Pages: 1 2 3 4

Topic closed

2008-02-09 03:14:21
Lucien
Fantasma Parastasie
+1,451|6932

Defiance wrote:

Lucien wrote:

FUCKING IDIOT*

*search for any of my dozen or so previous posts that explain why
So you insult people to "prove a point" and demand they do work to find your argument? DST is elsewhere.
I have proven his myth to be complete bs so many times now I cannot stand to explain it any more.


also,

Bertster7 wrote:

BTW you need refresh rates to be AT LEAST DOUBLE the rate of the displayed content (to see all the frames)
I don't understand that bit, care to explain?

Last edited by Lucien (2008-02-09 03:16:33)

https://i.imgur.com/HTmoH.jpg
2008-02-09 05:25:02
.Sup
be nice
+2,646|6732|The Twilight Zone

Bertster7 wrote:

BTW you need refresh rates to be AT LEAST DOUBLE the rate of the displayed content (to see all the frames)
this seems even bigger bs if understood you correctly. so if i have 60hz refresh rate that means i can get 30fps? is that correct?
https://www.shrani.si/f/3H/7h/45GTw71U/untitled-1.png
2008-02-09 07:18:24
FloppY_
­
+1,010|6565|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

.Sup wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

BTW you need refresh rates to be AT LEAST DOUBLE the rate of the displayed content (to see all the frames)
this seems even bigger bs if understood you correctly. so if i have 60hz refresh rate that means i can get 30fps? is that correct?
60 Hz = max 60 FPS output as far as I know
­ Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
2008-02-09 08:22:39
avman633
Member
+116|6643
Wow, thread hijacked by .Sup and Floppy war
2008-02-09 10:01:25
.Sup
be nice
+2,646|6732|The Twilight Zone

FloppY_ wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

BTW you need refresh rates to be AT LEAST DOUBLE the rate of the displayed content (to see all the frames)
this seems even bigger bs if understood you correctly. so if i have 60hz refresh rate that means i can get 30fps? is that correct?
60 Hz = max 60 FPS output as far as I know
Thats just not possible. Have you ever watched a benchmark on a well known site? Fps measurements go over 200. You can certainly reach a lot more than 60 fps.
https://www.shrani.si/f/3H/7h/45GTw71U/untitled-1.png
2008-02-09 10:34:02
FloppY_
­
+1,010|6565|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

.Sup wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

.Sup wrote:


this seems even bigger bs if understood you correctly. so if i have 60hz refresh rate that means i can get 30fps? is that correct?
60 Hz = max 60 FPS output as far as I know
Thats just not possible. Have you ever watched a benchmark on a well known site? Fps measurements go over 200. You can certainly reach a lot more than 60 fps.
Yes yes, the hardware can put far more out than 60 fps when you have a 60Hz monitor, but the monitor can never show more than the amount of Hz it produces.. that is also the reason for the Vsync option in games, It will not produce more FPS than your display can show, thereby saving ressources for effects rather than frames...
­ Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
2008-02-09 10:47:05
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6860|SE London

FloppY_ wrote:

.Sup wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:


60 Hz = max 60 FPS output as far as I know
Thats just not possible. Have you ever watched a benchmark on a well known site? Fps measurements go over 200. You can certainly reach a lot more than 60 fps.
Yes yes, the hardware can put far more out than 60 fps when you have a 60Hz monitor, but the monitor can never show more than the amount of Hz it produces.. that is also the reason for the Vsync option in games, It will not produce more FPS than your display can show, thereby saving ressources for effects rather than frames...
Actually Vsync has a negative impact on performance. But it does exactly what you say it does other than that. The purpose of it is to eliminate screen tear caused by unsynced refresh/frame rates.
2008-02-09 12:47:34
Freezer7Pro
I don't come here a lot anymore.
+1,447|6476|Winland

Bertster7 wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

.Sup wrote:


