking out their asses about resolutions and frame rates.

Interestingly enough, the only people who talk about 1080p being such an incredible difference, are cows.

Look, I am a technophile - I have thousands and thousands of dollars tied to my home theater, and I can admit there isn't a big difference. I am not saying there is "no difference", but it's negligible. You people talk as though it is a difference between VHS and Blu Ray. So yes, your eyes defy medical science - perhaps you are an X-Man and don't know it.

Agreed. I am not a technopredator...............guy............thing. But I guess my eyes are bad. I don't see this MASSIVE difference from 1080p to 720p. And some claim its huge from 900p to 1080p. Its just favoritisms that makes people exaggerate.

#83 Edited by JangoWuzHere (17342 posts) -

@cainetao11 said:

@StormyJoe said:

@ribstaylor1 said:

@StormyJoe: When on my ps3 or even my computer playing on a 60inch plasma tv, I can notice a difference between 720 and 1080p. I must have amazing eyes, since so many people can't seem to see with clarity. 720 on any game on my 60inch is a blurry jagged mess unless I crank the aliasing up or do super sampling. 1080p is far better clearing up the image and making it far more crisp. I can even take it a step higher on my 1440p monitor, and get an even clearer and crisper image. Even on it I can notice a change sitting back a few feet between the three resolutions. There is a difference and noticeable one for both resolution and frame rate. There is no real debate on this just people on forums who don't know too much about anything or have horrible eyes talking out their asses about resolutions and frame rates.

Interestingly enough, the only people who talk about 1080p being such an incredible difference, are cows.

Look, I am a technophile - I have thousands and thousands of dollars tied to my home theater, and I can admit there isn't a big difference. I am not saying there is "no difference", but it's negligible. You people talk as though it is a difference between VHS and Blu Ray. So yes, your eyes defy medical science - perhaps you are an X-Man and don't know it.

Agreed. I am not a technopredator...............guy............thing. But I guess my eyes are bad. I don't see this MASSIVE difference from 1080p to 720p. And some claim its huge from 900p to 1080p. Its just favoritisms that makes people exaggerate.

You don't have to be a technowhatever to see that there are a lot more pixels being rendered on screen. Go play a PC game and switch from 720p to 1080p. The difference is large.

#84 Posted by cainetao11 (19289 posts) -

@JangoWuzHere:

Play PC all the time. I guess its relative to what one considers huge. I don't consider the difference huge. The difference from 480-1080p is huge, imo. But to each their own assessment

#85 Edited by wis3boi (31957 posts) -

@cainetao11 said:

@JangoWuzHere:

Play PC all the time. I guess its relative to what one considers huge. I don't consider the difference huge. The difference from 480-1080p is huge, imo. But to each their own assessment

It's double the pixel density...your eyes must be pretty terrible

#86 Posted by cainetao11 (19289 posts) -

@wis3boi said:

@cainetao11 said:

@JangoWuzHere:

Play PC all the time. I guess its relative to what one considers huge. I don't consider the difference huge. The difference from 480-1080p is huge, imo. But to each their own assessment

It's double the pixel density...your eyes must be pretty terrible

Oh well guess so. Still shot 35/40 and 4/4 at 300m, no scope in US army. But If people really see differently than ok.

#87 Posted by LadyBlue (3985 posts) -

This gif is better at showing the difference.

#88 Posted by JangoWuzHere (17342 posts) -

@cainetao11 said:

@JangoWuzHere:

Play PC all the time. I guess its relative to what one considers huge. I don't consider the difference huge. The difference from 480-1080p is huge, imo. But to each their own assessment

How to you consider the difference between 480p and 1080p huge, but not 720p and 1080p? Seriously?

#89 Posted by cainetao11 (19289 posts) -

@JangoWuzHere said:

@cainetao11 said:

@JangoWuzHere:

Play PC all the time. I guess its relative to what one considers huge. I don't consider the difference huge. The difference from 480-1080p is huge, imo. But to each their own assessment

How to you consider the difference between 480p and 1080p huge, but not 720p and 1080p? Seriously?

Completely serious. The difference of starting field position on my 20 yard line or at the opponents 45. Both are away from the goal line, but which difference is bigger?

#90 Posted by edwardecl (2239 posts) -

Play any first person game on PC, limit the game to 30FPS and pan the camera... the do the exact same thing in 60FPS then you will realise.

