60fps cap for 2.0?

Just wondering if anyone knows what SE plan's to do with the current fps cap of 30 and 60 come 2.0. 30 and 60 fps options should and most likely will remain, but I am interested in seeing an option for 60+ with no ceiling for 120hz monitor users.

I currently run the game 60fps constant in many areas with settings an high for the most part (crowded areas of Ul'dah at 30-40 fps)

I was just wondering since the current version is horribly optimized to begin with many users are going to see a noticeable if not drastic increase in performance with more graphical options and superior optimization. So people who are hitting high fps in the current version may very well break into 60+ quite easily.

I know someone is bound to reply and tell me that I can not tell the difference between 60 or 60+, but I have witnessed a noticeable difference while playing BF3 at 90fps vs 60fps on my 120hz monitor. Regardless, I am not posting to argue about what fps we can / can not perceive.

Dev response:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rukkirii

Heya guys!

While the details have not yet been decided, we are planning to make it possible to select from 30fps, 60fps and uncapped settings. ^_^

---

they weren't specific in details but the new client is intended to be able to have a huuuuuge variety in options to allow low end computers to run it well, and high ends to be able to truly max it out.

120hz monitors still only use 60 fps and higher hz monitors/tvs, its special tech inside that adds frames to make it appear smoother.
kinda like my samsung 240hz tv theres a mode called automotion plus. thats how you can watch a 1080p movie in 240hz even though its 24fps

just use v-sync with tripple buffering then the game will run smooth

if the game actually ran at 120 FPS or higher you would need a PC that much stronger. its the little tricks the monitors can do that appear a higher framerate.

Shouldn't be an FPS cap period for a PC game and this is one thing that has bugged me since XI so I hope this new engine isn't restricted and each individual is allowed to run XIV how they would like.

I don't want to get into the argument of lalala you won't notice any difference above 60fps, well for those of you that were lucky enough to experience XIV in the beta at 120fps I noticed a significant improvement.

Quote:

---

I don't want to get into the argument of lalala you won't notice any difference above 60fps, well for those of you that were lucky enough to experience XIV in the beta at 120fps I noticed a significant improvement.

---

most people cant even hit 30 FPS let alone see how smooth 60 is no matter what nothing runs past 60 FPS when you talking about hz. monitor HZ & game FPS different things.

Yes, I don't really understand the hz thing, but going from real world experience I have always preferred to run many different types of games mmo/fps/rts etc and notice a massive increase in smoothness, easier on the eyes at 100 than 60 and 30 imo is unacceptable in this day and age.

I realize that this is an mmo and that many people will be running with different specs. Most of the player base probably runs the game well bellow high settings.

In my mind it's just another way to future proof a game.

Indira, you seem more tech savy than I when it comes to this stuff and I would not refute anything that you have posted thus far. It's just when it comes to most games that I own there has been a significant difference when I picked up my benq xl2420t monitor, especially while playing BF3. Hell, even my desktop runs smoother on my 120hz monitor vs the 60hz monitor that I run along side it (opening tabs, dragging them around etc). It's just when I tried FFXIV I could not notice anything but a slight difference in colour. I assumed it was because of the 60fps cap.

This is the best post/suggestion I've seen on this site in months and I completely agree. My computer can definitely handle higher frame rates for this game (did 120FPS during early Beta in a lot of areas) and I would like for that option to be available for players, like myself, with above average computers.

30 > 60 > 120 > Uncapped. Make it happen devs.

Btw, the argument that no one can currently run the game uncapped is stupid and moot since they are changing the engine in 2.0.

Just wondering (im in no way knowledgeable in this), but would we even SEE the difference?
I heard somewhere that its the 30 FPS (I think) that is the mark where we no longer can tell the difference.

But if they can, hell why not...