Thats just not possible. Have you ever watched a benchmark on a well known site? Fps measurements go over 200. You can certainly reach a lot more than 60 fps.
Yes yes, the hardware can put far more out than 60 fps when you have a 60Hz monitor, but the monitor can never show more than the amount of Hz it produces.. that is also the reason for the Vsync option in games, It will not produce more FPS than your display can show, thereby saving ressources for effects rather than frames...
Actually Vsync has a negative impact on performance. But it does exactly what you say it does other than that. The purpose of it is to eliminate screen tear caused by unsynced refresh/frame rates.
Yes.
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
2008-02-09 13:35:19
mikkel
Member
+383|6880

Freezer7Pro wrote:

.Sup wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

60-100 is no visible difference tbh,,,

Don't get elitist and tell me that nothing below 150 is good enough, because that's just stupid..
80 and above is good. Sry below 80 just isn't acceptable for me. Elitist? Yes!
The eye can barely spot any differance between 40 and 80FPS. No differance at all between 60 and 80.

And, if you run at 60Hz (Wich most TFTs do), you still won't get more than 20 skipped frames per second.
There's a clear and very perceptible difference between 40FPS and 80FPS when dealing with static, vividly different frames with no motion blurring.

The eye isn't a camera. It doesn't capture frames. Sight is the result of a chemical reaction, and perception largely has to do with your mind, not your eyes. There's no perceptible difference between complete black at 2 frames per second and complete black at 200 frames per second. There's a very perceptible difference between images altering dramatically at 2 frames per second and images altering dramatically at 200 frames per second.

Last edited by mikkel (2008-02-09 13:38:59)

2008-02-09 14:44:57
Freezer7Pro
I don't come here a lot anymore.
+1,447|6476|Winland

mikkel wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

.Sup wrote:


80 and above is good. Sry below 80 just isn't acceptable for me. Elitist? Yes!
The eye can barely spot any differance between 40 and 80FPS. No differance at all between 60 and 80.

And, if you run at 60Hz (Wich most TFTs do), you still won't get more than 20 skipped frames per second.
There's a clear and very perceptible difference between 40FPS and 80FPS when dealing with static, vividly different frames with no motion blurring.

The eye isn't a camera. It doesn't capture frames. Sight is the result of a chemical reaction, and perception largely has to do with your mind, not your eyes. There's no perceptible difference between complete black at 2 frames per second and complete black at 200 frames per second. There's a very perceptible difference between images altering dramatically at 2 frames per second and images altering dramatically at 200 frames per second.
...and your point is...?

The difference between 40 and 80 frames per second on a monitor able of displaying a theoretical maximum of 60 frames per second is largely un-noticeable to the human eye, and can by no means be compared to 2 and 200. No, I'm not saying that the eye captures frames per second, but that it only needs to receive a certain amount for a picture to seem "smooth". 50FPS is well enough for a picture with no AA to seem smooth, 60 is smooth, and you can't really tell the difference between 60 and anything above in other than benchmarks. I can stick my monitor at 43 or 56Hz and display a game or render VSynced to 43 or 56Hz, and it'll still look smooth. I bet, that if someone was to display a video to you of a render at 60FPS and 200FPS, you wouldn't notice any differance at all.
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
2008-02-09 14:58:44
mikkel
Member
+383|6880

Freezer7Pro wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

The eye can barely spot any differance between 40 and 80FPS. No differance at all between 60 and 80.

And, if you run at 60Hz (Wich most TFTs do), you still won't get more than 20 skipped frames per second.
There's a clear and very perceptible difference between 40FPS and 80FPS when dealing with static, vividly different frames with no motion blurring.

The eye isn't a camera. It doesn't capture frames. Sight is the result of a chemical reaction, and perception largely has to do with your mind, not your eyes. There's no perceptible difference between complete black at 2 frames per second and complete black at 200 frames per second. There's a very perceptible difference between images altering dramatically at 2 frames per second and images altering dramatically at 200 frames per second.
...and your point is...?

The difference between 40 and 80 frames per second on a monitor able of displaying a theoretical maximum of 60 frames per second is largely un-noticeable to the human eye, and can by no means be compared to 2 and 200. No, I'm not saying that the eye captures frames per second, but that it only needs to receive a certain amount for a picture to seem "smooth". 50FPS is well enough for a picture with no AA to seem smooth, 60 is smooth, and you can't really tell the difference between 60 and anything above in other than benchmarks. I can stick my monitor at 43 or 56Hz and display a game or render VSynced to 43 or 56Hz, and it'll still look smooth. I bet, that if someone was to display a video to you of a render at 60FPS and 200FPS, you wouldn't notice any differance at all.
There's a very simple way for you to test this to give you an understanding of what you're talking about. Find a CRT monitor and run it at 60Hz, then run it at 80Hz. At 60Hz, you'll notice the scan line as a flicker that makes the image seem volatile and unsteady. You likely won't notice this at 80Hz.