#91 Edited by JangoWuzHere (17342 posts) -

@cainetao11 said:

@JangoWuzHere said:

@cainetao11 said:

@JangoWuzHere:

Play PC all the time. I guess its relative to what one considers huge. I don't consider the difference huge. The difference from 480-1080p is huge, imo. But to each their own assessment

How to you consider the difference between 480p and 1080p huge, but not 720p and 1080p? Seriously?

Completely serious. The difference of starting field position on my 20 yard line or at the opponents 45. Both are away from the goal line, but which difference is bigger?

There is a huge difference between 720p and 1080p. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean people are exaggerating or playing favorites.

#92 Posted by cainetao11 (19289 posts) -

@JangoWuzHere said:

@cainetao11 said:

@JangoWuzHere said:

@cainetao11 said:

@JangoWuzHere:

Play PC all the time. I guess its relative to what one considers huge. I don't consider the difference huge. The difference from 480-1080p is huge, imo. But to each their own assessment

How to you consider the difference between 480p and 1080p huge, but not 720p and 1080p? Seriously?

Completely serious. The difference of starting field position on my 20 yard line or at the opponents 45. Both are away from the goal line, but which difference is bigger?

There is a huge difference between 720p and 1080p. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean people are exaggerating or playing favorites.

Well if the difference between 480 and 1080 is huge, how can the difference between 720 which is closer to 1080 be huge? That's why I said it comes down to each persons assessment of what is huge.

#93 Posted by TheTruthIsREAL (806 posts) -

I prefer 1 fps because I can bask in the moment for 1 entire second, every scene. Very photographic

#94 Posted by XboxStache (1024 posts) -

30 fps wit frame rate hitches is terrible. At least 60fps with hitches is tolerable and barely noticeable. Anyone that says otherwise has been sipping mom's kool aid a bit too much.

#95 Edited by freedomfreak (43095 posts) -

Gifs, btw.

You need WebM's for this stuff.

#96 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

@tymeservesfate said:

@Wasdie said:

Those GIFs are both at lower than 30fps on my PC and I'll bet on most others.You can and always will be able to see the difference between 30fps and 60fps. Denying that there is little or no difference is just staying ignorant at this point.

It's sad that in 2014 there are still people denying there is a difference all because of console fanboyism.

again, neither console was mentioned. you're the one making it fanboy wars, not me. it was just a general question to the community.

i myself said i can see a difference, be it slight. so i'm not sure how this thread is being called lem damage control, or DC at any level by me. just a topic for people to discuss...try relaxing.

The 30 vs 60 fps debate is always console oriented no matter how you slice it because any person who's ever played a PC game knows that 30fps doesn't just look sluggish, it feels sluggish.

It doesn't matter if you didn't mention a console, the only people this entire debate affects are those who own consoles and do not have an option to play games at 60fps.

Consoles most popular franchise is 60 fps though.

#97 Edited by MikeMoose (3075 posts) -

You absolutely can see the difference and saying otherwise is ignorant. Gifs aren't a proper way of judging. Play Battlefield 4 on the PS3 or XB360, then play it on the PS4. I promise youll be able to see and feel the difference.

#98 Posted by tymeservesfate (2227 posts) -

@cainetao11 said:

@wis3boi said:

@cainetao11 said:

@JangoWuzHere:

Play PC all the time. I guess its relative to what one considers huge. I don't consider the difference huge. The difference from 480-1080p is huge, imo. But to each their own assessment

It's double the pixel density...your eyes must be pretty terrible

Oh well guess so. Still shot 35/40 and 4/4 at 300m, no scope in US army. But If people really see differently than ok.

LMAO...that answer should shut anybody up in this thread XD.

#99 Posted by SuddenlyTragic (976 posts) -

Whoever says that the human eye can't tell the difference between 30 and 60fps is full of shit. There is a major and certainly noticeable difference.

#100 Edited by clyde46 (47475 posts) -

@tymeservesfate said:

@cainetao11 said:

@wis3boi said:

@cainetao11 said:

@JangoWuzHere:

Play PC all the time. I guess its relative to what one considers huge. I don't consider the difference huge. The difference from 480-1080p is huge, imo. But to each their own assessment

It's double the pixel density...your eyes must be pretty terrible

Oh well guess so. Still shot 35/40 and 4/4 at 300m, no scope in US army. But If people really see differently than ok.

LMAO...that answer should shut anybody up in this thread XD.

Umm no, just because you can't see the difference doesn't negate all the studies and reports that say there is a difference.