Quote:
Originally posted by G.I.JOE*MFA*
u must have super eyes if below 40 frames a sec you can see...lol
|
i'd say that was pretty normal, i think 99.9% of people here could tell the difference between 40 fps and 100 fps for example. the faster it is the smoother it is, and the smoother the better for me.
basically you are saying as the fps increases, you dont notice any difference? that's just not possible.
at 12-20 and 40 fps the game is jerky for me. there is no otherway i can say it clearer than that. maybe you play really slow paced games not to notice?
ok 12 might be the very minimum the eye needs to interpret movement but by no means is that playable.
video is ok at 30 (ntsc) or 25 (pal) but this is only because that single frames can have blur (perceived by the eye as movement) whereas games dont have any blur at all and each frame is a clear, sharp image. so the sequence of frames in games appears jerky at 30 fps
if games could implement motion blur then 30 fps would be acceptable. but its not possible to do correctly as if there was a blur at a particular frame then the character is not in one exact position when moving.
the US airforce proved that the eye can recognise or see an image displayed for only 1/220th of a second, so the eye can at least detect 220 fps so why is is so ridiculous that i can tell when a series of clear images is only being displayed at 40fps?!
there is no current way of measuring the limit of fps the eye can see because technology is no where near as good as the human eye, there is theoretical limits but no way of proving. but it could be in excess of 1000fps
i'm not an optician but i have read up on this and i have seen the facts and figures from many sources. i'm not just one of 'todays kids' who says stuff without any info.
