Reply
VP of Gaming
Registered: 12/08/2000
Online
29169 posts
 

Re: Does PS4 have Graphic Standards?

[ Edited ]
Aug 24, 2013

By Patrick J. Mineault, a neuroscience researcher;

 

 

http://xcorr.net/2011/11/20/whats-the-maximal-frame-rate-humans-can-perceive/?utm_source=feedburner&...

 

So then what’s the minimum frame rate at which a video game should be rendered to ensure that it doesn’t suffer from jitter or choppiness? There’s no maximal rendering framerate above which aliasing effects are guaranteed to be eliminated. Once again, it has little to do with the human visual system and everything to do with the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem. You can always cook up a hypothetical situation which demands arbitrarily large numbers of frames per second to be viewed without artifacts. And the relevant question is really whether the choppiness bothers you or not, rather than whether it’s visible. Claypool, Claypool and Damaa (2006) report that performance saturates in a first-person shooter game at about 30 fps (above; notice that confidence intervals overlap between 30 and 60 fps). So, say it loud, say it proud: 30 fps is good enough for me!

 

 

 

 BOOYAH!

 

Message 11 of 23 (197 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 04/05/2009
Offline
8193 posts
 

Re: Does PS4 have Graphic Standards?

Aug 24, 2013

glaciusx25 wrote:
However, if I set my PC FPS to "unlimited", it doesn't make it look any better than a locked 60FPS.

That's probably because your monitor can't keep up with the amount of frames the PC is putting out.

 

My monitor tops out at 60FPS because... well, it can't display more than 60FPS. Smiley Tongue Some monitors can display 120FPS or even more.

Message 12 of 23 (192 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Sackboy
Registered: 06/26/2013
Offline
569 posts
 

Re: Does PS4 have Graphic Standards?

[ Edited ]
Aug 24, 2013

Captain is right. Just to add, in cinema you get a blurred effect during frames of fast speeds which helps the eye transition to the next frame. In animation, this effect is faked with intentional blurred or 'smeared' frames.

 

And yeah, it's refresh rate not frames per second. What's optimal to the human eye? I dunno...80-100hz? Maybe if you're a chipmunk you need 150hz/fps.

 

I don't play enough fps to notice the difference in refresh rates from 30-60hz.


sig by Grindhead_Jim
Message 13 of 23 (185 Views)
MVP Support
Registered: 08/07/2009
Online
13653 posts
 

Re: Does PS4 have Graphic Standards?

Aug 24, 2013

Doppelgangergang wrote:

glaciusx25 wrote:
However, if I set my PC FPS to "unlimited", it doesn't make it look any better than a locked 60FPS.

That's probably because your monitor can't keep up with the amount of frames the PC is putting out.

 

My monitor tops out at 60FPS because... well, it can't display more than 60FPS. Smiley Tongue Some monitors can display 120FPS or even more.


No, I bought a monitor with 240 Refresh rate, so I'm pretty sure it can go past it.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
Message 14 of 23 (172 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Big Daddy
Registered: 12/24/2007
Offline
16918 posts
 

Re: Does PS4 have Graphic Standards?

Aug 24, 2013

Doppelgangergang wrote:

glaciusx25 wrote:
However, if I set my PC FPS to "unlimited", it doesn't make it look any better than a locked 60FPS.

That's probably because your monitor can't keep up with the amount of frames the PC is putting out.

 

My monitor tops out at 60FPS because... well, it can't display more than 60FPS. Smiley Tongue Some monitors can display 120FPS or even more.


You're talking about refresh rate ;P

While both usually coincide with each other.... this is not always true. And yes, higher refresh rates to match high framerates (even if its a multiple or divisible of a refresh rate) it looks that much better.

Playing TF2 maxing out at  1080p on 2 Titan's getting me 240+fps.... looks awesome on my 120Hz monitor. 
Before upgrading the monitor from a 60Hz, there was no distinction.


Furiously Chaosing
Message 15 of 23 (166 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Wastelander
Registered: 03/01/2009
Offline
809 posts
 

Re: Does PS4 have Graphic Standards?

[ Edited ]
Aug 24, 2013

PS3 had 720p standard... 99% of all PS3 games were 720p (only BF3 was 700p).

 

PS3 did not have 720p standard many games came out at sub-HD, the most notable example being Call of Duty. Also some PS3 games even dipped below 30fps in some scenes.

 

I was assuming PS4 would move to 1080p as a standard. There's news now that BF4 is still 700p!! The fact that some games are still deciding if they can do 1080p or 60fps is very shocking. In my Wallet's opinion, anything less than 1080p/60fps is not acceptible. 

 

Most PS4 games if not all will be in 1080p or better, but nothing is stopping developers from making games in a lower resolution than that unless Sony makes it mandatory. Some PS4 games are running in 30fps while others are running at 60fps, I believe that maybe 30fps will be the minimum that we'll see on PS4 games.