Quote:

---

Indira, you seem more tech savy than I when it comes to this stuff and I would not refute anything that you have posted thus far. It's just when it comes to most games that I own there has been a significant difference when I picked up my benq xl2420t monitor, especially while playing BF3. Hell, even my desktop runs smoother on my 120hz monitor vs the 60hz monitor that I run along side it (opening tabs, dragging them around etc). It's just when I tried FFXIV I could not notice anything but a slight difference in colour. I assumed it was because of the 60fps cap.

---

yeah, is alot nicer on a higher hz monitor, each company has its own term for there add in frame technology thats what you see when you when you play it take the 60 base and adds frames between each one then you have 120 and so on, its a blessing from them that way we dont need god like pc's to see our games/movies run at them refresh rates. it pertty much just blends the frames together.

Regardless of whether our current computers can handle the 60+ fps or not, like another poster said, we want the game to be somewhat future proof. So make it possible to hit the higher end stuff and when the prices of tech goes down , in 2 years when we are all playing on new computers with our lvl 75/80/? characters we will be able to go out and get new computers/parts and experience a beautiful smooth game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renen

Just wondering (im in no way knowledgeable in this), but would we even SEE the difference?
I heard somewhere that its the 30 FPS (I think) that is the mark where we no longer can tell the difference.

But if they can, hell why not...

---

I read this everywhere and it's not true. Some people can't tell the difference (just like some cant tell the diff between native 1080p and upscaled 720p) but theres a huge difference between 30 and 60 and then another big jump from 60 to 120. Anything beyond 120 at the moment is extremely hard to notice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by indira

yeah, is alot nicer on a higher hz monitor, each company has its own term for there add in frame technology thats what you see when you when you play it take the 60 base and adds frames between each one then you have 120 and so on, its a blessing from them that way we dont need god like pc's to see our games/movies run at them refresh rates. it pertty much just blends the frames together.

---

you are wrong, there are several monitors which have real 120hz.. such a list includes the one OP is talking about (benq xl2420t). I also have 2 monitores that have real 120hz, samsung 2233rz and LG 2363d.

Real 120hz is not the same as true motion or any other technology that they use on LCD/LED TVs. In fact, these tecnologies suck to play any game, because they generate fake frames that will lead to ghosts, trailing and other stuff.. its just a bad technology to play games.

Real 120hz on the other hand is the most beautiful thing they ever invented, first time i laid eyes on it i just couldnt let it go. Most games i rather play on 22' 1680x1050 than on a 27' 2560x1440.

Any real fps gamer has a 120hz monitor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TimonLoon

I read this everywhere and it's not true. Some people can't tell the difference (just like some cant tell the diff between native 1080p and upscaled 720p) but theres a huge difference between 30 and 60 and then another big jump from 60 to 120. Anything beyond 120 at the moment is extremely hard to notice.

---

You are right, but that all depends on the engine that is being used, the human eye does not work with framerates, it works in a different way and its not measurable in the same way 3d engines are. You can check this by playing all kind of games, some run great on 20-40 fps and others are just unplayable.

That being said it is possible that some ppl perceive more fps than others and games in which fps increases/decreases are more noticeable and others that are less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrakoRocks

you are wrong, there are several monitors which have real 120hz.. such a list includes the one OP is talking about (benq xl2420t). I also have 2 monitores that have real 120hz, samsung 2233rz and LG 2363d.

Real 120hz is not the same as true motion or any other technology that they use on LCD/LED TVs. In fact, these tecnologies suck to play any game, because they generate fake frames that will lead to ghosts, trailing and other stuff.. its just a bad technology to play games.

Real 120hz on the other hand is the most beautiful thing they ever invented, first time i laid eyes on it i just couldnt let it go. Most games i rather play on 22' 1680x1050 than on a 27' 2560x1440.

Any real fps gamer has a 120hz monitor.

---

Thanks for clearing that up! as an avid fps player it's the main reason why I picked up the monitor, for all other games it's just a perk to have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renen

Just wondering (im in no way knowledgeable in this), but would we even SEE the difference?
I heard somewhere that its the 30 FPS (I think) that is the mark where we no longer can tell the difference.

