• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Is resolution or frames per second more important?

Emma

The Cassandra
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Location
Vegas
Okay except you are talking out of your backside. Of course 60fps has more information... 30 frames per second more. There are 30 extra images every second being displayed, you can't have the same effect in 30fps because it doesn't have those frames. You can even see it when you're playing a game and you really have no goddamn clue what you're talking about. Please for the love of god show me some credible study that proves humans do not see improved quality beyond 30fps because that's bull****. I used to actually believe that myth until I did some actual research.

You're not basing this on facts or reality. I also find it incredibly insulting that you think this is "faith base" for me especially considering you are aware of my technological background and also the fact that I used to believe the 30fps thing.

I've never heard anything as silly as "well there's more information". There HAS to be more information. It's 30 frames per second more.
I have a technological background too. Repairing computers was my job in high school. I've had programming experience for over a decade. I have worked with modding before which includes working with animation files. Experience in the field does not mean you are immune from disinformation. It happens all the time. And to assume you are immune from it is to invite manipulation. I have to say though your angry reaction and insistence that I'm "spewing lies" is typical faith-based belief defense. If you wish to not be thought of as holding a faith-based belief here then I suggest you act like it and instead of insults, try debating the subject matter instead of saying "no you're wrong because you're lying!" Be more rational than that.

More frames does not equal more information. That is what is just silly. What you're trying to do here is like trying to enlarge a pixelated image. Having more of it is not going to make it look better because the information in that image simply isn't there to be used when it is enlarged. With this situation, we're talking about the animations themselves.

Do you know what animations are? They are the frames. Animations are actually assigned frame by frame. "this is its position here, and in this next frame this is how everything is positioned." and so on for all frames. And for games made before the current gen as running at higher rates was not even feasible they limited this information to only 30 frames (and in some cases only 24), since making animations for 60 frames would have doubled the workload for animators and doubled the cost for doing the game's animation. They have to manually make an animation for every single frame you're trying to run at. Trying to run the game in question at a higher framerate than 30 will not do anything because there are no in between mesh assignments between those frames. So that means every other frame is literally going to be a copy of the frame before it. Not a "really close" but an actual copy because the animation files in the mesh don't have any information for what to do that frame.

Animations are much easier to understand if you think of them like how they were done before with sprites. Think about those. They were essentially fixed animated images with a limited number of frames. Think about that, what good would running at a higher framerate would have done for a sprite game? Absolutely nothing because there were just a limited number of frames even made in the sprite animations. Model animations are, while more complicated, essentially exactly the same thing.

Here's something to put it in perspective. Motion depicted in animation is not fluid. It isn't done with a command of "move here". They're done with actual assignments of exactly where they should be every frame. "Be here in this frame, then be here in that frame." This is exactly like digital audio versus analog audio. Here, look at this image:
Analog-Digital%20frequency%20examples.png

Here you see that an analog sound wave exactly replicates the original sound while the digital one is just an approximation. Animations work the same way since no one has yet developed a way to actually do analog animation on a computer (neither have they for analog sound either). It is not possible, with current technology, to replicate something like digitally exactly as it is in real life. It just isn't. The best we can do is approximate it. The animations in older games are like digital sound waves that have fewer steps to it. They simply are not full representations of the motion they're supposed to depict. Trying to run it faster isn't going to do anything because there is no information there to do it. Animation files in games made during this generation are like a digital sound wave that has twice the number of steps to it as before. It'll look much closer to the original, but in most circumstances you may not be able to tell the difference. As digital sounds have been indistinguishable from analog for a while. For the case of animations, having twice the number of steps means that there is an available assignment for twice as many frames so each frame at 60 fps is going to have information it can use so it can actually be different from the frames around it instead of just being a copy.

And since there is no visible difference between the framerates, despite what anyone claims, it is very easy for a modern game developer to cut corners and just use a 30 frame assignment in its animations instead of a 60 frame assignment to reduce the labor cost of hiring animators for twice as long.

All of this also means that running at higher than 60 frames is absolutely not going to do anything because so few systems are capable of it that no sane developer assigns that many frames in an animation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jamie

Till the roof comes off, till the lights go out...
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Gender
trans-pan-demi-ethno-christian-math-autis-genderfluid-cheesecake
Of course I know what animations are. Are you serious? That's incredibly condescending. A 30fps game running at 60fps is not going to make a difference, I'll just be repeat frames. But a genuine 60fps game with 60 individual frames WILL look smoother. Of course a genuine 60fps game (like the ones displayed on that website) holds more information, because it has 30 extra images being displayed /every second/, that's a hell of a lot more info. I'm a bit confused at your response to me because I quite clearly said 60fps is twice the amount of images, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to explain to me what animation is.

