[Br0ken]

I saw a thread just now in the PS3 forum which made me wonder why is having 60fps in a game important? If at all?

I thought the human eye needed something like 24 or 25 frames per second to see smooth animation?

[Razor]

60 fps makes games look smooth. I can tell the difference straight away between 30fps and 60fps especially with games.

Movies/films are totally different.

[Jay]

For me it's very important as on my display for example 30fps games tend to judder and produce double images.

I can notice the difference between a 30fps game and a 60fps game.

Some 30fps games actually make me feel nauseous due to the motion blur devs tend to add to smooth things out.

Some will say but hold on why do we need high framerates, look at movies?

The difference with a movie is motion blur is introduced naturally by the cameras, and looks more natural.

Pause a film while something is moving and you can see the blur in the still frame.

Just to note that on my lcd the double images when playing a 30fps game weren't as obvious as the blur from the lcd goes some way to smooth judder etc, on my plasma there is next to no blur added from the display so doible images are very noticeable.

On an lcd with some form of mcfi such as motionflow on a sony will create extra frames and therefore smooth things out although it can totally ruin films and give it a smooth amateur cam effect.

OH and one last point I'm not that fussed about resolution, as these consoles won't be able to produce true 1080p games with 60fps second, wipeout etc are't even true 1080p, but I'd take a lower res game like cod4 with a 60fps anyday, but it seems like most are worried about resolution over framerate.

[Solar]

Most displays run at 60hz
If the hardware exceeds the rate the display can handle you will see a lot of horizontal tearing because the display cant keep up with the output, which is also why "vsync" was given as an option in games, it will lock your outputs frame rate to the displays.
And if your display exceeds the rate at which your hardware can output you will see a lot of chopping, or gaps between frames because the output cant draw into each frame fast enough.

So its quite important that both frame rates match each other almost perfectly to ensure a very smooth gameplay, "almost perfectly" meaning it can be halved too, 50hz to 25, 60hz to 30 because the display will simply draw the same output twice.

Its not really a matter of how fast the human eye can see, if displays are only drawing half a frame before having to draw another, it will be like that on every frame it draws, and that is all we will see.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Solar

60hz to 30 because the display will simply draw the same output twice.

Which is why a double image is produced on pans etc (more noticeable on a tv with good motion handling) on a 30fps game which actually makes me feel ill after a while.

[Jay]

Here's a very good link to help show the differences.

Now can someone tell me they don't notice a difference?

It's a download of a clip with half the film at 30fps with the other half at 60fps

http://www.mediafire.com/?ifmmynzl50m

[Br0ken]

blimey, a whole world of science which I know little about.

So if i've understood, if some one has one of the new 120hz tv's they should expect to see a flicker image from games consoles? Or at least if the game is locked to 30fps there'd choppiness? But a game locked to 60fps would be smoother?

[Br0ken]

Originally Posted by Indecisive Jay

Here's a very good link to help show the differences.

Now can someone tell me they don't notice a difference?

It's a download of a clip with half the film at 30fps with the other half at 60fps

http://www.mediafire.com/?ifmmynzl50m

I'll download that at home and take a look. But I'd wonder, does viewing vid's of differing framerates on the same screen (ie. my laptop) make a comparison impossible because my laptop refresh rate doesn't change?

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Br0ken

blimey, a whole world of science which I know little about.

So if i've understood, if some one has one of the new 120hz tv's they should expect to see a flicker image from games consoles? Or at least if the game is locked to 30fps there'd choppiness? But a game locked to 60fps would be smoother?

If we're talking lcds and you enable the frame interpolation such as amp on samsungs, tru motion on lgs and motionflow on sonys a 30fps game would be smooth as it creates an additional frame.

And if you disable the frame interpolation it would hide abit of the choppiness/judder/double image with the blur the display produces.

If you use a set with good motion handling such as a plasma or a crt (progressive one ideally) then it will be much more apparent.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Br0ken

I'll download that at home and take a look. But I'd wonder, does viewing vid's of differing framerates on the same screen (ie. my laptop) make a comparison impossible because my laptop refresh rate doesn't change?

Basically you set your screen to 60hz,(most likely already on 60hz) and the difference will be noticeable.

