By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - 30FPS vs 60FPS. Can you tell the difference?

 

Can you tell the difference?

Yes, clearly. 233 59.29%
 
Not really. 106 26.97%
 
See results. 54 13.74%
 
Total:393
Jdevil3 on 18 October 2011
Michael-5 said:
Kynes said:
Michael-5 said:
 

Two separate points. Hence I wrote "also."

Read the example. Those rims spin at about 5-10 rotations per second, so a fifth rotation is just about 30FPS, thats why it lookslike it's spinning bacwards.

It seems that at that class, your mind wasn't at what it had to be. You have a completely wrong idea of how our eyes work.

Got an 80% in that course. Even ha time to draw pictures on the exam.

This is how things work, accept it.


Why don't you find someone with a good PC and ask him to make a blind test for you, ask him to run a game locked at 30 FPS or 60 FPS but he mustn't tell you what the framerate is. Do it 10, 20 or 100 times, as many as you want... and see how many times you're right.

I'm right 100% of the times because it's extremely easy to see the difference.

I can't believe you're serious about not being able to notice the difference... the videos in the OP show the difference perfectly.

Maybe you're trolling us Rolstoppable style and I didn't realize it? :P



A banner stolen from some site xD

Release Final Fantasy Versus XIII nowwwwwwwwww!!! lol :P

Around the Network
KhinRunite on 18 October 2011

I can see it clearly when my eyes have to pan across the screen



scottie on 18 October 2011
Michael-5 said:
scottie said:
Troll_Whisperer said:

I've heard that humans can't notice a difference above 30FPS but it seems that many do notice it clearly, so it must depend on the person.


That is one of the most commonly misinterpated facts ever. 30 fps is the point at which we stop seeing a thing as a sldieshow and start to see it as an imperfect video. it is not the transition from imperfect video to perfect video

That's a crude way to explain it, but it's kind of true, and this is why people think hey can see 60FPS. At 30FPS, for a digital signal (say progressive scan - p), humans can still detect the change in screens. At 60FPS humans can't see that ransition. However at 60FPS, humans will only see half the frames in a given second.

People should look into my example of a car rim on te highway. When a car is accelerating, you first see it move clockwise (if you are to the right of the car), then it starts to skip, then it starts to go backward slowly, then it skips again, then it goes backward really fast. Where it goes backward slowly is about 30FPS because every 30th of a second, the next spoke is just behind the prior one a 30th of a second ago. There is a lot more to this, but I want people to understand that basic point.

60FPS is smoother then 30FPS, but not beause we can see at 30FPS, but because we see the transition of screen (when it's not a factor of 30, and under 60FPS), the drop in FPS, and screen tearing.


Interesting, you say that my point is "kind of true", and then spend the rest of your point claiming the exact opposite of what I said. Ok, lets start putting in some references.

 

Humans can see flicker at anything less than 70-100 fps [1]. This can be counteracted with deliberately adding motion blur, but that has its own disadvantages.

Humans can see bright flashes of light lasting as little as 1/220th of a second in the centre of their vision, and shorter pulses in their peripheral vision[1]. This requires 220 fps to display properly. You might argue that this probably isn't relevant for video games, I'm just trying to teach you how wrong the 'human vision is 30 fps' thing is. In all honesty though, this site does a better job of explaining it than I do http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html, go, read, learn!

[1] http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm



youarebadatgames on 18 October 2011

Anybody who plays fast paced games like Quake or Unreal understands why high FPS is important. Nothing was as smooth as my old CRT running a real 85+ fps. In fact, you can try it on quakelive and limit fps using com_maxfps in the console and you will see a difference easy.



Marks on 18 October 2011

I definitely notice a difference in smoothness between CoD and Battlefield...but if you showed me the exact same game in 30FPS and 60FPS I might not notice a [big] difference.



Around the Network
NightDragon83 on 19 October 2011
spurgeonryan said:
Not sure about now days, but on the PS and N64 it was easier to tell I believe. Back then that is all anyone talked about it seems with the N64. Good framerate....good game. T.B.O that was usually the case. Other than Perfect Dark.

There were actually very few games that ran at 60fps on the N64... the most notable being F-Zero X, but of course the graphics were heavily cut back to make the game run so smoothly all the time.  And yeah PD had a chuggy frame rate especially during 4 player multiplayer, but it made up for it with its amazing visuals especially in the single player campaign with the "hi res" graphics due to the expansion pack lol.

@OP... one of the easiest ways to tell the difference between 30 and 60fps this gen is to play Forza 4 (or 3 or 2 also i believe) and notice how the framerate changes when you finish a race.  During a race it runs at a silky smooth 60 fps, but after the race during the replay cam it switches to a more cinematic-looking 30 fps.



On 2/24/13, MB1025 said:
You know I was always wondering why no one ever used the dollar sign for $ony, but then I realized they have no money so it would be pointless.

turtuls on 19 October 2011

I can in slow motion.



don't waste time

3DS FC 4914-3563-4510

NNID : turtuls

ethomaz on 19 October 2011
Kynes said:
x_DMX_x said:
Zkuq said:
x_DMX_x said:
Here's how you tell the difference between 30FPS&60FPS.
Uncharted 3 is going to run at 60FPS I believe at 1080p.
inFAMOUS(The first one)30FPS native 720p
Compare those two games to see the difference.
OR Call of Duty 4:Modern Warfare its run at 60FPS at 1080p.