But if they can, hell why not...

---

I am far from a frame-rate snob, personally, I don't ever feel the need to go much beyond 30 FPS, but this is actually the exact opposite of the truth. 30 FPS is just above the level where the human eye can begin to easily discern individual frames. For television, for instance, NTSC standard for progressive film is 24 FPS (actually 23.9) and is pretty much the bare minimum; it uses progressive frames to simulate smooth images (each frame is actually a blend of two other frames). For our European friends, PAL standards set progressive frame rates at 25 FPS. More modern high-end HDTVs use 60p (60 progressive FPS).

However, several studies of video games show that there is a distinct difference between consuming video like a movie, and consuming video in a video game. There is something about the reactive nature of the game that makes us more attuned the the minute differences between frames. Frame rates above 60 FPS are qualitatively "better" than those at or below 60. That being said, for a relatively slow paced game like FFXIV, I personally really couldn't care less if I can, in some areas spike above 60 FPS. After all, many graphics cards just have to throw away frames rendered beyond 60 or 120 depending on your monitor and other considerations.

It's was uncapped at one point and it was messing ppl pc's up so they took it out. I don't really see the need for anything over 60 you can't tell anyway, the human eye can't keep up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renen

Just wondering (im in no way knowledgeable in this), but would we even SEE the difference?
I heard somewhere that its the 30 FPS (I think) that is the mark where we no longer can tell the difference.

But if they can, hell why not...

---

Frames are simply a trick to fool the mind into thinking that an object is moving, in other words a game utilizing good FPS tricks can look smooth at as low as 24 frames. sadly these tricks are usually bundled into an API or console, and hardly utilized at game level. For instance DirectX11 looks Smoother at 30Frames than DirectX9, Xbox360 caps games @24FPS. PS3 Games are Capped @30FPS but they are very smooth.

All in all smoothness or how many frames an eye can see Will very Greatly with the amount of eye trickery employed and the utilization in that said game.

Locking it to 60fps is a very profoundly noticeable difference from 30fps. It basically eradicated all latency problems I was having, which shocked me due to it not effecting the internet at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Firon

It's was uncapped at one point and it was messing ppl pc's up so they took it out. I don't really see the need for anything over 60 you can't tell anyway, the human eye can't keep up.

---

This is a common misconception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrakoRocks

you are wrong, there are several monitors which have real 120hz.. such a list includes the one OP is talking about (benq xl2420t). I also have 2 monitores that have real 120hz, samsung 2233rz and LG 2363d.

Real 120hz is not the same as true motion or any other technology that they use on LCD/LED TVs. In fact, these tecnologies suck to play any game, because they generate fake frames that will lead to ghosts, trailing and other stuff.. its just a bad technology to play games.

Real 120hz on the other hand is the most beautiful thing they ever invented, first time i laid eyes on it i just couldnt let it go. Most games i rather play on 22' 1680x1050 than on a 27' 2560x1440.

Any real fps gamer has a 120hz monitor.

---

This is correct here. 120Hz from a TV and a PC Monitor are two completely different things.

Quote:

---

This is correct here. 120Hz from a TV and a PC Monitor are two completely different things.

---

Hertz is Hertz unless your re-writing the book on frequency's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Firon
It's was uncapped at one point and it was messing ppl pc's up so they took it out. I don't really see the need for anything over 60 you can't tell anyway, the human eye can't keep up.
This is a common misconception.

---

already been proven unless your special to the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by indira

Hertz is Hertz unless your re-writing the book on frequency's

---

He's talking about the marketing on TVs labeled as 120/240 Hz (fake) VS real high end 120Hz Monitors...
I have a 120Hz CRT Monitor and I can clearly see the difference with my 60Hz LCD . . .

The whole "Eye can't see more than X frames" is complete rubbish. The eye's sight is not measured in frames. You can clearly test this yourself by using a test which plays two graphics. The adjustable sliders can be increased to upward of 120fps, while keeping the other on 60fps. The difference between the two is clearly obvious.