Your display doesn't need to change hz as the issue arrises due to the fact that a 30fps second source is being fed into the display which results in the judder etc

Basically on any display feeding a 30fps game into it will suffer from the same thing, the only difference being on sets with worse motion handling the motion blur goes some way to smooth things out.

On a display with good motion handling there is no blur so you really are seeing the judder, choppiness.

Once you try the video you really will see for yourself.

The video is split in half with one side 30fps, the other 60fps and it will show you the difference between the 30fps being displayed and the 60fps displayed on your monitor.

[Br0ken]

I have a Samsung LCD, not sure if I've seen a AMP option...maybe my Samsungs not good enough lol I have seen a Game Mode though.

It kinda sounds like to me then, that if you're watching movies/video you can get a great image on higher refresh rates because of natural blur and the way the screen handles it? But for games consoles its actually better to have lower frames per second if your LCD is less than or equal 60Hz?

Edit: ok, I'll stop trying to unerstand until I've watched the videos

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Br0ken

I have a Samsung LCD, not sure if I've seen a AMP option...maybe my Samsungs not good enough lol I have seen a Game Mode though.

IT depends on what samsung you have, the amp (on samsungs) or 100hz as the lcd manufacturers tend to call it starts on 6 series(and above) samsungs, if you've got a 4 series or 5 series you won't have it.

Game mode is a different thing and is there to reduce input lag, it basically disables any additional processing the lcd has to reduce the time it takes to press a button e.g shoot and the time it takes to for your player to shoot.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Br0ken

It kinda sounds like to me then, that if you're watching movies/video you can get a great image on higher refresh rates because of natural blur and the way the screen handles it? But for games consoles its actually better to have lower frames per second if your LCD is less than or equal 60Hz?

Edit: ok, I'll stop trying to unerstand until I've watched the videos

Once you watch the video you will notice it better than I can explain it

Basically though on a 30fps game the tv will have to repeat the frames twice which is what therefore leads to double images on pans etc, on a 60fps game no frames are being repeated which makes it smoother.

On a 100hz lcd with the frame interploation it smoothes 30fps games as it creates a new frame (by guessing what frame should go there), rather than repeating it. (therefore in essence creating the smoothness a 60fps game would bring as it displays 60 different frames rather than repeating the 30 frames from a 30fps game)

Although the 100hz frame interpolation isn't perfect and on some scenes the tvs processing can't keep up and it produces artifacts.

[Br0ken]

Originally Posted by Indecisive Jay

IT depends on what samsung you have, the amp (on samsungs) or 100hz as the lcd manufacturers tend to call it starts on 6 series(and above) samsungs, if you've got a 4 series or 5 series you won't have it.

Game mode is a different thing and is there to reduce input lag, it basically disables any additional processing the lcd has to reduce the time it takes to press a button e.g shoot and the time it takes to for your player to shoot.

I think its a R82 model, had it over a year so not a new one.

Ok now I'm confused, what does the tv have to do with pressing a button and the character reacting? Unless you mean the console has already made the player react but you just don't see it until a moment later? I should turn it on, maybe will help in online games.

Thanks for the explanations though, you sound like you know what you're talking about

[BYF]

Originally Posted by Razor

60 fps makes games look smooth. I can tell the difference straight away between 30fps and 60fps especially with games.

Movies/films are totally different.

I agree, 30fps looks choppy to me, in 3rd person games you can get away with 30fps as it's not so noticeable. but it's still not smooth.

45fps looks smooth, 60fps silky smooth anything above that and I cannot really tell the difference.

So yes 60fps is important but only if it's a constant frame rate, fluctuating frame rates are horrible. High (60fps) frame rates means everything moves more realistically and it's easier to control and aim and the sense of speed and movement is just more engaging.

[Razor]

Gaming mode removes processing which would induce input lag. If this feature is disabled on a display then the time it takes for the image to leave the console/pc to being displayed on the screen is reduced. A response time of Zero is the ideal for a display.

If you really want 60fps with high res ie 1080p then the pc is your only real choice.

As soon as you get a game which has graphics which push the limits of a console the frame rate drops as does the resolution. This is why most console games arent 60fps and are running at a low res of 720p or less with no AA. The gpu on consoles are so old now and cant hack running at high res with AA and a rock solid 60fps.


BTW good video Jay, I would say that the difference is even more pronounced with games.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Br0ken

Ok now I'm confused, what does the tv have to do with pressing a button and the character reacting? Unless you mean the console has already made the player react but you just don't see it until a moment later? I should turn it on, maybe will help in online games.

Thanks for the explanations though, you sound like you know what you're talking about

Basically input lag is as you say: you press a button to shoot, but the onscreen character doesn't shoot straight away.

This is because the tv takes a little while to process the image. Input lag is caused by the processing that modern tvs have.

So the game mode tends to disable any additional processing.

Generally you are talking miliseconds though and some people aren't even sensitive to input lag, generally those that are are those who are really competitive or hardcore pc gamer would notice it.

A good test for input lag is a guitar hero game.

I don't know if you remember the whole killzone 2 farce with regards to input lag e.g pressing shoot and the character shooting.

Some had a problem, while others didn't, that was merely a problem with some people having worse input lag than others, and some being less sensitive to it.

Although many would just slate the game as opposed to their tvs.

They would use cod4 as a reference, the difference being that they will have input lag on cod4 too but because killzone 2 was a slower paced game than cod4 it just showed input lag up more.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Razor

If you really want 60fps with high res ie 1080p then the pc is your only real choice.

As soon as you get a game which has graphics which push the limits of a console the frame rate drops as does the resolution. This is why most console games arent 60fps and are running at a low res of 720p or less with no AA. The gpu on consoles are so old now and cant hack running at high res with AA and a rock solid 60fps.


BTW good video Jay, I would say that the difference is even more pronounced with games.

Which is why a game like call of duty runs at sub 720p resolutions, but many are in denial and think that devs can push 1080p or complain when their fave cod game doesn't.

As you say the ps3 and 360 are old spec, and while devs have the advantage of working with a fixed peice of hardware and can find different ways of optimising, true 1080p with 60fps and full aa is never going to happen on these consoles.

re video: Cheers Razor, as you say it is more noticeable in games, much more so since I've got a set than can actually display motion with no real loss of resolution.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by BYF

I agree, 30fps looks choppy to me, in 3rd person games you can get away with 30fps as it's not so noticeable. but it's still not smooth.

45fps looks smooth, 60fps silky smooth anything above that and I cannot really tell the difference.

So yes 60fps is important but only if it's a constant frame rate, fluctuating frame rates are horrible. High (60fps) frame rates means everything moves more realistically and it's easier to control and aim and the sense of speed and movement is just more engaging.

I find pc gamers will probably be more effected by lower framerates.

I think I'm a pc gamer in disguise

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Indecisive Jay

Which is why a game like call of duty runs at sub 720p resolutions, but many are in denial and think that devs can push 1080p or complain when their fave cod game doesn't.

As you say the ps3 and 360 are old spec, and while devs have the advantage of working with a fixed peice of hardware and can find different ways of optimising, true 1080p with 60fps and full aa is never going to happen on these consoles.

Agreed mate. Getting 1080p, AA and 60 fps with decent visuals isnt ever going to happen on this gen of consoles. It would be possible with an old game where there arent that many polygons being pushed around the screen but not on something like COD. I really notice the difference if I am playing on a console compared to a pc. On a pc I can wack up the AA to upto 8x and higher @ 1080p and still get 60fps.

re video: Cheers Razor, as you say it is more noticeable in games, much more so since I've got a set than can actually display motion with no real loss of resolution.

Plasma's are allot better than LCD's for response time. Also LCD's are well known for motion blurring which is caused by the slower response time.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Indecisive Jay

I think I'm a pc gamer in disguise

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Razor

Also LCD's are well known for motion blurring which is caused by the slower response time.

And "the sample and hold" effect doesn't help.

I've had so many higher end lcds and even though the 100hz helps to smooth things out, the artifacts it brings can be quite shocking to look at.

Plasma is defintely where it's at for good motion generally.

Or tn panels for lcds (although they bring their own problems ) but in bigger sizes they tend to use s-pva, or s-ips in panasonics case which although they have better viewing angles and arguably colour reproduction don't handle motion as well in my opinion.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Indecisive Jay

And "the sample and hold" effect doesn't help.