My point is that saying that

The eye can barely spot any differance between 40 and 80FPS. No differance at all between 60 and 80.
Is misleading, ignorant and absolutely wrong, and so is saying that

50FPS is well enough for a picture with no AA to seem smooth, 60 is smooth, and you can't really tell the difference between 60 and anything above in other than benchmarks.

Last edited by mikkel (2008-02-09 15:01:06)

2008-02-09 15:17:10
Freezer7Pro
I don't come here a lot anymore.
+1,447|6476|Winland

mikkel wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

mikkel wrote:

There's a clear and very perceptible difference between 40FPS and 80FPS when dealing with static, vividly different frames with no motion blurring.

The eye isn't a camera. It doesn't capture frames. Sight is the result of a chemical reaction, and perception largely has to do with your mind, not your eyes. There's no perceptible difference between complete black at 2 frames per second and complete black at 200 frames per second. There's a very perceptible difference between images altering dramatically at 2 frames per second and images altering dramatically at 200 frames per second.
...and your point is...?

The difference between 40 and 80 frames per second on a monitor able of displaying a theoretical maximum of 60 frames per second is largely un-noticeable to the human eye, and can by no means be compared to 2 and 200. No, I'm not saying that the eye captures frames per second, but that it only needs to receive a certain amount for a picture to seem "smooth". 50FPS is well enough for a picture with no AA to seem smooth, 60 is smooth, and you can't really tell the difference between 60 and anything above in other than benchmarks. I can stick my monitor at 43 or 56Hz and display a game or render VSynced to 43 or 56Hz, and it'll still look smooth. I bet, that if someone was to display a video to you of a render at 60FPS and 200FPS, you wouldn't notice any differance at all.
There's a very simple way for you to test this to give you an understanding of what you're talking about. Find a CRT monitor and run it at 60Hz, then run it at 80Hz. At 60Hz, you'll notice the scan line as a flicker that makes the image seem volatile and unsteady. You likely won't notice this at 80Hz.

My point is that saying that

The eye can barely spot any differance between 40 and 80FPS. No differance at all between 60 and 80.
Is misleading, ignorant and absolutely wrong, and so is saying that

50FPS is well enough for a picture with no AA to seem smooth, 60 is smooth, and you can't really tell the difference between 60 and anything above in other than benchmarks.
*Sigh* You don't see every frame change on a 60Hz CRT, you see about every 2-3. They're simply long enough to be noted. The frequency of a TFT does not at all work in the same way. The CRT goes to black, picture, black, picture, as a TFT just goes from picture to picture.

For the second, back that up. I may be in the lower numbers, yes.

For the third, I was intending on writing motion blur, but I thought of something else.

Last edited by Freezer7Pro (2008-02-09 15:18:03)

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
2008-02-09 15:55:51
.Sup
be nice
+2,646|6732|The Twilight Zone
Freezer ur wrong. Are you saying theres no difference if i have 8600gt or 8800gt? Lets say the 8600gt produces 40fps and the 8800gt 80fps. Its all the same?
https://www.shrani.si/f/3H/7h/45GTw71U/untitled-1.png
2008-02-09 15:59:39
mikkel
Member
+383|6880

Freezer7Pro wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:


...and your point is...?

The difference between 40 and 80 frames per second on a monitor able of displaying a theoretical maximum of 60 frames per second is largely un-noticeable to the human eye, and can by no means be compared to 2 and 200. No, I'm not saying that the eye captures frames per second, but that it only needs to receive a certain amount for a picture to seem "smooth". 50FPS is well enough for a picture with no AA to seem smooth, 60 is smooth, and you can't really tell the difference between 60 and anything above in other than benchmarks. I can stick my monitor at 43 or 56Hz and display a game or render VSynced to 43 or 56Hz, and it'll still look smooth. I bet, that if someone was to display a video to you of a render at 60FPS and 200FPS, you wouldn't notice any differance at all.
There's a very simple way for you to test this to give you an understanding of what you're talking about. Find a CRT monitor and run it at 60Hz, then run it at 80Hz. At 60Hz, you'll notice the scan line as a flicker that makes the image seem volatile and unsteady. You likely won't notice this at 80Hz.

