File: aiming_30fps.swf-(2 KB, Game)
[_] for /v/ Anonymous 04/14/13(Sun)16:55 No.1943610
Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anonymous 04/14/13(Sun)16:57 No.1943613
And what is the point of this exactly?
>> [_] Anonymous 04/14/13(Sun)16:58 No.1943615
>>1943613
to show what it looks like when a game renders at 30 fps instead of 60
/v/ is arguing over 30/60 fps again, so I uploaded this and >>>/f/1943612
>> [_] Anonymous 04/14/13(Sun)17:04 No.1943623
>>1943615
Yeah I saw that thread and realized as much when I reloaded /f/ and saw the 60 fps version.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/14/13(Sun)17:07 No.1943624
>proving once again that 30fps is a notable downgrade from 60
Suck on our collective dicks casual scum
>> [_] Anonymous 04/14/13(Sun)17:13 No.1943625
I never understood that "theory" that the human eye can only visualize 30fps, but I can easily
distinguish 30fps from 60fps
any anonteacher here?
>> [_] Anonymous 04/14/13(Sun)17:19 No.1943628
no idea what this is about, as I'm not autistic enough to go to /v/, but anything less than 45fps
is godawful.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/14/13(Sun)17:21 No.1943630
>>1943625
30fps is correct only for a dark theatre and your head staying relatively still with respect to
the screen (I don't know why that is)
>> [_] Anonymous 04/14/13(Sun)17:24 No.1943633
>>1943630
Actually it's because of old hardware in the movies that used to only output about 30FPS
(actually like 24.5 FPS) and became the standard. Everyone got used to it. Now there's cameras
that do 60FPS. Ever wonder why some movies look slightly odd when action happens? It's because
they're using a 60FPS camera.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/14/13(Sun)17:28 No.1943636
>>1943633
i thought it was because things are moving too fast for 30fps to capture it with more than a few
frames and your brain farts when trying to fill in the gaps
>> [_] Anonymous 04/14/13(Sun)17:32 No.1943640
>>1943636
What fps does the brain go at I wonder
>> [_] Anonymous 04/14/13(Sun)17:34 No.1943641
>>1943630
>30fps is correct only for a dark theatre
[citation needed]
>> [_] Anonymous 04/14/13(Sun)17:34 No.1943642
>>1943640
The brain does not go at frames per second.
It processes what it wants at the speeds it wants. The eyes are constant windows to the real
world, and the brain renders as many frames as it can and thinks you need.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/14/13(Sun)17:35 No.1943643
>>1943642
so max throttle then
>> [_] Anonymous 04/14/13(Sun)17:40 No.1943645
>>1943640
>mfw people think we see in fps
>mfw I hear people ask what resolution humans see at
>mfw trying to compare human sight to vidya specs
>mfw i have no face
>> [_] Anonymous 04/14/13(Sun)17:43 No.1943647
>>1943645
What's your brain's processing speed?
>> [_] Anonymous 04/14/13(Sun)17:45 No.1943648
>>1943645
How much RAM does your brain have?
>> [_] Anonymous 04/14/13(Sun)17:45 No.1943649
>>1943625
The theory is bullshit and based off of the effects of traditional film.
For what conventional filming was at the time, you could not detect much of a difference above 24
frames per second, but below that it didn't work.
Film also has a blur effect about it in the process of recording.
Video games have artificial blur settings. And if you were to spin really fast in a first person
shooter you would notice the difference between 60 frames and 90 frames per second, and if you
experienced something like extremely fast warp travel in a dense and detailed world you would
notice the difference between 90 and 120 frames per second.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/14/13(Sun)17:46 No.1943650
>>1943648
Beat ya to the punch, 2 minutes too slow, upgrade your graphics nerve
>> [_] Anonymous 04/14/13(Sun)17:46 No.1943651
1.21 gigawatts
>> [_] Anonymous 04/14/13(Sun)17:47 No.1943653
>>1943645
7m cones + 125m rods = a human eye resolution equivalent of 11489x11489
>> [_] Anonymous 04/14/13(Sun)17:49 No.1943655
>>1943653
Hah, no.
The human vision does not work in pixels or frames per second. It works in degrees and
information.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/14/13(Sun)17:49 No.1943656
>>1943653
Very nearly 132 megapixels, nice
>> [_] Anonymous 04/14/13(Sun)19:56 No.1943739
is it a bad thing that 30fps looks better than 60fps to me
>> [_] Anonymous 04/14/13(Sun)20:02 No.1943741
>>1943653
a perfect example of the faggots im talking about. People dont see pixels. They see light
reflecting off of surfaces. Try and compare apples to EM waves all you want, youre just making
yourself look like an idiot
>Hurr, I wonder what level of anti-aliasing humans can see?
>> [_] Anonymous 04/14/13(Sun)20:10 No.1943747
60 fps is smoother than 30. I noticed it. I am disgusted with 30FPS. it looks disgusting. I hate
30 fps.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/14/13(Sun)20:26 No.1943759
>>1943739
Yes, kill yourself.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/14/13(Sun)20:36 No.1943766
>>1943739
>is it bad I think a choppy display is less choppy than a less choppier display?
yes.