 

 

PS3 with ALL of their Standards in 2006 made it a clear choice that it was worth $700, plus getting all new Theater equipment... yet, I still don't know if PS4 is worth $399?? It only has 4GB of Ram & it probably STILL doesn't have IN-GAME CUSTOM MUSIC.

 

PS4 does have in-game music and nobody knows how much ram is available for the games yet except for the developers themselves. The amount reserved for the PS4's OS could shrink in the future by Sony making it more efficient.

 

 

My gaming history - NES, PS1, PS2, GBA SP, NDS, PS3, Xbox 360, Xbox One
Message 16 of 23 (157 Views)
I Only Post Everything
Registered: 11/13/2009
Offline
846 posts
 

Re: Does PS4 have Graphic Standards?

Aug 24, 2013

CaptainAlbator wrote:

 

I'm using the same argument because it's been PROVEN. So far the only thing backing your claim is "it's true because I think it is, and it's different because it's video games". You say the argument works against me, so explain how it does, and "it just does" or "I think it does" doesn't qualify it.

Just because something we have proven BEFORE the advent of video games doesn't mean it's become irrelvant since. There are scientific principles that date back to ancient Rome that are still employed today in the fields of engineering and architecture, oh but those didn't have the benefit of a plumber jumping over barrels, so those must be obsolete now. I don't think it's a conspiracy theory, however in my opinion this is something that the "gamers" and the gamer conoscenti WANT to believe because it makes them seem like they are more enlightened than the general populace. As if they are saying "We can tell the difference and you can't". And I preface my remarks by saying what we are actually referring to are REFRESH RATES and not "frames".

Nowhere in your statements are anything even approaching historical evidence, or scientific data. If you want to disprove me, then present some SCIENTIFIC DATA, instead saying "you're wrong because you are". Now it's on YOU. Show me the scientific evidence, and I will GLADLY review it.


Repeating over and over that 24 FPS is the standard for films DOES NOT prove that 24 FPS is the limit of the human eye. Saying that the man that made the first moving picture made 24 frames DOES NOT prove that 24 FPS is the limit of the human eye. High speed cameras being slowed down to 24 FPS DOES NOT prove that 24 FPS is the limit of the human eye. You haven't PROVEN anything. Obviously we cant see the visual details of an egg being broken at 5000 FPS. So the creators of the video slowed it down to 24 FPS to make it comfortable for the audience. That's the key word: comfort. When Peter Jackson filmed the Hobbit at 48 FPS a lot of people weren't comfortable with the product. It looked too real, or too much like TV. 24 FPS isn't the limit of our vision. It's what we are comfortable with. As it says in the article below, if more filmmakers choose to film in higher frame rates people will get accustomed to it and it will become the norm.
http://www.vulture.com/2012/12/ask-an-expert-will-we-ever-get-used-to-the-hobbit-48fps-higher-frame-...
As far as the link you provided goes, it just proves that he doesn't feel it's worth it to worry about higher FPS. The graph he took clearly shows that the performance is higher in subjects at 60 FPS. It may be slight but it is there. Whether it's the visual system or Aliasing, as the guy says, I see less choppiness at higher frame rates. Period. Now if you'll go back a few months when we argued this topic the first time, gR3yGh051 left a 30 vs 60 fps puzzle and asked us which was 60 fps. I correctly guessed the 60FPS clip. That is all of the proof I need. Maybe your vision isn't as good. Maybe this is where your views are coming from. Did I say 60 FPS is miles above 30 FPS? No I didn't. But I can tell the difference. Here's the link to that thread. I assume you wont read it though, as you didn't read it properly the first time.
http://community.us.playstation.com/t5/PlayStation-General/60-FPS-should-be-the-standard-for-all-gam...
Message 17 of 23 (144 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
VP of Gaming
Registered: 12/08/2000
Online
29169 posts
 

Re: Does PS4 have Graphic Standards?

[ Edited ]
Aug 24, 2013

smoothboarder540 wrote:

CaptainAlbator wrote:

 

I'm using the same argument because it's been PROVEN. So far the only thing backing your claim is "it's true because I think it is, and it's different because it's video games". You say the argument works against me, so explain how it does, and "it just does" or "I think it does" doesn't qualify it.

Just because something we have proven BEFORE the advent of video games doesn't mean it's become irrelvant since. There are scientific principles that date back to ancient Rome that are still employed today in the fields of engineering and architecture, oh but those didn't have the benefit of a plumber jumping over barrels, so those must be obsolete now. I don't think it's a conspiracy theory, however in my opinion this is something that the "gamers" and the gamer conoscenti WANT to believe because it makes them seem like they are more enlightened than the general populace. As if they are saying "We can tell the difference and you can't". And I preface my remarks by saying what we are actually referring to are REFRESH RATES and not "frames".

