How many FPS do you require for a picture to appear smooth?

How many FPS do you need for a picture to appear smooth?

  • Less than 20 (Yeah, right)

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • 20-30

    Votes: 8 11.9%

  • 30-40

    Votes: 27 40.3%

  • 40-50

    Votes: 14 20.9%

  • 50-60

    Votes: 9 13.4%

  • More than 60 (Sure hope you got a good rig)

    Votes: 8 11.9%
  • Total voters
    67
I

InorganicMatter

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
15,461
I probably put this in the wrong board, moderators feel free to move it.

How many FPS (Frames Per Second) do you require for your picture to appear smooth? I know that scientifically they have proven that 24 is the minimum, and the human eye cannot comprehend more than 35, but it always seems that each person is different. What is YOUR requirement? Myself, I consider 20 to be playable, and anything above about 40-50 I can't notice.
 
It *really* starts to bother me some where below 20. (and yes thats what the poll said to the letter)

And I wondering where did you get these scientific numbers from =)
 
I duuno. Over the years you just kinda' hear that information from random people. I'm probably incorrect.
 
the thing is... the MINIMUM is where it gets into trouble, not the average... if I get a minimum of 20+ im happy... but even with my radeon 9800pro I get under that with some games at some settings ex ut4k demo... ah well I only play halo and older games regularly now anyways so im quite happy :D
 
It must be 60+. i tell a huge difference between 30 n 60.. and 120... and even 180... but lets not go there... for some good ol classic "i have a shitty pc" feel, its 30 fps minimum.. but i put 60.. cuz thats what i like.. :p

-J.
 
40-50 for me. I get EXTREMELY annoyed when my games dip into the 30s, in the 20s I'll just quit the game or I'll have an anuerism. I geuss it comes from years of clan/league FPS gaming. If my framerates drop and I can't rage on my enemies, I get owned and not only do I feel like shit, I let my team down, so I demand a bit from my machine as an advantage in those situations.
 
In Macromedia flash (like that ^ that newegg banner is made with) the default frame rate is 12 FPS. This still makes decent 2d animation.
 
Stellar said:
I have to strongly disagree there.
Click to expand...

Same. :) The human eye can see actually many times per secondth...

A test was done in an Army laboratory. A light blinked 65,000th a second. The soldier repeatedly reported that he saw the light. :)

Thus, you do see more than only 30 a second...

-J.
 
30-40 for a smooth animated gif
More than 60 for fluid movement...unless you're going to be playing "sac_tagg" at which point I'd have to say that I'd rather not see that at all. :eek:
 
For me it just needs to be playable and smooth and not choppy, i'd rather have a horrible graphics but smooth than nice graphic and low fps.
 
xplicit said:
More than 60 for fluid movement...unless you're going to be playing "sac_tagg" at which point I'd have to say that I'd rather not see that at all. :eek:
Click to expand...
And what, may I ask, is THAT supposed to mean?!
 
Depends on the game mostly. FPS require a bit smoother play than for example morrowind.

I think it also depends on the game. Doom3 looked smooth as butter in the 25-35FPS range for me, yet some games would seem choppy at 25.

I'm generally happy with anything over 20-25, i usually crank the detail till i get to that point.
 
Stellar said:
I have to strongly disagree there.
Click to expand...

well, it seams i have been proven wrong with no proof.

If you do show me some i will admit i "thought" wrong
 
k1pp3r said:
well, it seams i have been proven wrong with no proof.

If you do show me some i will admit i "thought" wrong
Click to expand...

How exactly would I provide proof for that? :rolleyes:

I'm not trying to "prove you wrong" in the first place, so don't flatter yourself. I'm telling you that I can personally tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps in-game, without a doubt.
 
sac_tagg said:
I probably put this in the wrong board, moderators feel free to move it.

How many FPS (Frames Per Second) do you require for your picture to appear smooth? I know that scientifically they have proven that 24 is the minimum, and the human eye cannot comprehend more than 35, but it always seems that each person is different. What is YOUR requirement? Myself, I consider 20 to be playable, and anything above about 40-50 I can't notice.
Click to expand...


To me 60+ appears smooth (that is to say, I've done my own tests and found that I can tell the difference between 55 and 60, but once it gets over 60 it may as well be 1000, I can't see any difference).

The 24-30 fps thing is a stupid myth based on the fact that TV/Movies run at that speed and they look smooth. They only look smooth because because of interpolation and motion blur, freeze-frame a movie during an action sequence and you'll see it's a blurry mess.
A PC draws full frames rather than blurring frames together, so the frame rate is far more noticable.

Interestingly, I saw earlier in the week (possibly on the [H] news page, or B3D) that the Motion Blur post-processing effect that 3dfx was just starting to pimp just before it went south has been resurrected by someone and we might be seeing it again real soon (IIRC it may even have been mentioned in the context of a FarCry patch).

That'd be real sweet.

*EDIT* According to...cough...The Inquirer, it's already in FarCry: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19895 . They don't say how to activate it though.

*EDIT2* I notice there's a cunningly obscure cvar in the system.cfg called "r_Motionblur", I wonder if that could be anything to do with it....(there's also a "r_heathaze", methinks we haven't yet seen the full power of the cryengine...)
 
Stellar said:
How exactly would I provide proof for that? :rolleyes:

I'm not trying to "prove you wrong" in the first place, so don't flatter yourself. I'm telling you that I can personally tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps in-game, without a doubt.
Click to expand...

I'm not flattering myself, if you dissagree with me then at least give me a reason why, not just " I strongly dissagree" and you can easly give me proof, look it up. I never claimed to know anything, just what i "though" and you dissagreed, at least give me a reason why.

Oh, and wouldn't your refresh rate as well as monitor quality play a factor in this?
 
I can easily tell the differen between 60 and 100. The best frame rate IMO is around 100 - 140. Now you'll get people whinging that the human eye can only see 30fps anyway but theres a reason they say this.

You can get an image to appear smooth at 24 FPS (thats what movies/tv are) but they have motion blur, so it smooth the difference between the frames. On a computer, the frames are rendered sharpely so the human eye picks up the difference. If video cards could magically produce motion blur then we could all live at 24fps. This is of course impossible because it would need to know what the next frame was to blur between the current and the next. If we get some flux-capacitor action happening then you might see it in the future :p.

Basically, 30 on computer appears smoothish. 60 appears nice and you won't think its slow at all unless you compare it to 100.
 
k1pp3r said:
Oh, and wouldn't your refresh rate as well as monitor quality play a factor in this?
Click to expand...

Yes. I've tested an unpowerful rig on a high quality monitor running 120 hz v.s. a powerful rig on a low quality not-so-bright monitor running at max 85 hz. The powerful rig has a 3000+ Athlon 64, 1 GB, and 6800 OC card while the not-so-powerful has a P4 3.0, 512 MB, and a 9700 Pro. Older ran ET between 60 to 70 FPS while the newer ran past 150+ FPS. Which do you think seemed more smoother?

Difficult, isn't it?

The older one felt more smoother, unfortunately.

Monitors does have a huge impact on the smoothness of a game.

-J.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top