Sadly I can't remember the website which had this test.

60 FPS are quite enough for me, for instance one can frag in optimal conditions in BF3 with such a frame rate, even if above clearly is fairly better. As regards FFXIV, I don't feel the need of smooth gameplay, but when you hit the maximum refresh rate, nearly everywhere apart from the cities, you truly feel the difference btw a 60FPS-Coerthas and a 40FPS-crowded Ul'Dah.

Still, for the moment, I don't really need a higher cap - my 670 wouldn't handle it anyway -, just a decent optimization so as to be allowed to play without those significant frame rate drops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monterrey4ever

He's talking about the marketing on TVs labeled as 120/240 Hz (fake) VS real high end 120Hz Monitors...
I have a 120Hz CRT Monitor and I can clearly see the difference with my 60Hz LCD . . .

---

Correct, both can DISPLAY 120Hz. However TVs only accept 60Hz input, where the monitors can accept 120Hz input. The TVs just create fake frames.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drazzan

The whole "Eye can't see more than X frames" is complete rubbish. The eye's sight is not measured in frames. You can clearly test this yourself by using a test which plays two graphics. The adjustable sliders can be increased to upward of 120fps, while keeping the other on 60fps. The difference between the two is clearly obvious.

Sadly I can't remember the website which had this test.

---

QTF. I knew from start some people would come with the usual "but the eye can't see over 30 fps" argument.

If one is unable to notice the difference between 30 and 60 fps, one should go see his doctor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by indira

120hz monitors still only use 60 fps and higher hz monitors/tvs, its special tech inside that adds frames to make it appear smoother.
kinda like my samsung 240hz tv theres a mode called automotion plus. thats how you can watch a 1080p movie in 240hz even though its 24fps

just use v-sync with tripple buffering then the game will run smooth

if the game actually ran at 120 FPS or higher you would need a PC that much stronger. its the little tricks the monitors can do that appear a higher framerate.

---

You're right about TVs that run at more than 60hz, but wrong when it comes to PC monitors that run at more than 60 fps. 120hz PC monitors are actually capable of displaying every single of the 120 frames per second your PC is outputting. Assuming it is actually outputting 120fps, which plenty of PCs are capable of doing in a lot of games, including FF14.

PC gaming monitors typically do not do more signal processing than what's absolutely necessary, because this adds to input lag. Generating additional frames to put in between the actual frames on a 120hz PC monitor would defeat the sole purpose of buying a 120Hz PC monitor in the first place. You wouldn't get a higher framerate, and your input lag would actually increase instead of decrease. Decreased input lag is one of the reasons you'd want 120fps in the first place. No "pro gamer" would ever buy a 120Hz monitor if it cost twice as much and the only difference was adding more input lag rather than decreasing it.

Additionally, 120Hz 3D monitors enable 60 FPS full resolution 3D playback, something that would be impossible if the monitor couldn't actually display every one of the 120 frames the PC (or whatever device you're using) outputted.


Warning: techy tl;dr stuff below this line. You can skip this unless you are really interested.

Things like over 100 Hz on TV are actually beneficial anyway, it's not really "fake" refresh rate. The reason some TVs have for example 300 or 600 Hz is that this refresh rate can perfectly upscale almost any typical framerate without adding any frame jitter to the image.

Example time: 100 Hz TV versus 600Hz TV.
A 100 Hz TV needs to scale a 24FPS bluray movie over 100 display update cycles (this is what Hz basically is), without "motion interpolation" technologies enabled.

If you display each frame for 4 update cycles, we get a total of 96 update cycles in total. This means we're 4 update cycles short of 100 updates per second. Now the TV can do three things: Stop displaying the image for 4 frames, leading to a black screen for 4 millseconds every single second of the video. Let the last of the 24 frames stay on screen for 8 ms instead of the usual 4 (~4.166 really), giving us an extremely jittery image. Or spread the 4 update cycles that you have left over 4 of the 24 frames, making every 6th frame be displayed for 5 ms instead of the usual 4. This leads to every 6th frame being displayed on the screen for 25% longer than the others, giving us a moderate image jitter effect that's mostly noticable when the camera is panning/sweeping across something that's not moving a lot.