Nowhere in your statements are anything even approaching historical evidence, or scientific data. If you want to disprove me, then present some SCIENTIFIC DATA, instead saying "you're wrong because you are". Now it's on YOU. Show me the scientific evidence, and I will GLADLY review it.


Repeating over and over that 24 FPS is the standard for films DOES NOT prove that 24 FPS is the limit of the human eye. Saying that the man that made the first moving picture made 24 frames DOES NOT prove that 24 FPS is the limit of the human eye. High speed cameras being slowed down to 24 FPS DOES NOT prove that 24 FPS is the limit of the human eye. You haven't PROVEN anything. Obviously we cant see the visual details of an egg being broken at 5000 FPS. So the creators of the video slowed it down to 24 FPS to make it comfortable for the audience. That's the key word: comfort. When Peter Jackson filmed the Hobbit at 48 FPS a lot of people weren't comfortable with the product. It looked too real, or too much like TV. 24 FPS isn't the limit of our vision. It's what we are comfortable with. As it says in the article below, if more filmmakers choose to film in higher frame rates people will get accustomed to it and it will become the norm.
http://www.vulture.com/2012/12/ask-an-expert-will-we-ever-get-used-to-the-hobbit-48fps-higher-frame-...
As far as the link you provided goes, it just proves that he doesn't feel it's worth it to worry about higher FPS. The graph he took clearly shows that the performance is higher in subjects at 60 FPS. It may be slight but it is there. Whether it's the visual system or Aliasing, as the guy says, I see less choppiness at higher frame rates. Period. Now if you'll go back a few months when we argued this topic the first time, gR3yGh051 left a 30 vs 60 fps puzzle and asked us which was 60 fps. I correctly guessed the 60FPS clip. That is all of the proof I need. Maybe your vision isn't as good. Maybe this is where your views are coming from. Did I say 60 FPS is miles above 30 FPS? No I didn't. But I can tell the difference. Here's the link to that thread. I assume you wont read it though, as you didn't read it properly the first time.
http://community.us.playstation.com/t5/PlayStation-General/60-FPS-should-be-the-standard-for-all-gam...

See, that's where you are mistaken. Those films are shot in REAL TIME at 5,000 frames per second, and then slowed to 24 frames, the normal rate at which flim is played back. If you were to play it back at 5,000 frames per second, you would not be able to see the bullet or the egg shattering. It's not a question of "comfort". It has been scientifically PROVEN that is the speed where the human brain can process images in succession where the appear to be fluid and seamless. Experiments have been conducted for over the last CENTURY to prove this. Just because you don't believe it, doesn't make it invalid. "Perception" may be faster according to Mr. Allison, however the rate at which the images refresh is the same.

 

Secondly, as stated by Mr. Mineault, it's not a matter of human visual perception, so BZZZZZZZZT!! Strike two.

 

Lastly, it's not matter of "comfort", it's a matter of filmakers adjusting things like costuming, lighting, and other elements in order to maxmize 48 frames per second digital cameras and photography. Your "article" even says that outright.

 

Once again all you've provided is "NO! IT'S ONE WAY AND THAT'S IT!! IT CAN'T BE ANYWAY ELSE!!". Gamerdom has sold itself that 60 frames per second/hz is the benchmark, repeated it, and it's become a mantra now. Mr. Mineault has at least credited other scientific journals and studies. All I have is your "word" and your belief that somehow "gamer logic" can't be wrong.

 

Sorry, but until I see something more scientific, I'm not buying it, and I certainly don't buy that somehow that your claims of being able to discern anything above 40 fps is valid, especially when science has proven it's not.

Message 18 of 23 (138 Views)
Survivor
Registered: 04/26/2007
Offline
2532 posts
 

Re: Does PS4 have Graphic Standards?

Aug 25, 2013

"Most PS4 games if not all will be in 1080p or better."

 

Based on What?

 

"Nothing is stopping developers from making games in a lower resolution... unless Sony makes it mandatory."

 

That's my point, is there a standard or not?

 

"PS4 does have in-game music."

 

Based on What? Who said this & When? (As others have mentioned here, Sony said their Music Service Monthly Paying Subscribers would get in-game music, nobody else. There is no confirmation either way, however I'm not against paying for in-game music, but I want to play MY music not some limited Beiber playlists in the cloud.)

Photobucket


Monthly Subscription for Online Multiplayer is an Xbox Policy

Message 19 of 23 (113 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Ghost of Sparta
Registered: 05/27/2010
Online
13127 posts
 

Re: Does PS4 have Graphic Standards?

Aug 25, 2013
"Does ps4 have in game music?"
"Yes"
"OMFG how would you know you don't know nothing"


Frigen hate it when people do that
Are you a WWE fan? click here to join the discussion

Thanks Saviorsixtysix for the sig
Message 20 of 23 (111 Views)