My point is that saying that

The eye can barely spot any differance between 40 and 80FPS. No differance at all between 60 and 80.
Is misleading, ignorant and absolutely wrong, and so is saying that

50FPS is well enough for a picture with no AA to seem smooth, 60 is smooth, and you can't really tell the difference between 60 and anything above in other than benchmarks.
*Sigh* You don't see every frame change on a 60Hz CRT, you see about every 2-3. They're simply long enough to be noted. The frequency of a TFT does not at all work in the same way. The CRT goes to black, picture, black, picture, as a TFT just goes from picture to picture.

For the second, back that up. I may be in the lower numbers, yes.

For the third, I was intending on writing motion blur, but I thought of something else.
CRT doesn't do "frame changes", and CRT doesn't go to black. CRT uses progressive scanning, meaning that the horizontal rows of the image are drawn sequentially, hence the scan line. The image on a CRT monitor is never black unless the signal feed is black.

The perception of smoothness in analogue and digital imagery depends on the image. It depends on how vivid the picture is, the brightness of the picture, the sequential divergence of the frames, and the interpretation of the brain, and how naturally the motion is percieved to be. There's no set definition, and no one-rate-fits-all.
2008-02-09 16:22:27
=Karma-Kills=
"Don't post while intoxicated."
+356|6863|England
.Sup, come back when you know what you're talking about.
2008-02-09 16:31:24
Lucien
Fantasma Parastasie
+1,451|6932
What I love most of all about this, is that I can experience the empirical evidence any time I want: all I have to do is play a game. Under 60 fps any difference is huge, at about 75 it gets a lot smoother, and anything upwards of that takes jumps of a good 20-30 fps, which is only possible on high-end monitors.
I remember playing BF2 on a CRT monitor at 120Hz once. It was so ridiculously smooth, that it made the game feel much more real.

Hell, pro Quake players used to like extremely high Hz CRT's, and I can imagine that the step down from such smoothness isn't so nice.
https://i.imgur.com/HTmoH.jpg
2008-02-09 16:32:13
.Sup
be nice
+2,646|6732|The Twilight Zone

=Karma-Kills= wrote:

.Sup, come back when you know what you're talking about.
idiot
https://www.shrani.si/f/3H/7h/45GTw71U/untitled-1.png
2008-02-09 16:47:03
Freezer7Pro
I don't come here a lot anymore.
+1,447|6476|Winland

.Sup wrote:

Freezer ur wrong. Are you saying theres no difference if i have 8600gt or 8800gt? Lets say the 8600gt produces 40fps and the 8800gt 80fps. Its all the same?
Of course there's a difference between those cards, don't be stupid. An 8800GT has got a lot more processing power, and can run more advanced content faster. Crysis on med-high on an 8600 is bound to fail. Not on an 8800, though.
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
2008-02-09 16:48:05
a fly
Member
+105|6923|The netherlands
About the frame thing... I notice the difference between 60 and 65 frames per second. Because of autistic i can see every frame as if its played like a slide-show. Not that it really matters during gaming if i have 60 or even 80, i do see the difference (Only on (fast) moving things).

Besides, many 'gamers' i know, don't even notice what happens at the edge of their screen, so like its a big deal for 99.8% of the 'gamers'. The 0.2% real gamers sees more then the pixels on his/her screen.

.Sup, be proud of being an elitist. Just for the fact that it means you have some thinking power


I can stick my monitor at 43 or 56Hz and display a game or render VSynced to 43 or 56Hz, and it'll still look smooth. I bet, that if someone was to display a video to you of a render at 60FPS and 200FPS, you wouldn't notice any differance at all.
Dude, get your eyes AND brain tested for this. One of them has a big problem with 'seeing' things.


