Jump to content



Photo

Digital Foundry: Hands-on with PlayStation 4

ps4 digital foundry playstation 4 hands-on sony

  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#16 The_Decryptor

The_Decryptor

    STEAL THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

  • Tech Issues Solved: 5
  • Joined: 28-September 02
  • Location: Sol System
  • OS: iSymbian 9.2 SP24.8 Mars Bar

Posted 20 June 2013 - 11:43

I'm not really surprised honestly, half these games aren't finished and are still getting optimised for the finished hardware (While they would have had dev kits for a while, the actual finished hardware itself is quite new)

The human eye can technically detect up to 1000 fps, but the commonly "accepted" number is 150 fps.


Human eyes don't see in distinct "frames" though, depending on the person and the situation you can get people who can see extremely quick visual changes (Something like 1/1200th of a second)

How many we can technically see vs how many are needed in order to create the illusion of motion are two different questions. In the context of games (like my comment), 30 is more than enough to do this. So I don't understand why people believe 60 will look better. I have seen games run at both, and it's almost impossible to tell the difference.
...


It's certainly not "impossible" to see the difference between 30fps and 60fps, the difference is huge. Look at all the complaints with the Hobbit, because it went from 24fps to 48fps (And so the motion was much smoother, too smooth for some people), the only reason we consider such low framerates to be "ok" is because they're either blurred to hell and back, or we're just used to them (As is the case with games on consoles, we've had the last 7-8 years to get used to them struggling to hit 30fps).


#17 soniqstylz

soniqstylz

    Neowin Trophy Slore

  • Joined: 30-September 06
  • Location: In your panty drawer

Posted 20 June 2013 - 13:13

Here's a question for those knowledgeable on these things... Why is it always 30fps or 60fps? Why not 40fps, 45fps or 50fps?

 

I'm not bothered myself, as I barely notice the different from 30fps to 60fps. I'd be happy with there just being no slowdowns in any titles (looking at Codemasters).

 

I also wonder if anything will be gained when the games are being run as finished products on finished hardware? My little experience with developing a Windows 8 game say yes, but a WinJS game is far removed from anything on consoles.

Refresh rates on televisions tend to run in numbers divisible by 30.



#18 Astra.Xtreme

Astra.Xtreme

    Electrical Engineer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 5
  • Joined: 02-January 04
  • Location: Milwaukee, WI

Posted 20 June 2013 - 14:57

Human eyes don't see in distinct "frames" though, depending on the person and the situation you can get people who can see extremely quick visual changes (Something like 1/1200th of a second)

 

I never said eyes see in "frames".  I simply stated the medical fact that human eyes can distinguish the difference in fps up to 150 and the brain has the capacity to perceive up to 1000 fps.

 

The person I quoted said humans can't tell the difference of anything over 30 fps, and that's completely false.


How many we can technically see vs how many are needed in order to create the illusion of motion are two different questions. In the context of games (like my comment), 30 is more than enough to do this. So I don't understand why people believe 60 will look better. I have seen games run at both, and it's almost impossible to tell the difference.

 

The brain and the eyes are two different entities.  The brain can perceive data coming in at up to 1000 fps, but the eyes generally can't tell the difference over 150 fps.  Maybe you don't have great vision, but it's extremely easy to see the difference of 30 fps vs 60 fps.

 

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html



#19 spacer

spacer

    I'm awesome

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 09-November 06
  • Location: Connecticut, USA
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: Nexus 4

Posted 20 June 2013 - 15:16

My point was and is that yes, you CAN see differences if you're specifically looking for them or are looking at them side-by-side. But who is actually doing that while they're playing a game? I certainly don't. I'm more interested in what's happening in the game rather than noticing a bit of motion blur when you turn too fast. That's especially true with multiplayer games.

 

So I don't see what the big deal is that the PS4 launch games are "only" running at 1080p30. It will still look great, And as long as it's smooth, I don't care.

 

Would it be better/nice if they were running at 1080p60? Of course, but they're not all of a sudden sh-- because they're aren't.



#20 JonnyLH

JonnyLH

    I say things.

  • Joined: 15-February 13
  • Location: UK
  • OS: W8, W7, WP8, iOS, Ubuntu
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 20 June 2013 - 15:24

My point was and is that yes, you CAN see differences if you're specifically looking for them or are looking at them side-by-side. But who is actually doing that while they're playing a game? I certainly don't. I'm more interested in what's happening in the game rather than noticing a bit of motion blur when you turn too fast. That's especially true with multiplayer games.

 

So I don't see what the big deal is that the PS4 launch games are "only" running at 1080p30. It will still look great, And as long as it's smooth, I don't care.

 

Would it be better/nice if they were running at 1080p60? Of course, but they're not all of a sudden sh-- because they're aren't.

 

It matters because all the competitions games are running at 1080p 60fps and has been confirmed. This includes Ryse, Forza 5, MGS5, Titanfall and ALL of EA's games including BF4. They stated it numerous times in their press conference.

 

All of the PS4's games are struggling to hit 30fps. Its a very worrying issue this late on the development cycle, it really is.