Frame rate puzzle

[ajlaban]

As a recent purchaser of Jim's wonderful aquarium program and having read a lot of the posts on this site, I find myself puzzled by the fps obsession.

I am running the aquarium on a Sony Viao Pentium I 233, 64 mg, All in Wonder 4 mg. On my machine the fish swim very smoothly, look fantastic, no banding except on the background. Yet my fps=10 in full screen mode and 21 fps in windowed mode with all 7 fish. The fps goes up a bit with fewer fish but nothing that affects the overall appearance.

Now my question: Many posters are showing fps up to 200 and I've seen no one that admits to an fps as low as mine, what good is all of the extra fps?

Great job Jim! I am looking forward to a future release (just downloaded 99H) which will make it possible not to switch from 24 bit to 16 bit to run the program.

[Shinsa]

To answer the frame rate puzzle you need to understand a little about the human eye. The human eye can only transmit info to the brain so fast. I do not remember the exact speed, but it would relate to about 24 Frames Per Second, hence, the reason movie film moves at that rate. Showing 24 pictures every second. In theory, anything above this a person could not see the difference. The only reason it is better to have faster frame rates is when CPU intensive activity takes place, the fps will drop. So keeping a high frame rate, lets say 200 fps would be great, if your computer had to drop half the frames to do something else at the same time. That would still leave you with 100 fps, still well over what the human eye can detect.

(one note: A computer monitor and a movie screen are completely different. I am assuming the same effect will happen here. It is possible it is different, because I can tell when my refresh rate is higher than 60 Hz or not) [anyone qualified with an answer?]

Now, in answer to your 10 fps fish. You really should see some kind of stutter or jerkiness. It may not me bad, but it should be noticeable. It would look almost strobed. The card you have should be able to show at least 30 fps, if not more. You will honestly see a difference, much more life like appearance.

[feldon34]

Shinsa,

This is an EXTREMELY common falsity about the human eye and your brain's ability to see motion. It rather infuriates me whenever I see it.

The human eye CAN perceive motion with as few as 15 still images or frames per second. This does not mean that your eye cannot see the noticable improvement in 24 (film), 25 (European TV), 30 (North American/Japanese TV), 45 (IMAX films), 60 (flourescent light bulbs and default computer monitor refresh), 75 or beyond.

Most people can see a markable improvement all the way up to 60 frames per second. And as far as 'refresh', film double-clicks every frame, so when you watch a movie in a theater, it is really 48 frames per second, with each frame doubled. And a computer monitor adjusted from 60 Hz to 75 Hz, 85 Hz, or beyond will greatly reduce incedance (sp?) of headaches (I can tell a big difference, it looks super sharp and no flicker at all, where 60 Hz refresh I can see the difference).

20-25 fps looks good for the fish, but jump to 42 fps and I can tell you it starts to look real, and you suddenly miss the extra framerate when you see the 20-25. I get 42fps at home and get 24fps at my dad's place.

Sorry for the rant, but I want people to know, despite this hugely popular myth that "humans can only see 24fps", developers wouldn't be wasting their time trying to get higher framerates if it didn't matter. Developing software costs money. If it didn't give any benefit, they'd move on to other things besides trying to go beyond 24fps.

Another thing you really notice is DROPS in framerate. A game is better if it keeps 30fps solid the whole time than if it runs at 60fps and drops to 25-30 on complex scenes.

[ajlaban]

Shinsa,

Thanks for the response. I really see no jerkiness, stutter or strobing. Based on everything I've read here, I'm surprised I don't. Is it possible my frame rate is actually higher than 10 but for some reason the true number is not registering?

Also, you say I should be getting 30 fps from my card -- any ideas on how I can do that?

[Jim Sachs]

The frame rate is a little higher when the statistics are not displayed. So displaying the frame rate changes the frame rate, like the Heisenberg principle

[Digital Lungfish]

Something else to consider, there are a lot of people out there that have yet to see anything higher than their current FPS.

So if you're getting say 10-20 and you've never seen 30, 40, or even 60, then you have nothing to compare your's to. So as far as you're concerned, your's looks just fine. Trust me, once you've seen 60 or higher, you'll notice a significant difference.

I'm still amazed at how many people there are using PC's at work that have their refresh set to a default of 60 and don't even notice the flicker. Gives me headaches just looking at it.

- DL

[Shinsa]

Feldon,

I concede.... I never bothered to look the info up for myself. I'm guilty of shoddy science on this one. Something that irritates me too. I was simply regurgitating what I remember reading about movies.