No. Just no. The first two Uncharted games run at 720p, not 1080p. And it's been a while since I last played them but IIRC they ran at 30 frames per second. Could be wrong about that, though, and can't confirm it because my Blu-ray drive is dead. And CoD4 runs at sub-720p, but it is supposedly 60 fps.

All in all, you got quite a bit wrong here. :)

Yea I was mistaken but, barely any console games run at a native 1080p.Just because the back of the game case says 1080p doesnt mean its 1080p.The console game that runs perfectly 1080p is WipeoutHD its runs perfectly at 1080p.Other than that I havent seen any other console game run at 1080p.

So compare inFAMOUS 30FPS 720pvs WipeoutHD 60FPS 1080p.

Hmmm it depends on what you consider true 1080p. AFAIK, the vertical resolution is 1080 px, but the horizontal resolution changes dynamically depending on the action, trying to maintain 60 fps. I think it can be "as low" as 1280 px.

Wipeout HD is FULL 1080p (1920x1080) @ 60 fps every time without framedrop... the game had low graphics for PS3 standard but beautiful like Flower (another  FULL 1080p @ 60 fps).

There are other PSN games like them.



Jdevil3 on 19 October 2011
ethomaz said:
Kynes said:
x_DMX_x said:
Zkuq said:
x_DMX_x said:
Here's how you tell the difference between 30FPS&60FPS.
Uncharted 3 is going to run at 60FPS I believe at 1080p.
inFAMOUS(The first one)30FPS native 720p
Compare those two games to see the difference.
OR Call of Duty 4:Modern Warfare its run at 60FPS at 1080p.

No. Just no. The first two Uncharted games run at 720p, not 1080p. And it's been a while since I last played them but IIRC they ran at 30 frames per second. Could be wrong about that, though, and can't confirm it because my Blu-ray drive is dead. And CoD4 runs at sub-720p, but it is supposedly 60 fps.

All in all, you got quite a bit wrong here. :)

Yea I was mistaken but, barely any console games run at a native 1080p.Just because the back of the game case says 1080p doesnt mean its 1080p.The console game that runs perfectly 1080p is WipeoutHD its runs perfectly at 1080p.Other than that I havent seen any other console game run at 1080p.

So compare inFAMOUS 30FPS 720pvs WipeoutHD 60FPS 1080p.

Hmmm it depends on what you consider true 1080p. AFAIK, the vertical resolution is 1080 px, but the horizontal resolution changes dynamically depending on the action, trying to maintain 60 fps. I think it can be "as low" as 1280 px.

Wipeout HD is FULL 1080p (1920x1080) @ 60 fps every time without framedrop... the game had low graphics for PS3 standard but beautiful like Flower (another  FULL 1080p @ 60 fps).

There are other PSN games like them.


Read This, it's not 1920x1080 at all times, it does the same thing rage does (drops resolution):

 

http://insidethedigitalfoundry.blogspot.com/2008/09/wipeout-hds-1080p-sleight-of-hand.html

 

Thursday, September 25, 2008

WipEout HD's 1080p Sleight of Hand

Namco's Ridge Racer 7 has been the standard bearer for true 1920x1080p on PlayStation 3 since the system launched, and to this day nothing gets close to what this game is achieving at full raster 1080p. Sure, GT5 has a tangibly superior look overall but its mixture of 1280x1080 (in-game) and 1440x1080 (replay) resolutions precludes it from the discussion.
Sony Liverpool's WipEout HD is the first big game for a while to be touting true 1080p credentials and regardless of its technical prowess, it's stupidly good value at $19.99/£11.99. It's also a superb technical effort, great to play and accessible to a level that recent releases in the series have failed to achieve.
And 1080p? True 1080p? Well yes. And no. OK, most of the time, it is. I mean look at these shots... scrutinised and measured by the ever-reliable 'Quaz51' who cast his expert eye over a number of Digital Foundry TrueHD 1080p captures:



There's still something about Ridge Racer 7 that makes it a phenomenal 1080p game, but there's no doubt that WipEout HD is the better-looking 1920x1080 effort with some beautiful shader effects and excellent art direction. But what's going on the two shots below?



They're not 1080p in the sense that the resolution is no longer 1920x1080. WipEout HD is now rendering at 1280x1080 (with some screen tear to boot), which I'm fairly sure is the game's lowest resolution - but still a 50% resolution increase over 720p. So what's happening? Basically WipEout HD is the first game I've come across that seems to be operating with a dynamic framebuffer. Resolution can alter on a frame-by-frame basis. Rather than introduce dropped frames, slow down or other unsavoury effects, the number of pixels being rendered drops and the PS3's horizontal hardware scaler is invoked to make up the difference. It's an intriguing solution that works with limited impact on the overall look of the game (the tearing has far more of an impact on image quality - I'm assuming that kicks in when the framebuffer can't scale any lower).



