• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Visual differnces when ocin

JHefile

JHefile

Necrophilia Makes Me [H]ard
Joined
Jun 22, 2003
Messages
1,180
I'm running a 9800 pro by ATI. I'm hesitent to oc because I fried a 9800np with rage 3d. I'm just wondering if I went ahead and decoded to oc my vc do you think my eyes would see a difference at all?
 
depending on the game, no

your eyes can't see past ~30 fps so...
 
I beg to differ on that 30fps deal. If thats the case vc manufactures would be out of busines
 
Everyone thinks it's all about the FPS, but it's more than that. It's not about the extra 30FPS, it's about the extra power that lets you crank up a few detail settings, raise FSAA, AF, and etc.
 
Originally posted by Sojuuk
MISCONCEPTIONED!
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's true. First of all, it's not even 30, it's 23.974, the speed film runs at (and this is why.) It's not as simple as that. People think of 30 because TVs run at 29.976 or so and most videos tend to use that for TV compatibility, but with a digital screen there's no reason not to just round it to a nice even 30 (TV drops a frame every now and then so that you end up with 29.976, a normal monitor shouldn't do this unless maybe you have one of those rare interlaced monitors, then I'm not sure.) I can't remember what all the tests were, but, there was a certain type of movement that the eyes couldn't see past 23.974 or so but there are certain things that the eye can see past even that. Also, that test was more of an average and there are probably a lot of people that can see more anyway.

Besides, even if you can't see it, it just runs and looks smoother. I find that the higher the FPS, the better I do in fast paced shooting games (like UT2003.) This is not a coincidence I believe.

And, as I said before, there's still the fact that you get to enable more nice features when you have more power.
 
the whole tv frame rate argument is null.. it doesnt draw like a monitor, which draws so many seperate images in a second. Instead, the frames run together on a tv, providing for a much smoother image. 30 fps on a monitor is different than 30 fps on a tv or film. Even if it was true, you can still easily percieve changes. Tell me you cant see the difference when 60 fps fluctuates to 30fps and I'll call you a damn liar.
 
You DO understand that I was NOT making a "TV argument" right? In fact, I was saying much the opposite.

And yeah, I know that tvs to that interlacing crap, which is all well and good for low quality video, but really sucks with some of this modern stuff like DVDs. Too bad so many DVDs have telecine built right in when ever player I've ever seen has the capability of telecining itself should it even be necessary. That looks so terrible even with hardware compensation I always felt.

Erm, anyway, getting off on a sidetrack there. All I'm saying is that the belief the human eye can only see around 30 FPS originated from first the film studies where they came up with 23.974 or whatever and then since so many things are oriented towards displaying on a TV people got used to ~ 30 fps. So, everyone just assumes that it's a safe number to go by.

Anyway, it depends on the nature of the game really. Back when I had a P2-233, on occasion a few SNES games would run as low as around 15 FPS without me really noticing. However, if UT2003 ran at 15 FPS, believe me, I would notice and probably would be screaming at the insanity that is my PC.
 
Originally posted by sKiTz0
the whole tv frame rate argument is null.. it doesnt draw like a monitor, which draws so many seperate images in a second. Instead, the frames run together on a tv, providing for a much smoother image. 30 fps on a monitor is different than 30 fps on a tv or film. Even if it was true, you can still easily percieve changes. Tell me you cant see the difference when 60 fps fluctuates to 30fps and I'll call you a damn liar.
Click to expand...

This is true, TV and Monitor drawing are two totally different things.

I give a funny look to those swearing that they cant bear to play anything below 85 FPS, but I can tell the diff between 30 and 60.
 
It's definitely true. The TV only draws half of each frame with each update. It's called interlacing. It draws half of one frame and half of the next. The human eyes can't usually tell (maybe a videophile or something) but it definitely doesn't help when it comes to overall quality. It's because of this that DVDs are telecined to increase the overall quality. With a little trick, it makes the DVDs tend to show mostly just full frames instead of any mix.

BTW, I've heard of interlacing monitors before. I don't know anything more than the term really, but the implication is that they do the same thing. Coincidentally, no one makes those these days. d-:
 
I can not beleive that this silly notion that your eye can only see 30fps (or 24, or whatever) still exists. It has been proven that it can pick up details from images flashed for 1/200th of a second. That's 200fps to you ninnies out there.

The 30fps argument is dead and buried. Let it rest in peace.

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