I, too, have noticed and can see a difference in 60 Hz and there abouts. And yes DL, it gives me a head ache too. I also made the distinction in my comment that I think there may be a difference in frame rates between a movie projector, and a computer monitor. The frame rate is the only factor in the movies, while a monitor also has to deal with flicker from the Hz.

I think from what I remember about the frame rates in movies is that the eye can only react to light at a given speed (I will not even try to guess at that). And that the movie frames are "blending" together to create a smooth affect in the human eye.

One reason for using higher frame rates though is very simple. Watch what happens in a film with a lot of action. When the movie camera moves quickly in the same direction of the shutter in the camera (I assume it is the shutter causing this) you can see a strobe effect. Its hard to describe. I have noticed it from time to time. I think faster frame rates help reduce the effect.

Double frames? I never new that....

OK, there's my completely un-educated spin on that. I'm sure to be enlightened where I am wrong, but since I really do not know much other than what I see for my self, I welcome the retort!

[feldon34]

As you can see in film, 24fps is fine for most things, but for fast motion, it's a bit inadequate. Especially when the camera is moving quickly. It has a blur and a strobing to it.

Still, the image quality and "film effect" which is the nice appearance of it draws TV producers every year to film on 35mm film and then transfer. I can name a few dozen TV shows that are shot on film because of the difference. ER for example, and most of CBS's shows (which explains why the switch to HDTV was so quick for them).

[Shinsa]

Sorry to get side tracked away from the Aquarium...

But it will be very interesting to see what happens to the sets. On a normal TV, you can not see fine details at all.

With HDTV you will be able to see background items like never before. For instance, be able to read that Doctors Diploma on the wall behind the desk... Most shows just put any old mock up in there. Some show have jokes about the other cast members up there...

[feldon34]

The best part about HDTV is displaying movies on DVD. With a $400+ 'Progressive Scan' DVD player, it is almost always capable of reconstructing the original 24 frame per second film image and sending it to the HDTV preserved in that format. It's kind of hard to explain beyond this. If you'd like more info on home theater purchases (I sure don't have the money for it!) e-mail me!

I can say that *don't buy a progressive scan DVD player right now* if you can help it. They just came out with a new engine/brains for it which does a much better job. The first DVD player with it had a severe bug which renders the gains useless (Denon 2800), the next DVD player with it is still not out yet (Toshiba 4700).

Sorry to ramble. We're straying really off-topic!

I have a tnt2 32 mb with detonator 3 driver, and I only get 28fps. I'm at 1280 x 1024 resolution. I have a PIII 700. When I installed the detonator 3 driver my fps went up from 24 to 28, does anyone know how I can increase my fps? It does seem like the fish swim more smoothly, maybe since i'm at the border of what the human eye can pick up. Or maybe I'm just imagining, but I am curious to see what the aquarium looks like at 30 or 40 fps. Any help would be appreciated.

Steve

So displaying the frame rate changes the frame rate, like the Heisenberg principle

Excellent, Jim.

I have a HERCULE 3d prophet mx,and my frame rates are beetween 75 and 110 FPS,excellent card for $99 US.

[feldon34]

smg9779,

WHICH Detonator drivers? nVidia seems to produce 3 bad drivers, then 1 good driver, then 3 bad drivers, etc.

I highly suggest the 6.47 drivers at www.reactorcritical.com (click Downloads on the left and get the ones for your system, either Windows 98/Me or 2000).

[Jav400]

smg9779,
That fps at 1280x1024 sounds low to me. I am running a TNT2 Ultra card with the Det.3 v6.50 drivers. Morgan doesn't like the v6.50, I haven't had any problems from them, but maybe I'm just the odd man out that got lucky. Now admittedly I have made some changes to my system. I started with a P3 600mhz, which I got in Sept. of '99. Today I flashed the BIOS and installed a new CPU and am now up to 1 GhZ. On the video card I use NVMAX to tweak out some things, and have also overclocked it to 180 on the core and 220 on the ram. Up from 150 and 180. I normally run at 1600x1200 and get about 60 - 63 fps. When I step down to 1280x1024 I jump to slightly over 100 fps. These results I got before the CPU change, but with the overclocking on the video card. I know the Ultra and the OC I have done will make differences, and I could be wrong........but still I think you should be seeing faster fps on that card. I am now looking foward to a GeForce3 installation to see what I gain then.

[Shinsa]

Wow... and to think I thought I should be getting better frame rates with my Voodoo5. I guess 130 FPS at 1280x1024 isn't too bad then?

The King is dead, LONG LIVE THE KING!