To me, it was pretty easy, but not as apparent then having games actually running on a TV in your face. The 60fps feed definitely was not as crisp as playing for real. More like 30 fps vs 40 or 45 fps.
But according to some people, nobody can see more than 30fps. And then others say the hman eye can't see past 24fps! lol Who knew that cinema's typical 24fps recording feeds perfectly match the limitations of the human eye! That's scientific genius on the part of the dude who invented film.
So true. It irks me when people tell me what I can and can't see with my own eyes, just because some bs study somewhere says so, so IT MUST BE FACT! A complete lesson in trusting your own judgement.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think the study says we only really need 24 fps, anything above is simply the gravy on mash potatoes. Yet if it goes under, it's a very noticeable distortion of reality if you will. Of course, that's such an old study to begin with that people bring up. It's really more about the bare minimum. Of course, it also depends on which medium the argument is being applied to. Film and games are so very different in their approach to visuals.
That makes a lot more sense and actually seems familiar to me now. This is why there is such a disconnect with silent films that are under 24 fps, even if they do have their charm. (Love Buster and Charlie) It's just that people have been twisting that to mean you don't need over 24 or 30 Hz because you can't distinguish the difference. I actually had this argument with someone at TeamXbox back in the day. Can't remember who that stubborn fella was...
Er, um, no bro. Film and video games are very similar in their approach to visuals. No two art forms share such identical values when it comes to filling a frame.
Well, they are the same in one way, that they both are comprised of still images at a certain cycle per second (Hz), but there is one strong inherent difference. In film, the shutter speed directly relates to the amount of motion blur. At 24 fps, a film maker has to decide if a camera pan or fast action scene should contain either sharper detail or smoother motion. This IS tricky at 24 fps, no matter what anyone says. In say a 30 fps video game, you can try to recreate that as a post-processing technique.
Well, the differences I'm referring to are more akin to the finished product. A game runs on hardware but film is rather static in comparison. You don't need new hardware to watch the Hobbit on your computer, but you do if you want to play Ryse. Films need new tech to create larger scope movies, but not necessarily to play them. In my experience, there's no concern about a film's functionality in the same sense of a game. There's no fear of a movie crashing because of what's happening in the frames. Keep in mind, I'm not trying to say there are not any similarities, but there are plenty of key differences. Video games will always be way more subjected to interaction and functionality because without either, they just end up being movies when it's all said and done.
Great response. We can discuss this in another thread though mate. This would be a great discussion to have with you though. I've been a huge fan of the science and magic of video games all my life.
I don't think he was serious. But just for the sake of a history lesson, film wasn't 24 frames, 16 frames, or 20 frames because of anything science-related. The low frame rates of movie/cinema was because movie makers back in the day had to save on film to help lower their budget, and the standard just happened to never go away. And the push for 48p is a tough one because "it looks too real" as shown by the results of the 48p theatrical release of The Hobbit.
You are correct in that they may not see the difference, but in a different way than delay. While pixel delay is a shortcoming of LCD technology, (Remember, most "LED TVs" are really LCD panels with an LED backlight... and OLED is very different) to compensate for this delay, a good portion of LCD displays these days have at least a 120 Hz refresh rates, so they may not get lag anymore... Here's the thing though, a lot of these sets also have frame interpolation (sometimes called Smoothscreen), which inserts new approximated frames up to 120 fps.... Anyone with this feature turned on won't likely see a difference between 30 and 60 fps.
