Overclock.net › Forums › Video Games › PC Gaming › How far off is 4K gaming REALLY? Being totally honest and reasonable
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How far off is 4K gaming REALLY? Being totally honest and reasonable - Page 6

post #51 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow11377 View Post

The reason movies are smooth at 24 FPS is because you do not interact with it, and the frames are displayed consistently.
[...]

And btw, the human eye is not limited to FPS. It is a constant stream, and can definitely notice higher frame-rates.

The frame from a camera is also not something that captures a single, sharp snapshot of the 3D game-world like in a video game. Instead, the camera captured light from the moment it opened its shutter until the moment it closed its shutter, an infinite amount of moments of the world between those to points in time.

I think the way the camera records film interacts with what you said about how the eye and brain works. The brain sees the motion blur the camera recorded in the frames, making it not notice the framerate.
post #52 of 88
The stalwart 60Hz crowd that was present in the CRT days is hilariously still just as strong now. Anyone who had a Vsynced 100Hz aperture grille knew better of course, but sadly we're still in the minority.

You'd think that in 2014, after the years of work on Mark's blur busters that the misinformation from the 60hz crowd would have ended tongue.gif
Main
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 4670K @ 4.7Ghz [1.284v] Z87X-UD4H [F7] MSI GTX 1070 Gaming X 2x4GB Samsung MV-3V4G3; 10-10-10-28 @ 2133Mhz [... 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Samsung 850 Pro 256GB 1x Crucial M500 960GB 1x WD4003FZEX 1x WD30EFRX 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
NH-D14 3x A15s @ 600RPM 2x Phanteks F140SP BBK (front), SFF21E (bottom) Win 10 Pro x64 Catleap 2B @ 119hz +1 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
U3014 eVGA 750G2 Fractal R5 - Blackout Edition MS WMO 1.1a 
Mouse PadAudio
fUnc 1030 Creative Sound Blaster Z 
  hide details  
Reply
Main
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 4670K @ 4.7Ghz [1.284v] Z87X-UD4H [F7] MSI GTX 1070 Gaming X 2x4GB Samsung MV-3V4G3; 10-10-10-28 @ 2133Mhz [... 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Samsung 850 Pro 256GB 1x Crucial M500 960GB 1x WD4003FZEX 1x WD30EFRX 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
NH-D14 3x A15s @ 600RPM 2x Phanteks F140SP BBK (front), SFF21E (bottom) Win 10 Pro x64 Catleap 2B @ 119hz +1 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
U3014 eVGA 750G2 Fractal R5 - Blackout Edition MS WMO 1.1a 
Mouse PadAudio
fUnc 1030 Creative Sound Blaster Z 
  hide details  
Reply
post #53 of 88
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinaesthetic View Post

You say you have a degree in Psychology? Well you might want to actually brush up on Biology, because a psych degree has utterly nothing to do with how your brain works on a physical level.

Everyone has different thresholds in maximum discernible motion. There is utterly no such thing as 30 fps being the max that the eye can see. Why? Because the eyes don't work on the level of FPS. People are EASILY able to discern the difference between 30 fps, 60 fps, and 120 fps. Why? Because the interpolation of images that our eyes send to our brain from your monitor (and I thought you knew this because you had a degree in Psychology).

The more data that your brain is presented, the less your brain is having to essentially interpolate what is being shown. 30Hz means that every refresh cycle (generally on a level of 1 second), you are having the image refresh 30 times within that cycle. 60Hz, 60 refreshes within that cycle. 120Hz, 120 refreshes within that cycle.

You are literally being fed more information to your brain, so your brain is quite literally guessing less to perceive motion. That leads to better motion clarity (less motion blur), and a more enjoyable experience (my personal opinion, and many others).

Since you are in a STEM, I implore you to actually go out and do some research on the topic. Because right now, you are spouting the same stuff that Arxontas said about 2 weeks ago, which I had to get into literally the same argument.

And if you really want to get into actual Biology, there are approximately 1.2 million optic nerve fibers capable of carrying electrical pulses to our brain (in other words, information). And to say that a human can only discern 30/60 Hz is ridiculous. There literally is no limit.

And if you want to get even further into Biology, there are two ways your brain perceives motion. One is Global motion, in other words your brain tracks a large area. Or Local motion, in which your brain tracks a focused area. Of which viewing "motion" on a monitor falls in the latter.

And I beg you, please don't pull an Arxontas. I REALLY don't want to have the same argument again.
oh really? do you have a biology or psychology
degree

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate

I wrote abstracts to academic research reports for my professors on the topic of cognition. perception is an important part of cognition. I was using language comparing frame rates to the eye. your eyes don't see in frames, but the comparison works. and the amount of nerve fibers you have is irrelevant. the threshold for neural activity is a set amount at 70 millivolts. this is time regulated.

learn2brain
Edited by Thready - 3/28/14 at 8:28am
Zen
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-6600k Gigabyte Z170XP-SLI RX 480 4GB 24 GB DDR4 2133MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 850 evo OCZ Vertex 4 Crucial MX 500 256GB WD Black 3 TB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Seagate 1 TB H60 Windows 10 Asus mx27a 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
hp 2009 m Corsair MR Brown Antec Earthwatts 650 Razer Naga 
Audio
Soundblaster Omni 
  hide details  
Reply
Zen
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-6600k Gigabyte Z170XP-SLI RX 480 4GB 24 GB DDR4 2133MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 850 evo OCZ Vertex 4 Crucial MX 500 256GB WD Black 3 TB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Seagate 1 TB H60 Windows 10 Asus mx27a 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
hp 2009 m Corsair MR Brown Antec Earthwatts 650 Razer Naga 
Audio
Soundblaster Omni 
  hide details  
Reply
post #54 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thready View Post

oh really? do you have a biology or psychology
degree

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate

The 10 to 12 images mentioned at the start of the Wikipedia article is about the brain actually decoding a scenery such as what kind of objects there are.

The eye and brain do not have a frame rate. Things are flowing as a continuous stream of input. Film looks fine to a human because the frames are motion blurred. Additionally, the camera man takes care to never record movements that will break the illusion of fluid motion.

Towards the end of the article, where the talk is about computer graphics, it's mentioned that motion blur will make things appear more fluid. That's where the 120Hz screens and games running at 120 fps come in. The eyes and brain will perceive things moving smoother.
post #55 of 88
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by deepor View Post

The 10 to 12 images mentioned at the start of the Wikipedia article is about the brain actually decoding a scenery such as what kind of objects there are.

The eye and brain do not have a frame rate. Things are flowing as a continuous stream of input. Film looks fine to a human because the frames are motion blurred. Additionally, the camera man takes care to never record movements that will break the illusion of fluid motion.

Towards the end of the article, where the talk is about computer graphics, it's mentioned that motion blur will make things appear more fluid. That's where the 120Hz screens and games running at 120 fps come in. The eyes and brain will perceive things moving smoother.
I realize we don't see in frames but if we did it would be ~30 +/- 15. the decoding is the slowest part of perception. a 60 Hz monitor running at 60Hz is the maximum that we can see. this argument even came up at school because people are so passionate. if I would have told you that we all have the same threshold for sound, most people would accept that. but because we live primarily through our eyes then people try to outsmart the brain. but this discussion is about 4K at 60fps
Zen
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-6600k Gigabyte Z170XP-SLI RX 480 4GB 24 GB DDR4 2133MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 850 evo OCZ Vertex 4 Crucial MX 500 256GB WD Black 3 TB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Seagate 1 TB H60 Windows 10 Asus mx27a 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
hp 2009 m Corsair MR Brown Antec Earthwatts 650 Razer Naga 
Audio
Soundblaster Omni 
  hide details  
Reply
Zen
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-6600k Gigabyte Z170XP-SLI RX 480 4GB 24 GB DDR4 2133MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 850 evo OCZ Vertex 4 Crucial MX 500 256GB WD Black 3 TB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Seagate 1 TB H60 Windows 10 Asus mx27a 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
hp 2009 m Corsair MR Brown Antec Earthwatts 650 Razer Naga 
Audio
Soundblaster Omni 
  hide details  
Reply
post #56 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thready View Post


I realize we don't see in frames but if we did it would be ~30 +/- 15. the decoding is the slowest part of perception. a 60 Hz monitor running at 60Hz is the maximum that we can see. this argument even came up at school because people are so passionate. if I would have told you that we all have the same threshold for sound, most people would accept that. but because we live primarily through our eyes then people try to outsmart the brain. but this discussion is about 4K at 60fps

 

1) The human eye doesn't perceive motion on the scale of Hz/fps/whatever-the-heck-you-want-to-call-it. The human eye tracks objects within its FOV, and sends the electrical impulses that have been triggered by our rods/cones through the optic nerve into your visual cortex, where your brain essentially decodes that electrical impulse, which is what you perceive as sight, where the impulses that are sent by cones provide color information to your brain, and the rods provide provide an actual image and track motion.

 

 

2) I don't think you fundamentally understand what a Hz i. Hz is the measure of one cycle per second (although it has been associated with other time measurements than seconds). For a 60 Hz monitor, your monitor refreshes 60 times within a second. For 120Hz, 120 refreshes within a second. Your monitor isn't displaying motion like you see in real life. You are seeing still images that are rendered to your monitor extremely fast. And your brain takes those images, and perceives it as motion. That is the process known as interpolation. Interpolation is the process of taking what is known, and creating data to fill in the gaps. That is what your brain functions to perceive something that is normally still, as something in motion. There is utterly no hard upper limit to this process, although some say that the minimum rate to see something in motion is 10-15 fps (+/-2).

 

3) Decoding. I honestly don't think you understand how fast information is moving in your brain. Your neural pathways transmit electrical impulses @ ~100 meters per second. The distance from your optic nerves (of which there are over a million optic nerves capable of transmitting electrical impulses to your brain) to your brain is about 2-3cm (+/- 1cm). Probably even less to be honest, as no one has actually taken a proper averaged measurement.

 

4) Back to Hz/fps. Frames per second, is just that. How many frames are drawn within a second. Or a Hz. They are intrinsically similar, but not the same. You can have a 120Hz monitor running at 60 frames per second. That means that although your monitor is refreshing the image shown on the display every 8.33ms, your frame is staying up within two refreshes cycles. That means that information is being updated to your brain every 16.6ms, rather than 8.33ms. On a 120Hz monitor, displaying at 120 fps, your brain will be receiving a refresh of information every 8.33ms. That leads to your brain not having to guess as much as to what is happening during the time of each refresh. You are quite literally being fed more information. Because your brain is guessing less when trying to piece together what we call motion off those still frames, you perceive less blur (motion blur in this case), and visually, the image is smoother. Why? Because you are receiving more information.

 

5) Threshold for sound: No. Every human being has a different sound threshold to begin with. Not a single human being is the same. Yes, there is a defined, but not concrete minima of your auditory threshold at about 12Hz. And a defined, but not concrete maxima of about 20KHz.

 

 

Put it this way. Right now, I fear for anyone who would actually go to you for any therapy, because you haven't taken the time to understand fundamentals of how we, as humans, operate.

 

There is no limit. There will be no limit. Because no single person is the same.

 

And yes, I've now classified you as bad as Arxontas. Because the only reason I'm even arguing this with you is because I don't want someone on Google to search up this topic, find this thread, and receive wrong information. Because you are so unbelievably wrong. And I get really ticked off at how thick headed some people are because they refuse to do any research on the subject. And for the love of it, you are in a STEM field. Which means you should actually be taking the time to research before you post.


Edited by Kinaesthetic - 3/28/14 at 9:25am
post #57 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow11377 View Post

Yeah, though resolution has quite a huge role in performance, I noticed when going from 1280x720 to 1080 my FPS was actually not halved, as I expected it would be. Ended up staying with my 550 Ti instead of buying a 670, since I'm always above 100FPS average in all of my games. Also, the 550 Ti can manage decent FPS at 5760x1080 which shocked me.

i miss my 550tis haha was playing utlra on bf3 at 75 fps.

going from 1280x720 to 2560x1440 would almost half your performance since its exactly double the resolution and max out your 1gb of vram..

but for me going from 1080 ->1440 only dropped my fps a little bit but nothing major
 
Spare Rig
(14 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
amd fx 6300 asrock extreme 3 r2.0 gtx 650 9800gtx+ 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
corsair Seagate Barracuda arctic freezer extreme rev 2 windows 7 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
samsung 22" azza precision pro xion 700w Thermaltake Commander 
MouseOther
azza 935u 2 case fans 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Spare Rig
(14 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
amd fx 6300 asrock extreme 3 r2.0 gtx 650 9800gtx+ 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
corsair Seagate Barracuda arctic freezer extreme rev 2 windows 7 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
samsung 22" azza precision pro xion 700w Thermaltake Commander 
MouseOther
azza 935u 2 case fans 
  hide details  
Reply
post #58 of 88
25% of a games visuals in FPS titles is a 2D sky box with a texture not much larger overall than 2k , therefore 25% of the power people think they need, they normally don't

yes 4k is viable playing 1080p designed games rendered at 4k natively


but is 4k viable running models and textures increased in complexity to enjoy the benefits of the extra pixels and colour ? ...
post #59 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thready View Post

I realize we don't see in frames but if we did it would be ~30 +/- 15. the decoding is the slowest part of perception. a 60 Hz monitor running at 60Hz is the maximum that we can see. this argument even came up at school because people are so passionate. if I would have told you that we all have the same threshold for sound, most people would accept that. but because we live primarily through our eyes then people try to outsmart the brain. but this discussion is about 4K at 60fps

I pondered what to suggest so that you can see it for yourself, the difference between 60Hz+60fps compared to something higher like 100Hz.

An idea for a very simple experiment that I got was this:

Take your mouse cursor and move it in circles over some black or white area on your screen. Move the mouse very fast. What do you see?

Imagine an object looking like the mouse pointer moving in circles in the real world. How would that look like to your eyes in comparison?

Now think about what a 120Hz screen would show compared to a 60Hz screen. The picture that would be impressed on your eyes would still not at all be like what happens in the real world for moving objects and your eyes.

Think about what a hypothetical screen with hundreds of Hz would do together with Windows and the graphics driver drawing the mouse pointer at hundreds of fps.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I came up with other ideas like a computer graphics video that's running at 60fps and showing the difference between motion blur and no motion blur. I could not find anything like that.

There's Quake 3 videos at normal, low frame rate (24 fps?) that used something like 1000 fps recordings of a demo file to create perfect motion blur, but I think there's no 60fps version.

Edited by deepor - 3/28/14 at 9:43am
post #60 of 88
Whats interesting is the TV price drops already occurring. I think it will not be 3 years. The development cycles are alot faster now.

That said the 4K Movie/TV & content market is not so clear. That's the only thing I see stalling this and that's from a media standpoint not the hardware. There's Sony and who else?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PC Gaming
Overclock.net › Forums › Video Games › PC Gaming › How far off is 4K gaming REALLY? Being totally honest and reasonable