I've had so many higher end lcds and even though the 100hz helps to smooth things out, the artifacts it brings can be quite shocking to look at.

Plasma is defintely where it's at for good motion generally.

Or tn panels for lcds but in bigger sizes they tend to use s-pva, or s-ips in panasonics case.

I have SXRD and plasma and both are excellent for gaming. I also have a tn panel for my office gaming rig.

All this 100hz stuff seems like a gimmick to me. It would be different if I could actually input 100hz direct from my pc. Now that would be a different story. Old crt pc monitors used to accept inputs all the way upto 120hz. You could tell the difference between say 60hz and 85hz in terms of flicker and eye strain. The 85hz was allot nicer to use.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Razor

All this 100hz stuff seems like a gimmick to me. It would be different if I could actually input 100hz direct from my pc. Now that would be a different story. Old crt pc monitors used to accept inputs all the way upto 120hz. You could tell the difference between say 60hz and 85hz in terms of flicker and eye strain. The 85hz was allot nicer to use.

Yeah it's the latest marketing spin.

It wasn't that long ago when the latest gimmick was dynamic contrast ratios.

Which are of no use because dynamic contrast is best turned off anyway.

Now every man and his dog wants big HZ

Panasonic have now spinned things around to show a 600hz plasma panel. To get one up on Sonys 200hz lcds.

The thing is for example 100hz on an lcd and 100hz on a plasma work in different ways, 100hz on a plasma is to reduce flicker, whereas 100hz on lcds is used when referring to motion.

Manufacturers always spin things around to their favour, like when it used to be all about response times, and people would quote grey to grey or black to white depending on what figures were in their favour.

[Razor]

Next new displays will be 50 billion to 1 contrast ratio with 25,000Hz.

Its getting stupid.

Also Blacks are the big rage at the moment. I am expecting that white or red will be the next on their list of must haves.

[Mark Hodgkinson]

Originally Posted by Indecisive Jay

Panasonic have now spinned things around to show a 600hz plasma panel. To get one up on Sonys 200hz lcds.


.

Which is an absolute corker from Panasonic as they've had the so-called '600hz sub-field drive' for years

[Jay]

Originally Posted by hodg100

Which is an absolute corker from Panasonic as they've had the so-called '600hz sub-field drive' for years

Yes but no one gave a rats ass about it then.

The thing is the whole marketing spin works on the normal consumer.

Bob in currys will now read the hz off the card as oppsoed to reading the contrast ratios.

You gotta love Bob:

Me: "Hi which of those is the better set?"

Bob: *while reading both spec cards* "Well this one is 600hz"

A year ago

Me: "Hi which of those is the better set?"

Bob: *while reading both spec cards* "Well this one has a 20:000 to 1 contrast ratio"

[Mark Hodgkinson]

Originally Posted by Indecisive Jay

Yes but no one gave a rats ass about it then.

The thing is the whole marketing spin works on the normal consumer.

Bob in currys will now read the hz off the card as oppsoed to reading the contrast ratios.

You gotta love Bob:

Me: "Hi which of those is the better set?"

Bob: *while reading both spec cards* "Well this one is 600hz"

A year ago

Me: "Hi which of those is the better set?"

Bob: *while reading both spec cards* "Well this one has a 20:000 to 1 contrast ratio"

Indeed and it's actually caught out a couple of very well informed posters on here too (alsina and bumtious IIRC).

I've still yet to decide on my new set but I've narrowed it down to 6 or 7 TV's now

Am buying next week for a birthday treat

[Razor]

Originally Posted by hodg100

Indeed and it's actually caught out a couple of very well informed posters on here too (alsina and bumtious IIRC).

I've still yet to decide on my new set but I've narrowed it down to 6 or 7 TV's now

Am buying next week for a birthday treat

Happy birthday for next week mate.



May I recomend this display, it comes with wheels.

[Mark Hodgkinson]

Originally Posted by Razor

Happy birthday for next week mate.



May I recomend this display, it comes with wheels.

Thanks mate

Love the styling of that set Razor, wheels weren't something I'd taken in to consideration whilst doing my research. More food for thought