Inputting the same 24FPS video to a TV with 600 Hz however, will let the TV display every single frame for *exactly* 25 update cycles. No frame will be displayed longer than the other frame, and we will get 0 jittering. However, it doesn't end there. Not only 24FPS video will be played back perfectly, but also 25 (24 update cycles per frame) FPS, 30 FPS (20), 50 FPS(12) and 60 FPS(10).

A 60Hz TV can only display 30 and 60 FPS material with 0 jitter. For a 100 Hz TV, only 25 and 50 FPS material can be displayed without jitter. 120Hz can perfectly deal with 24, 30 and 60FPS.

Additionally, the higher the refresh rate on a display, the lower is the visual impact of "uneven frames". While 5 cycles per frame instead of 4 is a huge 25% increase in frame time, 51 cycles per frame instead of 50 is just a 2% increase in frame time, and would be extremely hard for humans to notice, at least compared to the 25% increase I mentioned earlier.

Image smoothening technologies come on top of this and further improve smoothness, but they all create a better result if the video has a framerate that the TVs refresh rate is perfectly dividable with.

-edit-
Fixed some typos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by indira

just use v-sync with tripple buffering then the game will run smooth

---

This ^^ although you will need to use D3DOverrider to force v-sync, but it makes a huge difference if playing on a 120hz monitor.

Anyone who chooses a television or monitor because it has a higher refresh rate rather than considering picture quality is probably doing themselves a serious disservice. A monitor's posted refresh rate is like a car's speedometer. The top speed shown has little relevance to actual performance.

For anyone who thinks this refresh rate stuff matters... Please head to your local electronic store. Find the television section. And then try to determine which TVs are running at what refresh rates by looking ONLY AT THE PICTURE on the various big screen televisions on display. They're all right next to each other. So you can do an easy comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ispano

Correct, both can DISPLAY 120Hz. However TVs only accept 60Hz input, where the monitors can accept 120Hz input. The TVs just create fake frames.

---

Then how does 3D television work?

Sounds like a false dilemma :p, and looking at them in the stores won't give you the whole picture. You can probably find several TVs with great picture quality, and among those find TVs with different refresh rates. In that case, a TV with great picture quality as well as the capability to do 600Hz will be able to display inputs of different framerates better than one that's "just" 100Hz. However, if the input in question is 25fps or 50 fps, there will be no discernable difference from the refresh alone, as both perfectly add up to both 100 and 600.

At the same time, you won't be able to reliably compare them at the store, considering they'll be sending one single video source to all TVs. If you ask a clerk there "hey can you switch to a 30fps source instead of 24fps source so i can look for panning jitter", you'll probably not get anywhere.

And really though, it *is* easy to notice 24fps video jitter on a 60fps display, like most PC monitors are.
You're right though, I won't be able to say "this display is exactly 60hz", but I will be able to say "this display is giving me a lot of jittering, i'd rather have one where I didn't get that".

Personally, I have a Panasonic plasma TV with fantastic response time, contrast, and picture quality in general. It is however only 100Hz and I do actually get jittering when watching 24fps movies. There is some motion smoothening technology in place, but it would have been better if my TV used 120Hz instead of 100, cause that would give me a constant rate of 5 refresh cycles per video frame.

For console gaming, however, I'm not getting any of that. It'll run at 60Hz while receiving a 60Hz signal from my PS3, making every frame my console output align nicely with the refresh cycles of my TV. As long as it's staying close to either 60 or 30 fps. Many games do.

Most fighting games always run at exactly 60 fps, and other games often limit the framerate to 30 fps even if the console could output anywhere from 30 to 45, because this leads to less screen tearing and also more stable input lag. The only thing worse than high input lag is highly variable input lag. 30 fps is two update cycles per frame on a display that's in 60hz mode, giving you the same amount of time for each frame, most of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laraul

Then how does 3D television work?