______

The eye detects light, natural light has no refresh rate, and thats why many people prefer that lightsource. If you send out light X times per second, it won't be the same. Even with a refresh rate of 1000, its not the same. Pulsing != Constant
2008-02-09 16:55:00
=Karma-Kills=
"Don't post while intoxicated."
+356|6863|England

.Sup wrote:

=Karma-Kills= wrote:

.Sup, come back when you know what you're talking about.
idiot
Yeah, that was an intelligent reply. Grow up please.
2008-02-10 00:41:34
.Sup
be nice
+2,646|6732|The Twilight Zone

=Karma-Kills= wrote:

.Sup wrote:

=Karma-Kills= wrote:

.Sup, come back when you know what you're talking about.
idiot
Yeah, that was an intelligent reply. Grow up please.
im confident in my replies, idiot.
Why are you interfering? We are having a debate here. If I'm wrong, this thread will help me to know more about this shit. So I'm not leaving.

Last edited by .Sup (2008-02-10 00:47:26)

https://www.shrani.si/f/3H/7h/45GTw71U/untitled-1.png
2008-02-10 02:05:35
Freezer7Pro
I don't come here a lot anymore.
+1,447|6476|Winland

This thread has gone to hell.
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
2008-02-10 02:33:11
xGj
Official lame Crysis fanboy.
+84|6650|Netherlands tbh

.Sup wrote:

=Karma-Kills= wrote:

.Sup wrote:


idiot
Yeah, that was an intelligent reply. Grow up please.
im confident in my replies, idiot.
Why are you interfering? We are having a debate here. If I'm wrong, this thread will help me to know more about this shit. So I'm not leaving.
You hope to learn from it yet you make assumptions and statements once again without knowing it yourself? Proof:

.Sup wrote:

Freezer ur wrong. Are you saying theres no difference if i have 8600gt or 8800gt? Lets say the 8600gt produces 40fps and the 8800gt 80fps. Its all the same?
"Freezer ur wrong", you say he's wrong while you don't know it yourself and try to learn from this thread? (only one example of your replies)


=Karma-Kills= wrote:

.Sup, come back when you know what you're talking about.
Indeed.
2008-02-10 02:35:24
.Sup
be nice
+2,646|6732|The Twilight Zone

xGj wrote:

.Sup wrote:

=Karma-Kills= wrote:


Yeah, that was an intelligent reply. Grow up please.
im confident in my replies, idiot.
Why are you interfering? We are having a debate here. If I'm wrong, this thread will help me to know more about this shit. So I'm not leaving.
You hope to learn from it yet you make assumptions and statements once again without knowing it yourself? Proof:

.Sup wrote:

Freezer ur wrong. Are you saying theres no difference if i have 8600gt or 8800gt? Lets say the 8600gt produces 40fps and the 8800gt 80fps. Its all the same?
"Freezer ur wrong", you say he's wrong while you don't know it yourself and try to learn from this thread? (only one example of your replies)


=Karma-Kills= wrote:

.Sup, come back when you know what you're talking about.
Indeed.
Enlighten me about FPS and refresh rates or quit being a smartass.
https://www.shrani.si/f/3H/7h/45GTw71U/untitled-1.png
2008-02-10 02:49:19
xGj
Official lame Crysis fanboy.
+84|6650|Netherlands tbh

.Sup wrote:

xGj wrote:

.Sup wrote:


im confident in my replies, idiot.
Why are you interfering? We are having a debate here. If I'm wrong, this thread will help me to know more about this shit. So I'm not leaving.
You hope to learn from it yet you make assumptions and statements once again without knowing it yourself? Proof:

.Sup wrote:

Freezer ur wrong. Are you saying theres no difference if i have 8600gt or 8800gt? Lets say the 8600gt produces 40fps and the 8800gt 80fps. Its all the same?
"Freezer ur wrong", you say he's wrong while you don't know it yourself and try to learn from this thread? (only one example of your replies)


=Karma-Kills= wrote:

.Sup, come back when you know what you're talking about.
Indeed.
Enlighten me about FPS and refresh rates or quit being a smartass.
You just proved again you don't know shit about it yet choose to insult me, gg.

Topic closed

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard