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

what I want to know is if 1080p vs 1080i makes a difference, because i sure as hell can tell the diff between 30 and 60 fps...its obvious.

1080i is different from 1080p.

Within the designation "1080i", the i stands for interlaced scan. A frame of 1080i video consists of two sequential fields of 1920 horizontal and 540 vertical pixels. The first field consists of all odd-numbered TV lines and the second all even numbered lines. Consequently the horizontal lines of pixels in each field are captured and displayed with a one-line vertical gap between them, so the lines of the next field can be interlaced between them, resulting in 1080 total lines. 1080i differs from 1080p, where the p stands for progressive scan, where all lines in a frame are captured at the same time. In native or pure 1080i, the two fields of a frame correspond to different instants (points in time), so motion portrayal is good (50 or 60 motion phases/second). This is true for interlaced video in general and can be easily observed in still images taken from fast motion scenes, as shown in the figure on the right (without appropriate deinterlacing). However when 1080p material is captured at 25 or 30 frames/second it is converted to 1080i at 50 or 60 fields/second, respectively, for processing or broadcasting. In this situation both fields in a frame do correspond to the same instant. The field-to-instant relation is somewhat more complex for the case of 1080p at 24 frames/second converted to 1080i at 60 fields/second, as explained in the telecine article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080i

@tymeservesfate: dd214 and records are public record. But I'm not putting my full name on this board.

thanks, i read that...and still don't get it lol, but thanks anyways. I ask because one of my tv's is 1080i, and another is 1080p....

@clyde46: wow. For the 1000 time, there is a difference. I don't believe its so huge. 480-1080 is huge.

720p=1080i

1080p >> 1080i

Better?

BINGO...the link is there for a reason. i even stated that the site has better video displays in the OP.

here's a better question...why did you just look at the gifs and not read anything in the opening post at all, or check the link?

these arent really my gifs...that isnt my site...i just brought the debate to the board.

Calm down bro.... I was addressing the TC.

@clyde46: your right.......I step away from the ledge

agreed, you shouldnt.

and i see your point completely...i don't see how anyone can speak against you after that answer lol. you shot some of these guns forreral...while we're talking video games lol. especially if those are your shooting range numbers.

i'm just saying...if those are his shooting range numbers, then his eyes are fine. i'm not picking one side or the other openly. but that does give him a little more weight behind his words.

@tymeservesfate: sucks because I needed 36/40 to qualify expert. I was sharpshooter because I missed one. Thing I miss most now is not going to ranges. Especially being a NYer where gun laws suck.

On topic, I do know there are differences in res and fps. Been playing through the arkham games on my new PC, and they are beautiful. But I still loved them when I originally played them on ps3/360. I can't bring my PC to my brothers this weekend but I'll still play arkham on my old 360 that he has. I guess if people are into all the nuances and stuff that's cool. I just have fun playing.

It's probably a re-encoding problem when uploading a video to YT.

I see subtle differences in 30fps and 60fps in motion and in the feeling while using a mouse which go hand in hand with the more reserves a PC has, the smoother the game will be.

But, I don't really see the correlation with the refresh rates apart from tearing. I haven't had an LCD monitor that went past 75 Hz. But, I've had 21" and 22" CRT/aperture grill monitors that could do 120 Hz a little over a decade ago. The framerates didn't feel any different whether I was playing the game at 1024x768 @ 85 Hz or 1024x768 @ 120 Hz. I certainly never noticed any image quality differences like what some here have posted before.

This is a better comparison. I can see the difference, personally:

Why do people keep posting these. You realize there's a huge difference between watching a gif/ video, and what you actually see and feel when you're immersed in a game...

First of all, both those gifs are running on what seems like 20 fps. >__>

And second, there's even a clear difference between 60 and 120 fps. If someone can't see the difference between 30 and 60, then there's something wrong with their eyes.. or monitor.

This is a pretty good illustration actually. When you look at 30fps first, then 60, you don't see much of a difference but going back, you realize how smooth 60 was. Probably explains why a lot of console gamers say they can't see the difference while I can't play GTA 5 without getting dizzy.

This is a big part of it. Especially when the debate gets into 60+ territory. I can see the difference between 30 and 60 like night and day, but above 60, the improvement gets less visible to me. However, I can feel the difference between 60 and 80 or 100, and it's glorious.

I can tell the difference, but it's not a deal breaker for me.

When you are actually playing the game you can see/feel the difference between 60fps and 120fps.

As for 30fps vs 60fps the difference is just massive, in fact is not even enjoyable to play games at 30fps.

I just got two 144hz monitors. Peasants be jelly of my framerates over 60

Oh, the denial... AHAH!

Honestly I noticed it when comparing after a few takes, but it was hardly anything to freak out about imo.

Weirdly enough I came into this thread thinking there would be a greater noticeable difference (still low influence though) than what I just saw since I've never seen in game tests before, but I guess not. Kind of strange since I've been 60 fps gaming for awhile now, but I guess I never really compared them, and only saw it as better than 30 just because. I think its blown out of proportion tbh, which was also what I thought before coming in here as well.

Now below 30 fps is very noticeable to me, especially around the 20's area.

there's a link to videos in the OP...i even said they are a better quality than the gifs -_-

The only thing I see is the OJ. He be all crouching down and looking scared.

It's a colloquialism for someone who only buys high end electronics.

Here's the definition

Yeah, because your eyes are 12 inches from the screen...

30fps is playable, but of course people want more.

Most current gen looking games seem to be struggling to get above 30fps.

Whatever, man. You are full of crap, dude there is no way it is "night and day". At that distance, the human eye can barely tell the difference - even if you have better than 20/20 vision.

This is a pretty good example of the difference; I fail to see how anybody could not see it.

On graphic intensive games, it would be hard to get over 30Fps.. That has always been the case.
Rather have great visuals with 30fps than 60fps with poor fuzzy graphics.

@MBirdy88: It was 30fps on the Wii? :O

The only difference between 1080i and 1080p is that 1080i sends half an image per frame and 1080p sends the full image. Since most displays accept video input at a max of 60hz, what this effectively means is 1080i will cap out at 30fps while 1080p can achieve up to 60fps. If you are viewing content at 30fps or lower, there is effectively no difference between the 2.

So if I'm playing a game that runs 60 fps on a 1080i tv, you're telling me that it will go from 60fps to 30fps?

Pretty much yes. The 1080i tv, receives half the image, then receives the next half.... then combines both half images together to show you a single full image. Its receiving half frames 60 times a second, but combines them to show you full frames 30 times a second. Whereas the 1080p tv, is receiving full frames 60 times a second, and is displaying 60fps. Basically TVs with 1080i input cannot display more than 30fps.

Although a 30 fps game on 1080i is the same on 1080p. You arent lowering the framerate or performance in anyway, i want to make that clear. 1080p is only better, and never worse.

I'm under the impression 1080i is usually found only on 720p TVs. I still have an old 720p TV and it does 1080i. It shouldn't be a concern to those who own full HD TV sets.

1080 is the lines of resolution. Its imposible for a 720p display to be 1080i.

IDK, because I read about such things? Humans cannot discern 1080p or 720p with any significant meaningfulness from that distance. It's medical science. Can you tell the difference? Maybe. Is it as big of a difference as you are proposing? No - and it really can't be because you are not an eagle, hawk, or other raptor.

Umm.., most 720p TVs can display 1080i.

no they cant, every 1080i input is 1080p output. HDTVs dont output interlaced content. A 720p display regardless of input only can display 720 lines of resolution, the display doesnt have the pixels to display 1080.

30 fps versus 60 fps is a bit like walking from point A to point B when you're semi-drunk: you get to B, only it feels as if it though you missed half of the steps along the way.

Any 720p TV can upscale to 1080i. My 10 year old LG LCD could do it.

You feel the difference more than you see it if you know what I mean.

It depends on how fast the images are moving, watching a slow moving fog at 10 FPS will look fluid, playing a racing game at that same FPS will not.