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refresh_rate

Quote:

---

When LCD shutter glasses are used for stereo 3D displays, the effective refresh rate is halved, because each eye needs a separate picture. For this reason, it is usually recommended to use a display capable of at least 120 Hz, because divided in half this rate is again 60 Hz.

---

Yoshi-P already said he is optimizing the game for 30fps => as much screen detail as your system can support to give 30 fps.
60 fps is a waste on MMOs even if you can tell the difference. Network latency is much much much higher. More likely to get lag from that than FPS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tymora

Yoshi-P already said he is optimizing the game for 30fps => as much screen detail as your system can support to give 30 fps.
60 fps is a waste on MMOs even if you can tell the difference. Network latency is much much much higher. More likely to get lag from that than FPS.

---

I'd like to understand how network latency is related to framerate. This forum will never cease to amaze me.

30fps is NOT smooth, period. Even with 500ms latency it doesn't matter, it is not smooth. 60fps is not a waste for MMO when you are playing in a low populated area or during cut-scene. Off course in town or during massive events, I don't expect any graphic engine to be able to render tons of players while maintaining a solid 60fps framerate even with high-end hardware.

If you can tell the difference, it's not a waste.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antipika

I'd like to understand how network latency is related to framerate. This forum will never cease to amaze me.

30fps is NOT smooth, period. Even with 500ms latency it doesn't matter, it is not smooth. 60fps is not a waste for MMO when you are playing in a low populated area or during cut-scene. Off course in town or during massive events, I don't expect any graphic engine to be able to render tons of players while maintaining a solid 60fps framerate even with high-end hardware.

---

*rolls eyes*

you do realize 'real time' cameras record at 25-30 FPS right? an IMAX camera records at 24 FPS.

saying 60FPS is not smooth is ridiculous. if it appears as not smooth, then it's not displaying at 60FPS. the upper limit of the human eye is around 35FPS. there is no reason to go over 30 for most people.

--------

The main reason you want higher frame rates is for micro-instances where your system is lagging and FPS drops. if you're capped at 30FPS, anytime your system lags you will notice. because your eye can detect it.

at 60FPS you can lag and lose up to 50% of your cap and still not notice. this is the only reason this is better. it adds a buffer to what you can and cannot notice as far as rendering lag.

The engine in FFXIV is terrible. I've got a pretty decent rig and can run the game at 60FPS fine. but i leave it at 30FPS. know why? because i can increase the texture quality. when i set it at 60FPS cap my system will continue to pull resources in an attempt to hit 60FPS. this bottle necks my system when set to the highest textures and causes my system to drop below 30FPS, because it's trying to render at 60 and bottle-necking.

when I cap my system at 30FPS it stops pulling resources when it hits 30FPS. it can then put additional resources towards other things: like rendering textures.

the only time you're going to want to pay attention to this is when you're on the borderline spec for the game you're trying to render. When I play League of Legends I set it to 'unlimited' FPS cap. simply because my system is powerful enough that i do not see a performance difference between 30, 60, 120, and unlimited FPS.

but for FFXIV, there is a big difference in peformance between 30 and 60, just because my system can't rendor 60FPS on high settings. (it can on lower settings, but i'd rather have pretty textures than higher than needed FPS)

EDIT:

I should mention the problem gets worse if you're crossfire/SLI. I personally run two GTX580s and due to inconsistencies/variability the two just wont' cooperate with certain games (FFXIV for instance) even though i'm WAY over the minimum spec line. my problem is compounded because i purchased a refurbed system, and the HDD is crap. It came with two low tier HDDs in raid. this has caused me nothing but problems. I should spend the time to fix it, get a decent HDD for running my OS/most played games and use the other two crap-disks as storage. but it would take about a week to get everything back up and running and everything re-installed.

it comes down to optimization and what you're willing to deal with.

