Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Keith Hankin who wrote (17316)	2/9/1998 8:10:00 PM
From: damniseedemons	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

That's 111+ fps with Quake. But the point is, that game developers can make even better games (higher resolution, better scenery, more details, smoother, etc.) since they know that the hardware can keep up. So games that come out over the next 18 months or so will run at 30 fps, but will be much more lifelike than anything of today.

To: Keith Hankin who wrote (17316)	2/9/1998 9:19:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes	Respond to of 24154

>>>What's the point in having more than 30 fps? Isn't any more than 30 fps not detectable by the human eye?<<< Gross distinctions actually end at about 15 frames per second, if the picture is very steady. You can take some of those old films (circa 1900) at 16 fps, copy them to modern media with de-jittering software and projectors, and they seem quite steady when played. However, in movies, frames are often duplicated to reduce the flickering of the light itself. There are some very subtle effects in terms of perceived flatness, color saturation, or 3D realism that are fps-related. Having the aperture open twice as often gives you twice as much light, and so better color (and less of a headache, for some.) So for instance, some parts of Roger Rabbit were hand-animated at 24 fps, and then frame doubled to 48 fps, repeating once for each frame, and others were actually shot at higher rates. Some at lower, also. PC people get confused about this because of other issues. For one thing, they often have flourescent lighting, which interferes with anything less than non-interlaced 70+ Hertz screen refresh rate. On TV, since there is interlace, you need a higher frame rate because of the interference and jiggle from that. 29.97 fps is NTSC color TV. 25 fps for Europe. Movies are usually 24 fps or a multiple. 111 fps would indeed be useless, and would be impossible on the average monitor in fact. But this kind of power can be put to other good uses = better rendering, stereoscopy, etc. The steadiest picture is obtained by syncing with the refresh rate of the monitor, and making sure in that way that there is no 'tearing' of the 'blit.' This can be done at 15 fps or higher and it will look good. You can put a picture up there during one frame and repeat it 4 more times if the monitor is at 75 hz. This gives you rock-steady animation. But most game programmers don't have the ability to do this kind of sync. Some machines can't do it either, and Windows doesn't make it easier, but the platforms have been improving. Chaz