The actual amount of horizontal resolution being dropped can change on a frame by frame basis: 1728x1080, 1645x1080, 1600x1080, 1440x1080. All have been seen in the Digital Foundry TrueHD captures. The shots above appear to be 1500x1080.
The dynamic framebuffer is really quite an innovative solution to the perennial 1080p problem. Even though we're seeing major differences in resolution, the human eye really will have trouble realising the difference when the detail level is changing so rapidly in such a fast moving game.
In short, it's making an advanced-looking game like WipEout HD work at 1080p60 and that's pretty damn awesome.



A banner stolen from some site xD

Release Final Fantasy Versus XIII nowwwwwwwwww!!! lol :P

ethomaz on 19 October 2011
Jdevil3 said:
ethomaz said:
Kynes said:
x_DMX_x said:
Zkuq said:
x_DMX_x said:
Here's how you tell the difference between 30FPS&60FPS.
Uncharted 3 is going to run at 60FPS I believe at 1080p.
inFAMOUS(The first one)30FPS native 720p
Compare those two games to see the difference.
OR Call of Duty 4:Modern Warfare its run at 60FPS at 1080p.

No. Just no. The first two Uncharted games run at 720p, not 1080p. And it's been a while since I last played them but IIRC they ran at 30 frames per second. Could be wrong about that, though, and can't confirm it because my Blu-ray drive is dead. And CoD4 runs at sub-720p, but it is supposedly 60 fps.

All in all, you got quite a bit wrong here. :)

Yea I was mistaken but, barely any console games run at a native 1080p.Just because the back of the game case says 1080p doesnt mean its 1080p.The console game that runs perfectly 1080p is WipeoutHD its runs perfectly at 1080p.Other than that I havent seen any other console game run at 1080p.

So compare inFAMOUS 30FPS 720pvs WipeoutHD 60FPS 1080p.

Hmmm it depends on what you consider true 1080p. AFAIK, the vertical resolution is 1080 px, but the horizontal resolution changes dynamically depending on the action, trying to maintain 60 fps. I think it can be "as low" as 1280 px.

Wipeout HD is FULL 1080p (1920x1080) @ 60 fps every time without framedrop... the game had low graphics for PS3 standard but beautiful like Flower (another  FULL 1080p @ 60 fps).

There are other PSN games like them.


Read This, it's not 1920x1080 at all times, it does the same thing rage does (drops resolution):

 

http://insidethedigitalfoundry.blogspot.com/2008/09/wipeout-hds-1080p-sleight-of-hand.html

 

Thursday, September 25, 2008

WipEout HD's 1080p Sleight of Hand

Namco's Ridge Racer 7 has been the standard bearer for true 1920x1080p on PlayStation 3 since the system launched, and to this day nothing gets close to what this game is achieving at full raster 1080p. Sure, GT5 has a tangibly superior look overall but its mixture of 1280x1080 (in-game) and 1440x1080 (replay) resolutions precludes it from the discussion.
Sony Liverpool's WipEout HD is the first big game for a while to be touting true 1080p credentials and regardless of its technical prowess, it's stupidly good value at $19.99/£11.99. It's also a superb technical effort, great to play and accessible to a level that recent releases in the series have failed to achieve.
And 1080p? True 1080p? Well yes. And no. OK, most of the time, it is. I mean look at these shots... scrutinised and measured by the ever-reliable 'Quaz51' who cast his expert eye over a number of Digital Foundry TrueHD 1080p captures:



There's still something about Ridge Racer 7 that makes it a phenomenal 1080p game, but there's no doubt that WipEout HD is the better-looking 1920x1080 effort with some beautiful shader effects and excellent art direction. But what's going on the two shots below?



They're not 1080p in the sense that the resolution is no longer 1920x1080. WipEout HD is now rendering at 1280x1080 (with some screen tear to boot), which I'm fairly sure is the game's lowest resolution - but still a 50% resolution increase over 720p. So what's happening? Basically WipEout HD is the first game I've come across that seems to be operating with a dynamic framebuffer. Resolution can alter on a frame-by-frame basis. Rather than introduce dropped frames, slow down or other unsavoury effects, the number of pixels being rendered drops and the PS3's horizontal hardware scaler is invoked to make up the difference. It's an intriguing solution that works with limited impact on the overall look of the game (the tearing has far more of an impact on image quality - I'm assuming that kicks in when the framebuffer can't scale any lower).



The actual amount of horizontal resolution being dropped can change on a frame by frame basis: 1728x1080, 1645x1080, 1600x1080, 1440x1080. All have been seen in the Digital Foundry TrueHD captures. The shots above appear to be 1500x1080.
The dynamic framebuffer is really quite an innovative solution to the perennial 1080p problem. Even though we're seeing major differences in resolution, the human eye really will have trouble realising the difference when the detail level is changing so rapidly in such a fast moving game.
In short, it's making an advanced-looking game like WipEout HD work at 1080p60 and that's pretty damn awesome.

I didn't know that... thanks... maybe in the highest speeds the vertical resolution drops ... this game have the greatest sensation of speed ever seen.