24fps only looks smooth in videos because of the inherent motion blur of cameras. Last time I checked, FF14 wasn't shot with a real camera. If you want motion blur to cover up the low framerate in a game, you have to spend GPU resources on adding a motion blur effect. I'd rather use that GPU power to get another 5 fps, personally.

Additionally, have you even watched a 60fps movie? It looks so, so fantastic.

And he was saying 30fps wasn't smooth, not 60.

As for me, my card is good enough to get *both* the highest res textures and 60 fps whenever I'm not around the fronds in uldah. Maxing out textures isn't really *that* taxing on a video card, as long as you have the VRAM for it.

But why am I even replying? I should have stopped reading when i got to the "human eye can't blahblah" bullshit.

Human eyes are not digital. They do not have a "framerate". If you have a 100fps video of white, with one black frame. you're going to notice it every time. How is that even possible, if your eye doesn't register more than "at most" 35 frames? With that logic, 65 frames would be lost, meaning you'd miss the black frame almost 2/3rds of the time.

Eyes work in energy levels. Whenever enough photons have hit a light receptive cell to increase the energy level sufficiently, the cell will send a signal. The minimum amount of energy required to activate one single cell is roughly what you get from *four* photons. Human perception is a constant stream of signals from cells that respond individually from other cells. How many "frames" we can see is highly dependent on the constrast and movement in the frame. How many "frames" a brain can process also highly depends on the content of each frame, and on the person's training.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirage

24fps only looks smooth in videos because of the inherent motion blur of cameras. Last time I checked, FF14 wasn't shot with a real camera. If you want motion blur to cover up the low framerate in a game, you have to spend GPU resources on adding a motion blur effect. I'd rather use that GPU power to get another 5 fps, personally.

Additionally, have you even watched a 60fps movie? It looks so, so fantastic.

And he was saying 30fps wasn't smooth, not 60.

As for me, my card is good enough to get *both* the highest res textures and 60 fps whenever I'm not around the fronds in uldah. Maxing out textures isn't really *that* taxing on a video card, as long as you have the VRAM for it.

---

oops. mis-read that. either way you dont' really notice a difference between 30FPS and 60FPS. saying 30FPS isn't smooth is the same as saying 60FPS isn't smooth. if it doesn't appear smooth it's either 1) not displaying at 30FPS and you're getting lag in your rendering 2)you're on the far end of the visual spectrum and capable of viewing things at greater than 30FPS


I've seen movies in 60FPS. i've seen the same movie, on the same projector at 30FPS and not noticed a difference. 60FPS projectors typically have better color capabilities and far higher resolution. this improves quality FAR more than FPS. Also keep in mind these movies are recorded at 25-30 FPS. displaying them at 60FPS doesn't improve anything, you're just seeing more 'blur'. but what really sets it apart is the resolution. not the FPS.

a lot of people tend to forget that for some reason. it's not the FPS you're noticing. it's the improved resolution/color display. a dirty little secret: a lot of TV/projector companies will tell you FPS is important so they can jack up the price. you should really be looking at resolution more than FPS.

If you go to Tiger Direct and look at TVs on sale, you may see a 42"1080i that's cheaper than a 38" 720p. most people would think 'Hey! what a deal!' but the 1080i is 1680x1050 resolution 10000:1 and the 720p is 1920x1080 20000:1. I personally will go for the 720p for the higher resolution and contrast.
-------------
EDIT:

you updated your post so i will too.

eyes do work in energy. at 1000FPS, a single frame is displayed for 1ms. you will see it, but you won't really know what you saw.

the human eye can differentiate up to 15 images per second. most people are below this. this doesnt' mean we are caped at 15 FPS. it's just anything above that our brain won't process. it's too much information.

so yes, technically speaking the eye is capable of seeing more than that. but the brain can't keep up. it's like playing sounds above/below the spectrum our brain can process. our ears pick it up, but it's junk data to our brain so it just throws it out

just to keep the arguments to a minimum:

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frame...humans_see.htm