-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
So, Half Life 2=60fps but.....
- Thread starter Mojovonio
- Start date
I agree fully, best deal ever IMO.
Anyways... Ep. 2 can't run too much slower than Portal and HL2, so I'm not worried knowing that said games run at 60fps at the moment. So I'm guessing that Ep.2 will clock in at/around 30fps. Fine with me considering that's all the human eye can register.
Anyways... Ep. 2 can't run too much slower than Portal and HL2, so I'm not worried knowing that said games run at 60fps at the moment. So I'm guessing that Ep.2 will clock in at/around 30fps. Fine with me considering that's all the human eye can register.
Diablohead
Member
I lol'd, if the eye could only do 30fps why do you think people bitch on about 60fps? 
We can see alot higher then 30 thats for sure.
We can see alot higher then 30 thats for sure.
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
relyt9 said:
What the ****?
Any rumors yet if they plan to include the orginial HL in the HL2 bundle?
Trying to hold off buying HL for the PC. I'd much rather play it with a console controller if at all possible.
DOOM XBL FTW
Trying to hold off buying HL for the PC. I'd much rather play it with a console controller if at all possible.
DOOM XBL FTW
I want to play Half-Life really badly, but...
Wake me up when the announce a CS/DoD Source bundle for consoles.
Wake me up when the announce a CS/DoD Source bundle for consoles.
The human eye can only register about 24 individual frames of unique information per second. It can notice the difference between 30 and 60 and up to about 80 (iirc). It just can't identify every frame, but that's what is know as motion. This is why film is ok at 24fps because it captures motion bluring so it fakes what the eye normally catches. With stuff rendered in real time the eye can certainly notice the difference between 30 and 60 even though it can't draw every frame...
yeah.
yeah.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
That's not true either, it depends on the type of the information displayed, and whether it's in color or black/white.Shapermc said:
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
relyt9 said:
the human eye can see an undefined amount of fps. you can't measure eyesight that simply.
davepoobond said:
only true answer in this thread.
otherwise, a monitor with 30hz update would be nice to the human eye, and we wouldnt see any difference from a monitor with 100hz update (non-interlace in both examples that is)
(100hz means that the monitor draws the picture 100times a second)
WHOAguitarninja
Member
Shapermc said:
No no no no no. The eye isn't like a camera that takes in individual frames...it registers information as fast as it can be sent back to the brain, which is far higher than any consumer level media device will bother to put out in the near future.
Most people's eye's are "saturated" in the 70fps range...which is where image burn in is sufficient to place images close enough together that your brain doesn't really care about the individual frames. But tests on military pilots where images of planes were flashed infront of them for hundredths of a second showed them able to correctly identify the plane consistently. That simply would not be possible if your eye functioned as a normal camera.
24fps film is "ok" because it's what we're used to. It has definant limitations, though. Any time th camera is panned at a medium pace acrost a scene, it looks terrible. Most movies don't do that for long periods of time for precisely that reason. This whole idea of "24fps is okay because of the motion blur" is completely and utterly wrong. 24fps movies are okay because they are shot in a manner which allows on screen deviations to be of a type that motion blur can help with.
Beer Monkey
Member
Yeah, but what about TF2? That's the important one.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
The thing is, "about" doesn't cover it. US Air Force had tests for their pilots for visual response time, where they would flash a picture of an aircraft on a screen in a dark room for only 1/220th of a second. Still, pilots would be able to "see" the image and tell it was an aircraft.Shapermc said:
This is due to the fact that the visual recepting rod-shaped cells in our retinas (the receptor elements that can only recognize light/darknes in an image) are extremely fast responding, compared to much more complex, cone-shaped cells that are capable of recognizing colors.
Shaper, just because a movie is showing you 24fps doesn't mean the frame was exposed for 1/24th of a second. I'm no filmmaker yet but it seems to me that 1/24 would be the longest possible exposure, and you could do things faster up through there in conjunction with aperture and sensitivity to adjust exposure just as with a single frame camera. So if you're shooting a sports scene under bright lights, you might want to capture players as clearly as possible, exposing each frame for 1/60 and waiting 1/40th of a second in between each frame.
That was a terrible tangent.
ALL I AM SAYING IS that movies run at detectably lower framerates than various other types of content, any blur in a frame is completely irrelevant to most everything, and you can expect to notice a difference between framerates in whatever content up through some impressive range, maybe 70 on the low end and higher for special guys. Movies are "OK" at 24fps because being 24fps makes them look like movies.
That was a terrible tangent.
ALL I AM SAYING IS that movies run at detectably lower framerates than various other types of content, any blur in a frame is completely irrelevant to most everything, and you can expect to notice a difference between framerates in whatever content up through some impressive range, maybe 70 on the low end and higher for special guys. Movies are "OK" at 24fps because being 24fps makes them look like movies.
Seth C said:
It's not your eyes, but rather your brain that sorts out the information and recognizes a difference.
Most people can differentiate up to 120 fps.
Movies are ok at 24 fps because of the nature of film projectors naturally adding some blur from one frame to the next.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
mintosen said:
in addition, there is no value associated with "1 frame." You can't just say "1 frame of time" because a frame can be as long or as short as you want it to be.
when it comes to actual fps being used, film goes at 24 to give it a "movie look." TV goes nearer to 30 fps to make it appear more "realistic." In the end, its a stylistic choice. In games, they have the misfortunate occurances of having framerate dropping and not being as consistent as video or film since they're rendered in real-time. that's why having a higher frame rate is better because you won't notice it as abruptly as a lower frame-rate game. but again, its a stylistic choice because you might want your game to have a "cinematic" look to it.
Fallout-NL
Member
op_ivy said:having never played half-life 2 at all, this is hugely awesome news. i cant wait. what a terrific deal
Dude, what?
Ranger X said:
Far as I can recall, movies are shown at 24 frames per seconds because that was as little as the folks creating those standards years ago could get away with without it looking distractingly choppy. Before then you would commonly see stuff, mostly silent films, shot at fifteen or 20 fps which is one reason they look so weird nowadays. Anyways, film is not cheap at all and to shoot and project something at sixty frames per second would double or triple the budget, not to mention also increasing the physical size and shipping costs of the movie to hundreds or thousands of theaters.
Oh! My Car!
Member
blah blah blah, basically, increased FPS ratio perceives a smoother picture to the eye.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
It's your eyes too. There are light and colour recognizing cells in our retinas that detect and transmit visual information to the brain. The matter discussed here also depends on the speed of retention of those cells.Fight for Freeform said:
Willy Wanka
my god this avatar owns
What about Team Fortress 2? Is that 60 fps as well? I'm assuming it is.
Ranger X said:
There have been movies at 30fps. People say it looks super slick, at a theatre it would be like playing a game on a CRT at 60fps.
tirant said:that's bs
No, when watching things on a TV or movie screen the framerate is so low your brain won't create any blur for those objects, it effectively views it as a slideshow.
Marconelly said:
That's true, but when it comes to framerates 200 fps and less, it's a peice of cake for your eyes to pick up that information. Someone here already posted the one study that had a flashing image that was shown for 1/220th of a second...scroll up and you'll find it.
The brain is what distinguishes the difference. There were tests done where people were shown two different displays, and they had to point out the smoother one. Most people were able to do this up until 120 fps. Note, this is distinguishing a difference...not the length of time an eye requires to be able to harvest information for the brain.
You're right, I'm not disputing what you said, just popping some more info on the subject, and I don't think it's nearly as important or as a factor as the brain is when it comes to framerates though.
Similar threads
- Poll