You're explaining things to me that you know I know, Matt. What I'm saying is that true 60fps is smoother than 30fps and CAN be registered by the human eye, and it seemed like you were arguing to the contrary. Yes, 60fps has more information. That's why it's beneficial.
 

Emma

The Cassandra
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Location
Vegas
Of course I know what animations are. Are you serious? That's incredibly condescending. A 30fps game running at 60fps is not going to make a difference, I'll just be repeat frames. But a genuine 60fps game with 60 individual frames WILL look smoother. Of course a genuine 60fps game (like the ones displayed on that website) holds more information, because it has 30 extra images being displayed /every second/, that's a hell of a lot more info. I'm a bit confused at your response to me because I quite clearly said 60fps is twice the amount of images, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to explain to me what animation is.
Well you're not the only person talking here. My response was not just for you. And it was important to say since a great many people think 60 fps helps on older games when it doesn't. It's only relevant with current gen games that are explicitly made with 60 fps in mind where 60 fps is actually an achieveable threshold with its target audience.

You're explaining things to me that you know I know, Matt. What I'm saying is that true 60fps is smoother than 30fps and CAN be registered by the human eye, and it seemed like you were arguing to the contrary. Yes, 60fps has more information. That's why it's beneficial.
We're still doing to have to disagree on this part. My post was explaining very explicitly why 30 and 60 don't work on older games. And it was explained with basic parts of animation which are undenable and industry standard so there is no proof issue. As for 30 vs 60 with animations made to support at least 60, yeah there's no denying it's very hard to prove. But here's the rub, there's no proof it is better either. There is no proof that the human eye can see at 60 fps. That is the claim. YOUR side is making the claim that we can see at 60 FPS or more. I'm rejecting that claim. Rejection of a claim doesn't require proof. However I'm entirely aware that most likely the claim will be reversed on me saying I'm making the claim and I can see how it'd look that way. So suffice it to say I think anyone who is really open minded about this wouldn't object to studies being done to figure out the truth beyond a reasonable doubt. They haven't been done really because it's become a taboo to question the idea that more frames is better. Mentalities like that hold back research all the time.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2013
Location
Australia
Well you're not the only person talking here. My response was not just for you. And it was important to say since a great many people think 60 fps helps on older games when it doesn't. It's only relevant with current gen games that are explicitly made with 60 fps in mind where 60 fps is actually an achieveable threshold with its target audience.
This assumes you are using a 60hz screen. If you are not then you'll lose some of the benefit of that 60 frames.
 

Emma

The Cassandra
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Location
Vegas
This assumes you are using a 60hz screen. If you are not then you'll lose some of the benefit of that 60 frames.

This actually is not an issue. But a proper explanation as to why will be complex. So....

Okay, fair warning, my post I'm going to make now is extremely technical.

But I'm a bit tired of people not believing me and thinking I am making it up. I'm going to go into a very technical explanation as to why there is no actual difference between 30 fps and 60 fps framerates and how people are actually confusing them with 30 Hz and 60 Hz refresh rates.

30 Hz displays don't really exist anymore. They haven't for quite some time. Certainly not as anything that ever had an HDMI port. So no modern TVs or computer monitors. The most common refresh rate is actually neither 30 Hz or 60 Hz. It's in fact 120 Hz. This is to accommodate the most common framerates of 24 fps, 30 fps, and 60 fps. Movies that play at 24 fps have to be stretched or sped up to run at other framerates, such as 50 Hz (used to be common in Pal regions), and NTSC movies played on Pal TVs would be sped up 4%. Since 120 is the least common multiple of 24, 30, and 60, it can play the common NTSC framerates without modification. Not being divisible by 24 means that a 60 Hz or 50 Hz display would cause something called a telecine judder (or simply a judder). This is a jerky quality where things seem to jump around a bit when they ought to be smooth, very noticable in slow sweeping motion scenes. You can also run into screen tearing, this is more common in video games, where some information from two different frames are shown on the screen at the same time.

Your TV and computer monitor are very likely running at 120 Hz. Note that running at 120 Hz doesn't mean that running at 120 fps is a good idea. They're separate things and they're meant for other things. That particular refresh rate is meant merely to be able to play different frame rates in prerecorded media with the least amount of modifying or stretching possible. A higher refresh rate means that your display has less fiddling it has to do to make things work so you'll see differences well beyond 60 Hz, which I think a lot of the confusion about 60 fps having a visible difference. While I maintain that you will see very little difference visually between 30 fps and 60 fps, you may, depending on exactly what you're doing, see a huge difference between 30 Hz and 60 Hz, and even a lot between 60 Hz and 120 Hz. But this has nothing to with the speed at which your eyes can pick things up but rather in the amount of tweaking that must be done to what is being displayed, with higher refresh rates meaning less that needs to be done so therefore there are less jarring things and fewer incidents of problems like screen tearing.

Having a refresh rate that matches or is an integer multiple of, the media you are watching or that matches the rate at which a game you are playing is capable of producing frames, will prevent both of these issues. Games' frames don't just magically appear, they have to be created by the game in real time. Games typically only produce frames at two rates these days. 30 fps or 60 fps. This is the reason why things will look choppy at 60 fps if you suddenly get a framerate drop even though when running at exactly 30 fps has absolutely no visible difference to running at 60 fps. It has absolutely nothing to do with the visual quality of the frames or the amount of frames there are, but with the framerate being out of sync with the refresh rate. When you're running at 54 frames (when you're supposed to be running 60 frames), that's not divisible by any common refresh rate so your computer/TV has to do tricks to get it to display, which creates juddering and screen tearing. This is the source of the belief that 60 fps is better when it really isn't.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2013
Location
Australia
This actually is not an issue. But a proper explanation as to why will be complex.
What you explained is 100% correct. And that's exactly what I meant when I made my comment. The tearing and juddering that occurs when you are in the 31-59 frames on a 60hz or 120hz screen. it's not a big issue anymore but it can theoretically happen. I was not confusing 60 fps with 60hz. Still thanks for explaining it all, I knew it all already but now everyone will.

Also my old CRT TV was 50hz. Not that made any big difference to anything but just so you know. But this was decades ago so it does not even matter anymore. I used it from the SNES to the GC era. I do reemember some GC games stating on the box they only worked with 60HZ TVs, not 50hz ones. I'm sure they did just not 100% perfectly for the resasons you stated above.
 

Emma

The Cassandra
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Location
Vegas
What you explained is 100% correct. And that's exactly what I meant when I made my comment. The tearing and juddering that occurs when you are in the 31-59 frames on a 60hz or 120hz screen. it's not a big issue anymore but it can theoretically happen. I was not confusing 60 fps with 60hz. Still thanks for explaining it all, I knew it all already but now everyone will.
This is exactly why I insist that locking into 30 fps is better than trying to gun for 60 fps. with current technology 60 fps is difficult to achieve so you're not going to be able to avoid falling in the 31 to 59 range. It's just inevitable. So, if you lock your framerate at 30 fps, then no matter what exact framerate your game could be running it'll always be at 30 fps regardless of any drops in framerates because those drops will be in that 31 to 59 range which the game will ignore if it is locked at 30. Meaning that invariably a game on a modern console or equivalent computer will always, ALWAYS play more smoothly when locked in at 30 fps. To get 60 fps to have the same kind of stability will take much more power than the current consoles can provide and what the typical person can afford in a PC. So it'll be at least another generation before it's feasible. Perhaps two more.

Also my old CRT TV was 50hz. Not that made any big difference to anything but just so you know. But this was decades ago so it does not even matter anymore. I used it from the SNES to the GC era. I do reemember some GC games stating on the box they only worked with 60HZ TVs, not 50hz ones. I'm sure they did just not 100% perfectly for the resasons you stated above.
Oh those CRTs. Great weren't they? Yeah. everything today is at least 120 Hz and some are 240 Hz, in NTSC areas. And 100 or 200 Hz in PAL territories. The CRTs we had right before they were phased out all ran at either 60 Hz or 50 Hz depending whether they were NTSC or PAL. PAL monitors had to speed adjust 24 fps movies and NTSC had to do a 3:2 pulldown which gave you some telecine judder. Newer TVs are all 120 Hz/100 Hz to reduce some of these issues. Though you're still going to have trouble running NTSC movies on PAL monitors since 24 doesn't divide into 100 or 200.
 
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Location
Milwaukee WI
Gender
half centaur
I've been using a 1440p IPS monitor for like 3 years now, and I did this at the cost of only being 60hz. I am very happy with my choice though. Though now I'd probably get these new acer or asus monitors that are 1440p + 144hz + ips etc.
 

CrimsonCavalier

Fuzzy Pickles
Joined
Mar 27, 2015
Location
United States
Gender
XY
I prefer smooth framerate over higher resolution 9 times out of 10. These days, with a lot of TVs being made for high-def, it can be a bit annoying playing an older game and it looking smeared and muddy, but for the most part, it doesn't bother me. I've never been a graphic-junkie. I still go back and play older games and enjoy them, SD graphics and all.
 

Manaburn

Graphics Artist
Joined
Sep 28, 2015
I would rather have a smooth framerate instead of high resolution if there wasn't a compromise.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom