I don't really think N64 is THAT impressive, graphics-wise. In MY Humble opinion.
James Arguello
You know, after all this hype and junk about the N64, it ain't all to
what its cracked up to be. Is this REALLY 64 bit? I mean it can display
the same amout of polygons per second of a Saturn or PSX. Actually the
frame rate on most N64 games look kind of choppy. You know. A N64 seems
very close in performance to my PC which has a Pentium 66, 40 megs of
ram(hey, prices are a droppin'), a 6x cd-drive, AND a Stealth 3D 2000
with S3 ViRGE, and 2MB EDO DRAM. It can do all that stuff N64 can do like
fuzzing up objects and textures to make them look smoother. And let me
tell you, that demo of Descent 2 sure looks mighty neat-o on my ol' P66
with an acceptable frame rate. Some objects on N64 games do tend to look
blocky. Besides my Stealth 3D cost only $199 and it was a snap to
install! Shadows of the Empire? Dark Forces 2 sure looks better to me.
Also another reason why I don't need to blow my bucks on my bucks on N64
is, my Saturn. Their winter line up has plenty of neat stuff. Virtual On
is a game that sure shows what that neat little black box can do. Not
only in just graphics but innovation. Its also FUN man! Mario 64 has some
flaws that kinda bring down the fun factor like wandering around, getting
lost in large enviornments and constantly shifting your camera angle to
get a good view. So don't worry Saturn and PSX owners. N64 is equal I
think to your systems, power-wise. Besides. I'm still waiting to see
something that moves 60 fps on a N64, something which Saturn and PSX have
already accomplished. But still. N64 is available for free play at Toy's
R Us so just see what you think. But still. I'm not really wetting my
pants over how neat N64 can joly out 3-D.
Jeter
Hmm,Maybe your TV is screwed only thing i can think of. Besides that as
they have said in the past the n64 uses a SGI Thats Silicon Graphics. I
dunno if you know who that is or not go look it up see how much 1 of those
workstations that render will cost ya.N64 renders there graphic's such as
mario. Put him on PSX or Saturn and i am pretty sure what you'll see is a
pixelated Character yet on a n64 he is fully rendered. All i know is there
is nothing that compares to SM64 on a good tv with surround sound with the
AV cable hookup. Playing at the store gives no justificated for itself...
--
William
=================================
emmit...@geocities.com
=================================
*N64 and Nothing more*
James Arguello <cmdr...@aol.com> wrote in article
<324E01...@aol.com>...
Richard T Jordan
I
>You know, after all this hype and junk about the N64, it ain't all to
>what its cracked up to be. Is this REALLY 64 bit? I mean it can
display
>the same amout of polygons per second of a Saturn or PSX.
Yes it does, but that's with ALL the effects turned on compared to
the PSX and Saturn with NO effects.
Actually the
>frame rate on most N64 games look kind of choppy. You know. A N64
seems
>very close in performance to my PC which has a Pentium 66, 40 megs of
>ram(hey, prices are a droppin'), a 6x cd-drive, AND a Stealth 3D 2000
>with S3 ViRGE, and 2MB EDO DRAM. It can do all that stuff N64 can do
like
> fuzzing up objects and textures to make them look smoother. And let
me
>tell you, that demo of Descent 2 sure looks mighty neat-o on my ol'
P66
>with an acceptable frame rate.
Don't forget the N64 is a 200 dollar console, not a 5000 dollar PC.
This is an affordable medium for games for the general gaming
population. Not everyone can even shell out $200 for a N64, let alone
the thousands of dollars required for a top-of-the-line PC.
Some objects on N64 games do tend to look
>blocky. Besides my Stealth 3D cost only $199 and it was a snap to
>install! Shadows of the Empire? Dark Forces 2 sure looks better to me.
Have you seen the improved SOTE video lately? It's been improved
greatly since the E3 show....but then again, we will see the nature of
these comments stemming from the paragraph below....
> Also another reason why I don't need to blow my bucks on my bucks on
N64
>is, my Saturn. Their winter line up has plenty of neat stuff. Virtual
On
>is a game that sure shows what that neat little black box can do. Not
>only in just graphics but innovation. Its also FUN man! Mario 64 has
some
>flaws that kinda bring down the fun factor like wandering around,
getting
>lost in large enviornments and constantly shifting your camera angle
to
>get a good view.
Don't you just hate it when people make expansive 3D worlds that
are interactive? >:)
So don't worry Saturn and PSX owners. N64 is equal I
>think to your systems, power-wise.
Heheheheheh, oh really?
Besides. I'm still waiting to see
>something that moves 60 fps on a N64,
Try KI Gold.
something which Saturn and PSX have
>already accomplished.
If N64 brings down their polygon quality to Saturn and PSX levels
then we'd be seeing alot of 60 FPS as well.
Lord 13
James Arguello wrote:
>
> You know, after all this hype and junk about the N64, it ain't all to
> what its cracked up to be. Is this REALLY 64 bit? I mean it can display
> frame rate on most N64 games look kind of choppy. You know. A N64 seems
> very close in performance to my PC which has a Pentium 66, 40 megs of
> ram(hey, prices are a droppin'), a 6x cd-drive, AND a Stealth 3D 2000
> with S3 ViRGE, and 2MB EDO DRAM. It can do all that stuff N64 can do like
> fuzzing up objects and textures to make them look smoother. And let me
> tell you, that demo of Descent 2 sure looks mighty neat-o on my ol' P66
> blocky. Besides my Stealth 3D cost only $199 and it was a snap to
> install! Shadows of the Empire? Dark Forces 2 sure looks better to me.
>
> is, my Saturn. Their winter line up has plenty of neat stuff. Virtual On
> is a game that sure shows what that neat little black box can do. Not
> only in just graphics but innovation. Its also FUN man! Mario 64 has some
> flaws that kinda bring down the fun factor like wandering around, getting
> lost in large enviornments and constantly shifting your camera angle to
> think to your systems, power-wise. Besides. I'm still waiting to see
> something that moves 60 fps on a N64, something which Saturn and PSX have
> already accomplished. But still. N64 is available for free play at Toy's
> R Us so just see what you think. But still. I'm not really wetting my
> pants over how neat N64 can joly out 3-D.
I think you may have a SERIOUS problem w/ your eyes, or glasses if you
happen to wear some.
Robert A. Jung
(Followups to rec.games.video.advocacy)
My two bits on the Nintendo64, after renting it along with SUPER MARIO 64
and PILOTWINGS 64...
* Technically, very impressive on the graphics. Nice polygon count, nice
special effects (transparencies, fog, smoke, etc.). On the other hand, it's
not THAT much significantly better than the PlayStation or Saturn. I saw
polygon clipping errors in SUPER MARIO and pop-up in both games, for example.
It was not as excessive as with the other machines, but it was still there.
* Audially, eh. Sorry, but the sound effects were roughly equal on all the
machines, and the music in both N64 games didn't grab me. Spooled CD music
stomps all over the place easily.
* SUPER MARIO 64 made me nauseous. I think all that camera-shifting did it.
Probably just me, though. I wish it didn't, because the game is deep -- you
can easily spend 80 hours with that cart alone.
* The $200 SRP is nice, but I'm definitely going to wait on the machine. With
only two games at launch (gee, why the delay in release, then?), and with the
very good chance that future N64 games will price around $70-$85 average, I
definitely have to wait. Expensive carts can very well kill this system.
* Is it worth it to sell your current stuff and get an N64 today? I doubt it.
The technology is only marginally superior to the other top consoles now
(though future games may change that), while the dearth of titles and the high
prices strongly urge caution. With the numerous hot titles out now and coming
soon for both the Saturn and PlayStation (WIPEOUT XL, MANX TT, MADDEN '97,
MARVEL SUPER HEROES, etc.), you'd have to be a -big- Mario fan to jump on the
N64 today. If not, it's better to wait for the software situation to improve.
One guy's opinions,
--R.J.
B-)
//////////////////////////////////////|\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Send whatevers to rj...@netcom.com | If it has pixels, I'm for it.
--------------------------------------+------------------------------Lynx up!
"You weren't chosen because you are the best pilot in the Air Force. You were
chosen because you are the class clown and frankly, you're expendable."
Craig Bamford
Brant Rusch wrote:
>
> > Yes it does, but that's with ALL the effects turned on compared to
> >the PSX and Saturn with NO effects.
>
> an example, of a fairly unimpressive game with lots of flashy effects.
This could be indicative of what we'll find on the N64 in the future.Nintendo will be/is
done making games. Remember how many they put out for the SNES? It's up to third
parties now, and because they can't publish a lot of games, companies won't bother with
unproven genres (like RPGs, for example). They'll publish a lot of good looking
shovelware with either gameplay like Mario 64 (which will probably get old fast) or
Tekken/VF (If nintendo ever gets up off their butts and makes a REAL fighter). Sure,
it'll be pretty and interactive, but boring, and pretty much the same as everything
else. Meanwhile, everything new and exciting will be out on either PC, Saturn, or
Playstation. (Especially PC, where they seem more willing to go out on a limb)
kag...@imap2.asu.edu
Jeter (emmit...@geocities.com) wrote:
: Hmm,Maybe your TV is screwed only thing i can think of. Besides that as
: they have said in the past the n64 uses a SGI Thats Silicon Graphics. I
: dunno if you know who that is or not go look it up see how much 1 of those
: workstations that render will cost ya.N64 renders there graphic's such as
: mario. Put him on PSX or Saturn and i am pretty sure what you'll see is a
: pixelated Character yet on a n64 he is fully rendered. All i know is there
: is nothing that compares to SM64 on a good tv with surround sound with the
: AV cable hookup. Playing at the store gives no justificated for itself...
I don't really give a shit what's inside the system. System
specs are for idiots. Saying a system uses Silicon Graphics is a useless
statement because next week they might start making scientific
calculators. Mario's graphics and gameplay have problems. There's a LOT
of pop-in, though you really can't throw stones at the system for that
since arcade boards have the same trouble too. Mario is the ONLY game in
the near future that'll have a repsectable frame-rate. Piltowings runs
at 30 fps, and it shows BIG time. Shadows has the same problem and if
your saving your cash for Cruisin' USA, I have a better idea for that
cash. Roll it up, place it in your toilet and flush HARD, because that's
what's going to happen when you buy it. I saw the game and it looks
horrifying. When more games come out for the system your going to see
what's really inside the system.
: --
: William
: =================================
: emmit...@geocities.com
: =================================
: *N64 and Nothing more*
: James Arguello <cmdr...@aol.com> wrote in article
: <324E01...@aol.com>...
: > You know, after all this hype and junk about the N64, it ain't all to
: >
--
Net-Surfer
Chris.
___________________________________________________
|The Greatest Films of All Time |
| |
|-Star Wars Trilogy (it's all one film in my book) |
|-Reservoir Dogs |
|-Pulp Fiction |
|-The Untouchables |
|-Tombstone |
|-Highlander |
|-Akira |
|-Casino |
|-Seven |
|-Star Trek VI |
|___________________________________________________|
| SQUARESOFT; Valhalla of the programming gods. |
|___________________________________________________|
| kag...@imap2.asu.edu |
|___________________________________________________|
Christopher G. Price
"Jeter " <emmit...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Hmm,Maybe your TV is screwed only thing i can think of. Besides that as
>they have said in the past the n64 uses a SGI Thats Silicon Graphics. I
>dunno if you know who that is or not go look it up see how much 1 of those
>workstations that render will cost ya.N64 renders there graphic's such as
>mario. Put him on PSX or Saturn and i am pretty sure what you'll see is a
>pixelated Character yet on a n64 he is fully rendered.
At 100,000 mip-mapped textured polygons per sec, I believe Silicon
Graphics have made a poor design choice. 100,000 is NOT competitive
for character animation when spread over 30 to 60 frames. Character
animation (or the thing in the middle) will be- is central for games.
I hear seven million polygons rumors for the argades (komino??)! Forget
textures, they are irrelevant in the many small polygon approximations to
highly
curved surfaces, each able to be coloured with whatever lighting and
shading model you choose.
Low polygon, over-texturing is for martian flattened landscapes and
moving chocolate boxes.
The texturing done in the playstation games so far seems fine to me.
Brant Rusch
> Yes it does, but that's with ALL the effects turned on compared to
>the PSX and Saturn with NO effects.
Yes, but effects are just that.....Mario appears to me to be a game, using it as
an example, of a fairly unimpressive game with lots of flashy effects.
> Don't forget the N64 is a 200 dollar console, not a 5000 dollar PC.
> This is an affordable medium for games for the general gaming
>population. Not everyone can even shell out $200 for a N64, let alone
>the thousands of dollars required for a top-of-the-line PC.
Agreed, the Nintendo 64 has got some good hardware inside of it...I think the
point of the original poster, however, is that outside of its "effects"....the
water-effect, the interesting interpolation, etc, there isn't really a whole lot there
to seperate it from stuff thats out right now...
> Have you seen the improved SOTE video lately? It's been improved
>greatly since the E3 show....but then again, we will see the nature of
>these comments stemming from the paragraph below....
I disagree....SOTE still looks like something that has been "done before" on other
systems.......PC or Console. It fails to impress me......not in the sense that I was
expecting the N64 to be capable of.
> Don't you just hate it when people make expansive 3D worlds that
>are interactive? >:)
Quake is also the first real 3D World. The problem is its a very boring world.
Nintendo made Mario a fully interactive 3D world. The problem here, again, is
that its so boring in that world....why do you want to interact.??
> If N64 brings down their polygon quality to Saturn and PSX levels
>then we'd be seeing alot of 60 FPS as well.
I don't see whats wrong with the polygon count and framerate of the 32
bit colsoles........
Brant
Trevor Powell
> I don't really give a shit what's inside the system. System
> specs are for idiots. Saying a system uses Silicon Graphics is a useless
> statement because next week they might start making scientific
> calculators. Mario's graphics and gameplay have problems. There's a LOT
> of pop-in, though you really can't throw stones at the system for that
> since arcade boards have the same trouble too. Mario is the ONLY game in
> the near future that'll have a repsectable frame-rate. Piltowings runs
> at 30 fps, and it shows BIG time.
Broadcast TV runs at 30 fps. Movies (generally) run at 24 fps. What's
your point?
Greck Cannon
In article <324E01...@aol.com>, James Arguello (cmdr...@aol.com) wrote:
> Its also FUN man! Mario 64 has some
> flaws that kinda bring down the fun factor like wandering around, getting
> lost in large enviornments and constantly shifting your camera angle to
> get a good view. So don't worry Saturn and PSX owners.
These are some of the things I like MOST about Mario 64. I LIKE big
environments where I'm free to do what I want (I always hated the
original games for only scrolling in one direction--no turning back.).
I REALLY LIKE being able to control the camera... it's like driving
a stick versus an automatic. Sure, the automatic is easier, but
shifting gears, like controlling the view, enriches the experience.
My roommate thinks I'm bonkers because I've always got Mario running
AT me instead of away from me or from side to side, but I find it
easier to navigate that way, especially when walking on narrow bridges
and the like. (Tip for camera-angle-lovers: go to the green cap switch
course and long jump down the big ramp and stay all the way to one
side... you'll leave the camera WAY behind and the view is kind of
spectacular.) I dunno, maybe I'm just a control freak, but I have been
enjoying Mario 64 more than any other game I've ever played.
--greck
--
Greck S. Cannon -=- <gr...@pobox.com> -=- <gr...@china.rh.ncsu.edu>
2110 Avent Ferry Road, Box 579; Raleigh, NC 27606 -=- phone: 919 512-0945
"oh what wonders if we could just travel there..." --Trendy Wednesday
---------------------------
Mike Fitzpatrick
James Arguello wrote:
>
> get a good view. So don't worry Saturn and PSX owners. N64 is equal I
> think to your systems, power-wise. Besides. I'm still waiting to see
> something that moves 60 fps on a N64, something which Saturn and PSX have
> already accomplished. But still. N64 is available for free play at Toy's
> R Us so just see what you think. But still. I'm not really wetting my
> pants over how neat N64 can joly out 3-D.
Well first off 60fps is ludicrous. The human eye at best can register
30fps. That is what motion pictures are shown at. Maybe you need
to check up on some of your numbers before your post.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Fitzpatrick || Jet Propulsion Laboratory
System Administrator|| fi...@devvax.jpl.nasa.gov
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marcin
> Well first off 60fps is ludicrous. The human eye at best can register
> 30fps. That is what motion pictures are shown at. Maybe you need
> to check up on some of your numbers before your post.
Actualy motion pictures are 24fps.
DesoL8
"Jeter " <emmit...@geocities.com> wrote:
> All i know is there
>is nothing that compares to SM64 on a good tv with surround sound with the
>AV cable hookup.
Gotta have s-video..
- alex
xcaliber
In rec.games.video.nintendo Mike Fitzpatrick <fi...@devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
: James Arguello wrote:
: > think to your systems, power-wise. Besides. I'm still waiting to see
: > something that moves 60 fps on a N64, something which Saturn and PSX have
: > already accomplished. But still. N64 is available for free play at Toy's
: Well first off 60fps is ludicrous. The human eye at best can register
: 30fps. That is what motion pictures are shown at. Maybe you need
: to check up on some of your numbers before your post.
Second off, if you set one field of an interlaced 30 fps display to black,
and another white. It would produce a flicker at 60 fps which can be
clearly seen. At best, the human eye can register at least 72 fps.
Experience beats numbers and in turn creates fact that will work in
reality. 30 fps has been designated as real-time, but things can go faster
and be noticed...
Marty Chinn
kag...@imap2.asu.edu wrote:
: I don't really give a shit what's inside the system. System
: specs are for idiots. Saying a system uses Silicon Graphics is a useless
: statement because next week they might start making scientific
: calculators. Mario's graphics and gameplay have problems. There's a LOT
: of pop-in, though you really can't throw stones at the system for that
: since arcade boards have the same trouble too. Mario is the ONLY game in
: the near future that'll have a repsectable frame-rate. Piltowings runs
: at 30 fps, and it shows BIG time. Shadows has the same problem and if
Wow thats a nice generalization without any basis. I'll have to go tell
my Wave Race 64 to stop maintaining its nice smooth frame rate. Also
maybe you should play Shadows when its done before you make a statement
about its frame rate. If I were to have written off what I saw at Wave
Race 64 at E3, I would have missed out big time. This game has been
drastically improved since then so I don't see why Shadows couldn't as well.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marty Chinn *** N64 Modification Info @ Our WWW Site ***
Video Source PlayStation, Nintendo 64, Saturn, Imports
973 Foxglove Dr. M-F: 9:30-6:00, Sa: 10:00-3:00 PST, Sun: Closed
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Mailing List, Ordering, and Preordering info at:
<408> 720-8575 Voice E-Mail: vids...@netcom.com
<408> 720-8576 FAX WWW : http://www.video-source.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Lupo
In article <nargun-3009...@mk103a.mckenna.edu>, nar...@ix.netcom.com (Trevor Powell) wrote:
>In article <52nqkr$7...@news.asu.edu>, kag...@imap2.asu.edu wrote:
>
>> specs are for idiots. Saying a system uses Silicon Graphics is a useless
>> statement because next week they might start making scientific
>> calculators. Mario's graphics and gameplay have problems. There's a LOT
>> of pop-in, though you really can't throw stones at the system for that
>> since arcade boards have the same trouble too. Mario is the ONLY game in
>> the near future that'll have a repsectable frame-rate. Piltowings runs
>> at 30 fps, and it shows BIG time.
>
>your point?
Movies are filmed at 24fps. The frames are then doubled. (2 frames in a
row are the same). It is then run at 2x the speed it is filmed,
resulting in 48fps. If it was only running at 24fps, movies would look
like crap.
Andrew Ryan Chang
Ken Lupo <lup...@osu.edu> wrote:
>>> the near future that'll have a repsectable frame-rate. Piltowings runs
>>> at 30 fps, and it shows BIG time.
>>
>>your point?
>
>Movies are filmed at 24fps. The frames are then doubled. (2 frames in a
>row are the same). It is then run at 2x the speed it is filmed,
>resulting in 48fps. If it was only running at 24fps, movies would look
>like crap.
You have *got* to be kidding me. I'll use a little ascii diagram.
assume that two character spaces = 1/24 of a second.
we'll examine a three-frame shot at normal and under the system you
describe.
24 fps:
xxyyzz
-simple, right? x is shown for 1/24 of a second, as are frames y & z.
48 fps with each frame doubled up.
xxyyzz
-x is shown for 1/48th of a second, and then again for another
48th of a second. this is 100% exactly like 24 fps.
To sum up: (1) movies really are shot at 24 fps, and (2) doubling
up frames in the manner you describe is pointless.
--
ED! ED! ED IS THE STANDARD!!!
TEXT EDITOR. -Patrick J. Lopresti
Casey Rhee
James Arguello wrote:
>
> You know, after all this hype and junk about the N64, it ain't all to
> what its cracked up to be. Is this REALLY 64 bit? I mean it can display
> the same amout of polygons per second of a Saturn or PSX. Actually the
> frame rate on most N64 games look kind of choppy. You know. A N64 seems
> very close in performance to my PC which has a Pentium 66, 40 megs of
> ram(hey, prices are a droppin'), a 6x cd-drive, AND a Stealth 3D 2000
> with S3 ViRGE, and 2MB EDO DRAM. It can do all that stuff N64 can do like
> fuzzing up objects and textures to make them look smoother. And let me
> tell you, that demo of Descent 2 sure looks mighty neat-o on my ol' P66
> with an acceptable frame rate. Some objects on N64 games do tend to look
> blocky. Besides my Stealth 3D cost only $199 and it was a snap to
> install! Shadows of the Empire? Dark Forces 2 sure looks better to me.
>
> Also another reason why I don't need to blow my bucks on my bucks on N64
> is, my Saturn. Their winter line up has plenty of neat stuff. Virtual On
> is a game that sure shows what that neat little black box can do. Not
> flaws that kinda bring down the fun factor like wandering around, getting
> lost in large enviornments and constantly shifting your camera angle to
> something that moves 60 fps on a N64, something which Saturn and PSX have
> already accomplished. But still. N64 is available for free play at Toy's
> pants over how neat N64 can joly out 3-D.
Well, did you see the pictures of the N64 version of DukeNukem? The
graphics are WAY better than what a pentium 166 can dish out. You also
don't like the N64, because you're too busy trying to sell your Saturn
that may eventually get left behind in the race:(
Joe Ottoson
In article <32504E1D...@devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>, Mike Fitzpatrick
<fi...@devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> James Arguello wrote:
> >
>
> > get a good view. So don't worry Saturn and PSX owners. N64 is equal I
> > think to your systems, power-wise. Besides. I'm still waiting to see
> > something that moves 60 fps on a N64, something which Saturn and PSX have
> > already accomplished. But still. N64 is available for free play at Toy's
> > R Us so just see what you think. But still. I'm not really wetting my
> > pants over how neat N64 can joly out 3-D.
>
> Well first off 60fps is ludicrous. The human eye at best can register
> 30fps.
First off you're misinformed. While the human eye stops detecting breaks
in motion at 30fps (PW 64 runs at 20fps BTW) it can detect changes in the
smoothness up to 70fps.
That is what motion pictures are shown at. Maybe you need
> to check up on some of your numbers before your post.
>
Likewise I'm sure ;-)
Always remember,
Real faith is objective
Orion
> In article <52nqkr$7...@news.asu.edu>, kag...@imap2.asu.edu wrote:
> > Piltowings runs
> > at 30 fps, and it shows BIG time.
>
> Broadcast TV runs at 30 fps.
Wrong. Broadcast TV runs at 60 fields per second, interlaced. Believe me,
there's a *big* difference.
-Orion
Ian CR Mapleson
In article <52on8f$m...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> ru...@ix.netcom.com(Brant Rusch) writes:
>> Yes it does, but that's with ALL the effects turned on compared to
>>the PSX and Saturn with NO effects.
>
>Yes, but effects are just that.....Mario appears to me to be a game, using it as
>an example, of a fairly unimpressive game with lots of flashy effects.
That's your opinion. Some people happen to like the game alot.
>> Don't forget the N64 is a 200 dollar console, not a 5000 dollar PC.
S'funny... why can it do graphical tricks that my $10000 workstation can't do
then?
Environment mapping is something that's utterly beyond a PC without using
special hardware and even then I don't think most 3D accelerator cards
support it.
>> This is an affordable medium for games for the general gaming
>>population. Not everyone can even shell out $200 for a N64, ...
How much was the PSX or Saturn when it was first launched?
> ... let alone
>>the thousands of dollars required for a top-of-the-line PC.
A TOTL PC would cost a lot more than $5000. :D
The comparison is nonsense, however, so don't even bother discussing it,
especially since SGI are about to release a bucket load of new hardware
which will make all existing comparisons look *really* silly. :D
>Agreed, the Nintendo 64 has got some good hardware inside of it...I think the
>point of the original poster, however, is that outside of its "effects"....the
>water-effect, the interesting interpolation, etc, there isn't really a whole lot there
>to seperate it from stuff thats out right now...
An opinion based on what? One game? ROFL! :D
And those features may not be important to you, but they *are* for some people.
I *hate* pixelisation. I *hate* jagged edges. I *hate* pop-up, CD load times,
predetermined game paths, FMV, lack of interactivity, etc. I've waited 10
years for a game system like the N64 to appear. I want flight sim games and
in such games advanced graphical effects *are* important to some people in
order to provide for a more convincing game environment.
>I disagree....SOTE still looks like something that has been "done before" on other
>systems.......PC or Console. It fails to impress me......not in the sense that I was
>expecting the N64 to be capable of.
Have you played it yet? No. How you can judge the game, then, is beyond me.
>Quake is also the first real 3D World. The problem is its a very boring world.
That's your opinion. Thousands of people happen to think it's brilliant. It's
currently at No. 1 in the PC games charts round here.
>Nintendo made Mario a fully interactive 3D world. The problem here, again, is
>that its so boring in that world....why do you want to interact.??
Again, just your opinion among millions.
Why do you want to breathe? :)
>I don't see whats wrong with the polygon count and framerate of the 32
>bit colsoles........
Then you're obviously not someone who cares about visual quality. That being
the case, you're hardly in a position to judge games that are employing
advanced effects in order to satisfy those who *do* care, are you?
The degree to which people on this group *insist* on stating their _opinions_
as fact just astounds me...
Ian.
Ian CR Mapleson
In article <52nqkr$7...@news.asu.edu> kag...@imap2.asu.edu writes:
> ... Piltowings runs
>at 30 fps, and it shows BIG time. Shadows has the same problem ...
Fascinating! Oh, of course, you didn't know that the frame rate of US NTSC
TV is actually a little under 30fps (29.97 to be exact) so if a game is running
at 30fps then the display should be just fine.
Here we go again, another pointless PC/console flame war. You guys never learn,
do you?
Ian.
Chris Sweitzer
: > get a good view. So don't worry Saturn and PSX owners. N64 is equal I
: > think to your systems, power-wise. Besides. I'm still waiting to see
: > something that moves 60 fps on a N64, something which Saturn and PSX have
: > already accomplished. But still. N64 is available for free play at Toy's
: > R Us so just see what you think. But still. I'm not really wetting my
: > pants over how neat N64 can joly out 3-D.
: Well first off 60fps is ludicrous. The human eye at best can register
: 30fps. That is what motion pictures are shown at. Maybe you need
: to check up on some of your numbers before your post.
This from someone who works at NASA? The human eye can only register stops in
motion at up to 30fps. However, smoothness is recognizable at up to 75fps.
(NASA spent 1 million dollars in developing a pen that writes in zero
gravity. When Russia was faced with the same problem, they used a pencil.)
Chris
Dave Anderson
It really doesn't matter how many "fields per second" a television is
capable of. Cameras that tape the programs that are broadcast on
television record images at 30 frames per second. It's a fact. Look it up
if you want.
Movie cameras record at 24 frames per second. Can YOUR eye tell the
difference? I doubt it.
Orion <or...@kali.nas.com> wrote in article
<orion-ya02318000...@news.nas.com>...
> In article <nargun-3009...@mk103a.mckenna.edu>,
> nar...@ix.netcom.com (Trevor Powell) wrote:
>
> > In article <52nqkr$7...@news.asu.edu>, kag...@imap2.asu.edu wrote:
> > > Piltowings runs
> > > at 30 fps, and it shows BIG time.
> >
Zhang Xue-Long
Long post cut to pieces
>
>James Arguello wrote:
>>
>> You know, after all this hype and junk about the N64, it ain't all
to
>> what its cracked up to be. Is this REALLY 64 bit? I mean it can
display
>> the same amout of polygons per second of a Saturn or PSX. Actually
the
>> frame rate on most N64 games look kind of choppy.
only TWO games released in US for us to judge the system.
>> Mario 64 has some
>> flaws that kinda bring down the fun factor like wandering around,
getting
>> lost in large enviornments .
Can you call you wandering around and getting lost a FLAW in the GAME.I
don't see your argument/point here.I don't get lost, so your game must
be defective??I don't think that can be considered a flaw in the
game(no shots intended toward you:) )
>> Besides. I'm still waiting to see
>> something that moves 60 fps on a N64, something which Saturn and PSX
have
>> already accomplished.
Yeah ,most of us are waiting to see it.But think of how long it took
for Saturn & PSX to do it in a game.I really think people should wait
for more games to come out for N64 before comparing it to Saturn &
PSX.It's obviously not as good as those systems are at this time and
many people are crazy enough to say it's better.It's gonna take much
time for it to even catch up to Saturn & PSX let alone pass them.
Zhang Xue-Long
Trevor Powell
In article <52qa7i$a...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, lup...@osu.edu
(Ken Lupo) wrote:
> Movies are filmed at 24fps. The frames are then doubled. (2 frames in a
> row are the same). It is then run at 2x the speed it is filmed,
> resulting in 48fps. If it was only running at 24fps, movies would look
> like crap.
::waving arm in the air::
Uhm.. correct me if I'm wrong here, but... wouldn't 48 be the refresh
rate? You're still only getting 24 distinct frames of animation a
second. I fail to see how by showing the same image twice, you can get
twice the number of frames of animation.. but I'm flued up to the
eyeballs, so my mind isn't really working properly. Can you explain this
to me? :)
(I do agree that movies would look terrible if the frames weren't doubled
up -- but that's because of the medium. Recall that movies are projected
by illuminating an image on a moving strip of celluloid. You have to
flash the light so it only shines when the image is in the proper spot in
front of the light.. doing this only 24 times a second would produce a
flickery image on the projection screen, while doing it 48 times would be
better.. but that doesn't change the fact that you're only getting 24
discrete images per second.)
Jeremy McGlaughlin
> >> Besides. I'm still waiting to see
> >> something that moves 60 fps on a N64, something which Saturn and PSX
> have
> >> already accomplished.
> Yeah ,most of us are waiting to see it.But think of how long it took
> for Saturn & PSX to do it in a game.I really think people should wait
> for more games to come out for N64 before comparing it to Saturn &
> PSX.It's obviously not as good as those systems are at this time and
> many people are crazy enough to say it's better.It's gonna take much
> time for it to even catch up to Saturn & PSX let alone pass them.
>
> Zhang Xue-Long
Well, It didn't take the Playstation long to produce a 60fps game.
Tekken was one of the first games for the playstation...
Jeremy
>
Jacob Hurtado
Jeremy McGlaughlin wrote:
>snip<
>
> Well, It didn't take the Playstation long to produce a 60fps game.
> Tekken was one of the first games for the playstation...
>
> Jeremy
> >
When you condsider that Tekken only has two polygonal characters on a
flat playing field, it isn't that impressive after all. SM64 is
calculating an entire world plus characters that the computer must
control.
Pan of Anthrox
Marty Chinn wrote:
>
> kag...@imap2.asu.edu wrote:
>
> : I don't really give a shit what's inside the system. System
> : specs are for idiots. Saying a system uses Silicon Graphics is a useless
> : statement because next week they might start making scientific
> : calculators. Mario's graphics and gameplay have problems. There's a LOT
> : of pop-in, though you really can't throw stones at the system for that
> : since arcade boards have the same trouble too. Mario is the ONLY game in
> : the near future that'll have a repsectable frame-rate. Piltowings runs
> : at 30 fps, and it shows BIG time. Shadows has the same problem and if
>
> my Wave Race 64 to stop maintaining its nice smooth frame rate. Also
> maybe you should play Shadows when its done before you make a statement
> about its frame rate. If I were to have written off what I saw at Wave
> Race 64 at E3, I would have missed out big time. This game has been
> drastically improved since then so I don't see why Shadows couldn't as well.
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Marty Chinn *** N64 Modification Info @ Our WWW Site ***
> Video Source PlayStation, Nintendo 64, Saturn, Imports
> 973 Foxglove Dr. M-F: 9:30-6:00, Sa: 10:00-3:00 PST, Sun: Closed
> Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Mailing List, Ordering, and Preordering info at:
> <408> 720-8575 Voice E-Mail: vids...@netcom.com
> <408> 720-8576 FAX WWW : http://www.video-source.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i'd like to see the PSX handle those translucent water effects seen in
Wave Race.. and WITHOUT the immense pixelation!
--
+---------------------------------------------------+
| -Pan- of Anthrox http://www.anthrox.com |
| Console Programming and Game Information Web Site |
+---------------------------------------------------+
Poom Nukulkij
> James Arguello wrote:
>
> > get a good view. So don't worry Saturn and PSX owners. N64 is equal I
> > think to your systems, power-wise. Besides. I'm still waiting to see
> > something that moves 60 fps on a N64, something which Saturn and PSX have
> > already accomplished. But still. N64 is available for free play at Toy's
> > R Us so just see what you think. But still. I'm not really wetting my
> > pants over how neat N64 can joly out 3-D.
>
> Well first off 60fps is ludicrous. The human eye at best can register
> 30fps. That is what motion pictures are shown at. Maybe you need
> to check up on some of your numbers before your post.
For someone with a NASA address, you sure don't know what you're talking
about. The human eye can register the difference between 60fps and
30fps. For a prime example, try VF Remix versus VF2 on the Saturn--you'll
see that VF2 is without a doubt smoother. Maybe you need to check up on
some of your numbers before you post.
--
Poom Nukulkij
pon9...@uconnvm.uconn.edu
http://www.ucc.uconn.edu/~pon96001
Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut
Flap on, Flap off...
On Tue, 1 Oct 1996, Marty Chinn wrote:
>
> Wow thats a nice generalization without any basis. I'll have to go tell
> my Wave Race 64 to stop maintaining its nice smooth frame rate. Also
> maybe you should play Shadows when its done before you make a statement
> about its frame rate. If I were to have written off what I saw at Wave
> Race 64 at E3, I would have missed out big time. This game has been
> drastically improved since then so I don't see why Shadows couldn't as well.
You're right Marty, I've only played about a 1/2 hour worth of Wave Race,
but man....it's phenominal! Very very smooth...it may not be 60 FPS, but
I've noticed that if a game has properly programmed animation, attention
to detail, and lots of care applyed to the programming, a 30 FPS game can
look better than a 60 FPS game. In my opinion, Wave Race looks better
than any 3D race game I've seen....much better than the E3 rev. Also, on
that Nintendo Promo tape, Shadows and Goldeneye look 100% better than the
E3 versions. The N64 is starting to grab my attention more and
more ....must...restrain...wallet....aaarrrggghhHH!!!!!!
==============================================================================
THE FLAPPER!!!!!!!
==============================================================================
Join the petition to bring more Ranma 1/2 Laserdiscs to the U.S.!
http://iczer1.usacomputers.net/~ranma/ranma-ld-petition.html ^_^
==============================================================================
Adam Marshall
Richard T Jordan wrote:
{SNIP}
> So don't worry Saturn and PSX owners. N64 is equal I
> >think to your systems, power-wise.
>
> Heheheheheh, oh really?
He's laughing because in about a year, PSX2 is going to show us what a
great and powerful system is.
> Besides. I'm still waiting to see
> >something that moves 60 fps on a N64,
>
> Try KI Gold.
Yeah, try a game that hasn't been released! >:-]~
> something which Saturn and PSX have
> >already accomplished.
>
> If N64 brings down their polygon quality to Saturn and PSX levels
> then we'd be seeing alot of 60 FPS as well.
Yeah, but it'd still be textureless and fakey looking.
--
kul...@citynet.net >Tenchi Muyo * Dragon Ball * Ranma½<
>>>>>>>>>>>Adam Marshall<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>Evangelion * GunSmith Cats *< DB/DBZ/DBGT LF
Adam Marshall
Pan of Anthrox wrote:
>
> i'd like to see the PSX handle those translucent water effects seen in
> Wave Race.. and WITHOUT the immense pixelation!
Go look at Crash Bandicoot. It has smooth and completly non-pixelated
water in several levels. You Nintendo Nuts should really stop with the
"We got better shit" stuff. Nintendo 64 is a system with both extreme
potential and severe limitations. It has yet to top PSX graphically.
Hanson
Jacob Hurtado <Jac...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
I've been playing Mario and Pilotwings, and I have never lost the
illusion of smooth movement at 20 fps, 30 fps, or whatever. I suppose
60 fps (although whether or not an NTSC TV could actually show this is
debatable) would help with games with very fast movement, but I find
nothing wrong while playing Pilotwings, which detractors claim runs at
20fps and is flickery. We'll have to check out some racers and
fighters before anyone can conclude that less than 60 fps will cause
some sort of flickering images. But neither Mario nor Pilotwings are
fast enough games to make a higher frame count necessary, IMO.
Hanson
"Leave the gun. Take the cannoli"
- Clemenza
Greg Sewart
kag...@imap2.asu.edu wrote:
>
> Jeter (emmit...@geocities.com) wrote:
> : Hmm,Maybe your TV is screwed only thing i can think of. Besides that as
> : they have said in the past the n64 uses a SGI Thats Silicon Graphics. I
> : dunno if you know who that is or not go look it up see how much 1 of those
> : workstations that render will cost ya.N64 renders there graphic's such as
> : mario. Put him on PSX or Saturn and i am pretty sure what you'll see is a
> : pixelated Character yet on a n64 he is fully rendered. All i know is there
> : is nothing that compares to SM64 on a good tv with surround sound with the
>
> I don't really give a shit what's inside the system. System
> specs are for idiots. Saying a system uses Silicon Graphics is a useless
> statement because next week they might start making scientific
> calculators. Mario's graphics and gameplay have problems. There's a LOT
> of pop-in, though you really can't throw stones at the system for that
> since arcade boards have the same trouble too. Mario is the ONLY game in
> the near future that'll have a repsectable frame-rate. Piltowings runs
> at 30 fps, and it shows BIG time. Shadows has the same problem and if
> cash. Roll it up, place it in your toilet and flush HARD, because that's
> what's going to happen when you buy it. I saw the game and it looks
> horrifying. When more games come out for the system your going to see
> what's really inside the system.
That sounds a lot like advocacy to me. Sure, I'll admit that the frame
rate of Mario or Pilotwings isn't _that_ great, although it's more than
acceptable. There is some clipping, but who cares as long as it doesn't
affect gameplay?
Your argument is simply ignorant. These are the _first_ games on the
system, and, as usual, there are problems. It's happened to almost
every system ever released, and almost every time, the problems have
been fixed on later releases.
If everyone was of the same opinion as you, no one would ever buy any
consoles.
Greg
"Honor is a man's gift to himself."
-Liam Neeson
Saturn/N64/Genesis
Greg Sewart
Mike Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> James Arguello wrote:
> >
>
> > get a good view. So don't worry Saturn and PSX owners. N64 is equal I
> > think to your systems, power-wise. Besides. I'm still waiting to see
> > something that moves 60 fps on a N64, something which Saturn and PSX have
> > already accomplished. But still. N64 is available for free play at Toy's
> > R Us so just see what you think. But still. I'm not really wetting my
> > pants over how neat N64 can joly out 3-D.
>
> Well first off 60fps is ludicrous. The human eye at best can register
> 30fps. That is what motion pictures are shown at. Maybe you need
> to check up on some of your numbers before your post.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael Fitzpatrick || Jet Propulsion Laboratory
> System Administrator|| fi...@devvax.jpl.nasa.gov
> -------------------------------------------------------------
Are you the same guy who makes this post every month or so? Will you
please stop? I don't care how many courses you've taken or textbooks
you've read, I can discern the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps.
Just turn on VF1, then turn on VF2. If you can't see a difference in
the movement of the characters, you should go to the optometrist(sp?)
immediately!
Greg(Whose sick of the same old fps/human eye argument)
Raul Sobon
> >at 30 fps, and it shows BIG time. Shadows has the same problem ...
>
> Fascinating! Oh, of course, you didn't know that the frame rate of US NTSC
> TV is actually a little under 30fps (29.97 to be exact) so if a game is running
> at 30fps then the display should be just fine.
>
> Here we go again, another pointless PC/console flame war. You guys never learn,
> do you?
>
> Ian.
AWW GOD!!!! its only 29.97 because it skips a frame every 10mins or
something
like a leap year..... but the raw output to TV is 30fps always 1:1
sigh
-Rual
David Hancock
In article <32504E1D...@devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>,
Mike Fitzpatrick <fi...@devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> writes:
> James Arguello wrote:
>>
>
>> think to your systems, power-wise. Besides. I'm still waiting to see
>> something that moves 60 fps on a N64, something which Saturn and PSX have
>> already accomplished. But still. N64 is available for free play at Toy's
>> R Us so just see what you think. But still. I'm not really wetting my
>> pants over how neat N64 can joly out 3-D.
>
> Well first off 60fps is ludicrous. The human eye at best can register
> 30fps. That is what motion pictures are shown at. Maybe you need
> to check up on some of your numbers before your post.
>
>System Administrator|| fi...@devvax.jpl.nasa.gov
>
games - presumably quoting these figures from games magazines which could
never be accused of mindlessly reprinting whatever hype the developers
send them.
you're quite right when you say 30fps is the top end of human visual
motion perception, although higher freqency flicker can sometimes be
percieved - for example florescent lights.
my PAL tv runs at 26 fps, drawing each frame in two halves, or
fields. each field contains half of the scan lines that make up the
complete image; giving me 52 fields per second. confusing fields and
frames might be one explanation for the 60 fps claims.
what should i do when i get one of the 60 fps games? where should i
put the extra 34 frames? does the system slow down for tv display?
should i connect my console to a 60Hz monitor for maximum enjoyment?
the public must be told!
dave hancock
Jedi
I have rented the N64 with Mario64 and Pilotwings64. And I thig that
their graphics were pretty good. The only thing is that there is
frame dropout when thing are moving too fast. I have seen some of
Shadows of the Empire at Babbages and this also happens there, mostly
on the Swoop bike scene. If you don't know what fram dropout is it is
when a picure jumps because of a loss of a frame of video.
"Join me and together we can rule the empire...."
Jedi
I know that this is off the subject but I work in TV and have worked
in film and film runs at 25 fps and video runs at 30 fps
Ian CR Mapleson
In article <orion-ya02318000...@news.nas.com> or...@kali.nas.com (Orion) writes:
>In article <nargun-3009...@mk103a.mckenna.edu>,
>nar...@ix.netcom.com (Trevor Powell) wrote:
>
>> In article <52nqkr$7...@news.asu.edu>, kag...@imap2.asu.edu wrote:
>> > at 30 fps, and it shows BIG time.
>>
>
>Wrong. Broadcast TV runs at 60 fields per second, interlaced. Believe me,
>there's a *big* difference.
Which is 30fps. You should read up on what field and frame actually mean.
And actually US TV runs at 29.95fps, not 30fps. :)
From SGI's "IRIS Digital Media Programming Guide", section 3 'Video
Programming':
"NTSC employs a total of 525 horizontal lines per frame, with two fields
per frame of 262.5 lines each. Each field refreshes at 60Hz (actually
59.94Hz). NTSC encodes brightness, color, and synchronizing information in
one signal."
Ian.
terrell gibbs
:James Arguello wrote:
:>
:
:> get a good view. So don't worry Saturn and PSX owners. N64 is equal I
:> think to your systems, power-wise. Besides. I'm still waiting to see
:> something that moves 60 fps on a N64, something which Saturn and PSX have
:> already accomplished. But still. N64 is available for free play at Toy's
:> R Us so just see what you think. But still. I'm not really wetting my
:> pants over how neat N64 can joly out 3-D.
:
:Well first off 60fps is ludicrous. The human eye at best can register
:30fps. That is what motion pictures are shown at. Maybe you need
:to check up on some of your numbers before your post.
:
:
Sorry. Perceptual studies have shown that the eye can indeed tell the
difference between 30 fps and 60. 30 fps is just a little above the minimum
to produce an illusion of something resembling smooth motion, but it is
decidedly inadequate for fast motion. Indeed, there was a motion picture
system developed by special effects expert Doug Trumbull using a 60 fps
rate, which was widely acclaimed for its much improved realism. But it
foundered because of the great expense of retrofitting existing theaters to
use it.
Purple Lightning
Greg Sewart <gse...@atcon.com> wrote in article
<52sodv$5...@thor.atcon.com>...
> Mike Fitzpatrick wrote:
> >
> >
> > Well first off 60fps is ludicrous. The human eye at best can register
> > 30fps. That is what motion pictures are shown at. Maybe you need
> > to check up on some of your numbers before your post.
> >
> please stop? I don't care how many courses you've taken or textbooks
> you've read, I can discern the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps.
> Just turn on VF1, then turn on VF2. If you can't see a difference in
> the movement of the characters, you should go to the optometrist(sp?)
> immediately!
>
> Greg(Whose sick of the same old fps/human eye argument)
>
Greg,
Granted this gets a little tiring to hear over and over again, but it also
gets very tiring to hear people crow about the difference between 30fps and
60 fps. The point that the human can only register 30 fps is probably
better said as the human eye can distinguish easily between any frame rate
up to 30 fps. Beyond that, the eye will note a difference, but how will 50
fps look different from 60 fps.
I think the issue here is that people seem to think that 30fps is good but
60 fps is better. But 30 fps is what we watch televison and movies at (or
somewhere around there, right?) Does a movie need to be anything more than
that? Then why do vid games need to be? It shouldn't necessarily be how
many fps a game moves at that's important but rather how the programmer's
USE those fps's.
eric
Chad Ray McDaniel
(followups to rec.games.video.advocacy)
mapl...@cee.hw.ac.uk (Ian CR Mapleson) writes:
>
> In article <orion-ya02318000...@news.nas.com> or...@kali.nas.com (Orion) writes:
> >In article <nargun-3009...@mk103a.mckenna.edu>,
> >nar...@ix.netcom.com (Trevor Powell) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <52nqkr$7...@news.asu.edu>, kag...@imap2.asu.edu wrote:
> >> > Piltowings runs
> >> > at 30 fps, and it shows BIG time.
> >>
> >> Broadcast TV runs at 30 fps.
> >
> >Wrong. Broadcast TV runs at 60 fields per second, interlaced. Believe me,
> >there's a *big* difference.
>
> Which is 30fps. You should read up on what field and frame actually mean.
> And actually US TV runs at 29.95fps, not 30fps. :)
>
>
two fields do not equal a frame. Yes, two fields have as many lines as
one frame, but the actual images of two subsequent fields do not have
to fit together to make a frame. Don't think of a field as one-half of
a frame, rather think of it as a half-resolution frame running at
twice the rate.
--
-chad
Jedi
"Flap on, Flap off..." <col...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 1 Oct 1996, Marty Chinn wrote:
>>
>> Wow thats a nice generalization without any basis. I'll have to go tell
>> my Wave Race 64 to stop maintaining its nice smooth frame rate. Also
>> maybe you should play Shadows when its done before you make a statement
>> about its frame rate. If I were to have written off what I saw at Wave
>> Race 64 at E3, I would have missed out big time. This game has been
>> drastically improved since then so I don't see why Shadows couldn't as well.
You are correct about Shadows, It could be better by release time (I
hope it is it was really noticeable). I have not seen Wave Race 64
yet. But there is no denying that Pilotwings had frame dropout but it
is a first gen game. They will get better in time. And by the time
it reaches its peak they will have a new system out.
Joe Ottoson
In article <52thnk$r...@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>, hanc...@cs.man.ac.uk (David
Hancock) wrote:
> there have been a spate of postings in which people are claiming 60fps for
> games - presumably quoting these figures from games magazines which could
> never be accused of mindlessly reprinting whatever hype the developers
> send them.
>
> you're quite right when you say 30fps is the top end of human visual
> motion perception, although higher freqency flicker can sometimes be
> percieved - for example florescent lights.
>
That, and smoother motion. It's a well documented fact that the eye is in
fact capable of registering frame increases up to around 70fps.
Just look at VFR then put in VF2 (or vice versa) The difference is dramatic.
> what should i do when i get one of the 60 fps games? where should i
> put the extra 34 frames? does the system slow down for tv display?
> should i connect my console to a 60Hz monitor for maximum enjoyment?
>
The game treats each half update as a full indpendant frame so from one
half update to another motion is always being depicted. (note I'm just
relating what I've read, but I'm not really qualified to comment on it)
> the public must be told!
>
Yes they should since so few people seem to actually know what's really
going on.
Always remember,
Real faith is objective
Hanson
Adam Marshall <Kul...@citynet.net> wrote:
>Richard T Jordan wrote:
>
>{SNIP}
>
>> So don't worry Saturn and PSX owners. N64 is equal I
>> >think to your systems, power-wise.
>>
>> Heheheheheh, oh really?
>
>He's laughing because in about a year, PSX2 is going to show us what a
>great and powerful system is.
The N64 is head and shoulders above the 32 bit machines power-wise.
It just is -- ask anyone who knows what processing power is.
>> Besides. I'm still waiting to see
>> >something that moves 60 fps on a N64,
>>
>> Try KI Gold.
>
>Yeah, try a game that hasn't been released! >:-]~
For a guy who's raving about a system without any set specs so far
(PSX2), you're really laying it on pretty thick, don't you think? At
least some people have played KI Gold (the same people who said that
it runs at 60 fps).
>> something which Saturn and PSX have
>> >already accomplished.
>>
>> If N64 brings down their polygon quality to Saturn and PSX levels
>> then we'd be seeing alot of 60 FPS as well.
>Yeah, but it'd still be textureless and fakey looking.
It almost sounds like you're implying that Saturn and PSX games are
textureless and fakey looking. Mario looks the way it does mainly
because it's supposed to. It's not the limit of graphical prowess
that the N64 can handle. Is SOTE textureless and fakey looking?
Turok? Wave Race? Don't be so immature.
Scott Gargash
Purple Lightning wrote:
>
> > Mike Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Well first off 60fps is ludicrous. The human eye at best can register
> > > 30fps. That is what motion pictures are shown at. Maybe you need
> > > to check up on some of your numbers before your post.
> > >
>
> 60 fps is better. But 30 fps is what we watch televison and movies at (or
> somewhere around there, right?) Does a movie need to be anything more than
> that? Then why do vid games need to be? It shouldn't necessarily be how
> many fps a game moves at that's important but rather how the programmer's
> USE those fps's.
>
Human perception is not nearly as neat as you'd like it to be. The
relationship between what you perceive and the frame rate is not
fixed. The faster something is moving, the higher the frame rate
must be in order to achieve the illusion of smooth animation. Movies
often use faster film rates to capture fast action sequences, sfx,
etc.
Also, when you're are talking about vids vs. (TV/movies) you're
neglecting
the fact that vids are interactive. The slower the frame rate, the
greater the latency between the player input and the visual response.
This adds to the feeling of sluggishness as well. Also, (TV/movies)
have a fixed frame rate, while the frame rate on a vid may change
with the complexity of the gfx. This change in frame rate can be *very*
distracting.
But in response to the original point, all things being equal, a higher
frame rate is better, especially when things are interactive. And it
is very easy to tell the difference between 60 and 30Hz.
Scott
--
Scott Gargash
DSP Engineer
EuPhonics, Inc.
(303) 938-8448
sc...@euphonics.com
William Nolte
Adam Marshall <Kul...@citynet.net> wrote:
>Richard T Jordan wrote:
>
>{SNIP}
>
>> So don't worry Saturn and PSX owners. N64 is equal I
>> >think to your systems, power-wise.
>>
>> Heheheheheh, oh really?
>
>
>He's laughing because in about a year, PSX2 is going to show us what a
>great and powerful system is.
In the October issue of Gamefan Ken Kutaragi, Executive VP of SCE's R&D,
said that the PlayStation2 will probably happen next century
Tak Kai
For some reason, I decided to start playing old SNES square games. I want to
erase ALL of the saved games, but there doesn't seem to be an option to let me
erase them from the memory. Can anybody help
Thanx in advance,
Tak
Tak Kai
I didn't realize that I ended up cross posting to a whole buch of NGs. Sorry.
SE7EN
ok..umm these are the FIRST games made for the N64.Of course they will be a
bit slow or buggy in parts.Any game machine that just comes out and the
first games for it are like this.
Jedi <sc...@pop3.concentric.net> wrote in article
<52tosf$j...@herald.concentric.net>...
> I have rented the N64 with Mario64 and Pilotwings64. And I thig that
> their graphics were pretty good. The only thing is that there is
> frame dropout when thing are moving too fast. I have seen some of
> Shadows of the Empire at Babbages and this also happens there, mostly
> on the Swoop bike scene. If you don't know what fram dropout is it is
> when a picure jumps because of a loss of a frame of video.
HungryJack
David Hancock (hanc...@cs.man.ac.uk) wrote:
: In article <32504E1D...@devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>,
: Mike Fitzpatrick <fi...@devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> writes:
: > James Arguello wrote:
: > Well first off 60fps is ludicrous. The human eye at best can register
: > 30fps. That is what motion pictures are shown at. Maybe you need
: > to check up on some of your numbers before your post.
I feel very strongly about this. And I also disagree--kinda.
First of all, motion pictures are shown at 24 fps (since you pointed it
out)
Secondly, the human eye _can_ register movevent at 60 fps. Before you
call bullshit, hear me out.
I was watching an A&E special on the modern amusement ride industry (and I
am taking television production classes this semester as a
Radio/Television Major and my professor mentioned this too) and they were
talking about at the Luxor hotel in Las Vegas, there was a new ride being
built buy one of the guys at Industrial Light and Magic (Lucasfilm's
special effects people) and in an interview, he said that he chose a 60
fps framerate because even though 30 fps was more than sufficient to give
the full illusion of movement, 60 fps is the maximum practical rate at
which the eye can perceive change.
Kinda like how the human ear can't really hear above 20,000 hz, but
harmonics above it can help to "color" sound that we can hear.
So.... to make a long story short (too late, I know), there is a practical
purpose for 60 fps.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Devin Brown - st...@bayou.uh.edu - HungryJack
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most important things in the world are:
Amiga Computers; Anime; Australian Animals; Battle Angel; Cold Pizza; Camo;
Combat Boots; Corvettes; 80's Music; Germany; Goofy; Hacky Sacks; Hedgehogs;
High-Tech Buzzwords; Home Theater; HUMMER; Jack-In-The-Box Heads; Jackie Chan;
John Woo; Knights; Legos; Luc Besson; Loose Clothes; Nike; 93 Octane Gas;
Paintball; Pioneer; Pirates; Redheads; Roller Hockey; Renaissance Festival;
Rush; Short Hair; Sony Playstation; Summer; Swords; Tank Girl; Tron;
Vampire Books; VirtuaFighter; Volleyball; Warm Mr. Pibb; and Zippo Lighters.
Jacob Hurtado
HungryJack wrote:
<snip>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Devin Brown - st...@bayou.uh.edu - HungryJack
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The most important things in the world are:
> Amiga Computers; Anime; Australian Animals; Battle Angel; Cold Pizza; Camo;
> Combat Boots; Corvettes; 80's Music; Germany; Goofy; Hacky Sacks; Hedgehogs;
> High-Tech Buzzwords; Home Theater; HUMMER; Jack-In-The-Box Heads; Jackie Chan;
> John Woo; Knights; Legos; Luc Besson; Loose Clothes; Nike; 93 Octane Gas;
> Paintball; Pioneer; Pirates; Redheads; Roller Hockey; Renaissance Festival;
> Rush; Short Hair; Sony Playstation; Summer; Swords; Tank Girl; Tron;
> Vampire Books; VirtuaFighter; Volleyball; Warm Mr. Pibb; and Zippo Lighters.
I think you need to take Rush off of the list there. Countdown & Cygnus X1 SUCK!!!!
Orion
In article <DynEs...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, mapl...@cee.hw.ac.uk (Ian CR
Mapleson) wrote:
> In article <orion-ya02318000...@news.nas.com>
or...@kali.nas.com (Orion) writes:
> >In article <nargun-3009...@mk103a.mckenna.edu>,
> >nar...@ix.netcom.com (Trevor Powell) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <52nqkr$7...@news.asu.edu>, kag...@imap2.asu.edu wrote:
> >> > Piltowings runs
> >> > at 30 fps, and it shows BIG time.
> >>
> >> Broadcast TV runs at 30 fps.
> >
> >Wrong. Broadcast TV runs at 60 fields per second, interlaced. Believe me,
> >there's a *big* difference.
>
> Which is 30fps. You should read up on what field and frame actually mean.
> And actually US TV runs at 29.95fps, not 30fps. :)
Yes, I know what field and frame mean. But there's a big difference
between a game that updates each field, every time it draws, getting the
illusion of 60 fps, and a game that waits for both fields to draw before
updating the frame, which is why saying that TVs run at 30 fps is not
entirely accurate.
Besides, most vidgames aren't even interlaced, and these games can run at
true 60 fps. I prefer interlaced games myself, for the added resolution,
and to avoid that annoying only-draw-every-other-line effect.
-Orion
Phat Hong Tran
In article <01bbafa8$eb3e0f20$ac07...@danderso.fs.com>,
Dave Anderson <dand...@fs.com> wrote:
>It really doesn't matter how many "fields per second" a television is
>capable of. Cameras that tape the programs that are broadcast on
>television record images at 30 frames per second. It's a fact. Look it up
>if you want.
You are entirely wrong. Video cameras record at 60 fields per second,
with interfield motion. That is, each field is from a different
snapshot in time. The cameras don't hold a frame and then break it
into fields. As a result, motion is updated at 60 Hz. This is what
your eye is most sensitive to, not the fact that only every other line
is updated each 1/60 of second.
>Movie cameras record at 24 frames per second. Can YOUR eye tell the
>difference? I doubt it.
Most people will be able to tell detect the limitations of 24 fps if
they know what to look for. I certainly can. For example, can you
make out any detail when the camera does a pan? Imagine images in a
game washing out like that when they move at more than a snail's pace.
Phat.
William Longworth
jw...@negia.net (Jon Wong) wrote:
>I saw the same show and the amusement ride is NOT 60fps, but 48!
God, here I go for the 80 gazillionth time responding to a thread
about human vision.
Fact: The human can perceive 60 fps and HIGHER (though the benefit
dimishes rapidly).
Fact: Television broadcasts operate at 30 fps, 60 fields (odd/even
interlaced), at 60 HZ. Huh? Whazzat? 60hz? That's right, 60
refresh cycles per second and it ain't no accident (for fun you might
put a light bulb in a socket and pump the proper voltage in at
50hz...enjoy the flicker).
Fact: Film runs at 24 fps with each frame exposed twice to ensure a
steady picture (reduce that darned flicker).
Fact: HDTV (now called ATV in some circles) will operate at both 30
and 60 fps (if the current specs hold and broadcast corporations like
the big three don't squeeze the life out of it).
How do I know all this? Well, I thought most was common knowledge,
particularly the t.v. and film display rates, but the 60 fps comes
first hand from an old job. I used to work for a company called
Showscan Corporation which develops amusment rides like the one at the
Luxor. In fact, Showscan was started by a gentleman named Douglas
Trumball. Who? The guy who did the fx for Close Encounters, 2001,
etc., that's who. He also had a hand, I believe, in creating the ride
for the Luxor. At any rate, in the '70s he bagan working on a new
large format, high-speed film which he hoped would replace current
aging standards. After testing everything from 30 on up to 120 fps,
he settled on 60 fps in 70 millimeter, which is the rate for all
Showscan films and theme rides (Space Race, Devil's Mine Ride, Cosmic
Pinball, Dracula's Castle, and Runaway Train, which might still be
playing in the Excalibur, to name a few). Check them out if you can
(Universal City Walk runs one, I think up in Burbank, CA).
To make a long story short, 60 fps makes a world of difference
particularly with regards to motion and clarity.
Bill L.
Former Post Production Assistant, current video game 3D
artist/animator.
Hanson
st...@Bayou.UH.EDU (HungryJack) wrote:
>Secondly, the human eye _can_ register movevent at 60 fps. Before you
>call bullshit, hear me out.
>
>I was watching an A&E special on the modern amusement ride industry (and I
>am taking television production classes this semester as a
>Radio/Television Major and my professor mentioned this too) and they were
>talking about at the Luxor hotel in Las Vegas, there was a new ride being
>built buy one of the guys at Industrial Light and Magic (Lucasfilm's
>special effects people) and in an interview, he said that he chose a 60
>fps framerate because even though 30 fps was more than sufficient to give
>the full illusion of movement, 60 fps is the maximum practical rate at
>which the eye can perceive change.
Well I was at the Luxor and I took the ride. It's hard for me to say
whether or not the 60fps made the view more realistic since the
movement of the carriage I was sitting on was moving, and that in and
of itself was the chief factor in perceiving movement that didn't
actually exist. But there was another Luxor attraction that showed at
movie at 60fps, and from far away, it was sometimes hard to tell if it
was a film or not. So I suppose 60 fps can make a difference -- from
far away.
However, the problem is that NTSC TV's refresh at 60 interlaced fields
per second (or 30 fps), not 60 frames per second. A frame is made up
of 2 fields passing twice, but the 2 fields have the same information
(except that one is every other line different from the other).
Unless a home console is somehow transmitting 60 different fields
(instead of 30 fields of the same frame twice) per second to the TV, I
don't know how you could actually achieve 60fps at home. The question
is, could an NTSC actually handle showing 60 different fields per
second given the proper inupt? Because if it can't, the question is
moot, and regardless of whether or not we can perceive 60fps, an NTSC
TV's simply could not handle it to make a difference.
Andrew Ryan Chang
HungryJack <st...@Bayou.UH.EDU> wrote:
[quoting from an ILM guy]
>fps framerate because even though 30 fps was more than sufficient to give
>the full illusion of movement, 60 fps is the maximum practical rate at
>which the eye can perceive change.
>
>harmonics above it can help to "color" sound that we can hear.
I just wanted to point out that AM radio gets to about 5000 hz
sound-wise, I think, but it sounds okay. FM goes up to about 20,000 hz, I
think, and this is probably why FM sounds better: harmonic overtones.
Similarly; 30 fps is good, but 60 fps is better, and detectably
so. I sincerely doubt there is any scientific basis for, say, 240 fps vs
120, so thankfully framerates can just hold on around 30-60.
YMMV (your milage may vary).
--
Check Spoooon! Sun Cup Nil
Squid Adjective One Tray Ball
Pepsi Two Road Cascade Light Zone
Net Three Verb Ice Reflection
Jon Wong
In article <52urjs$h...@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>,
st...@Bayou.UH.EDU (HungryJack) wrote:
>David Hancock (hanc...@cs.man.ac.uk) wrote:
>: In article <32504E1D...@devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>,
>: Mike Fitzpatrick <fi...@devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> writes:
>: > James Arguello wrote:
>
>: > Well first off 60fps is ludicrous. The human eye at best
can register
>: > 30fps. That is what motion pictures are shown at. Maybe
you need
>: > to check up on some of your numbers before your post.
>
>I feel very strongly about this. And I also disagree--kinda.
>
>First of all, motion pictures are shown at 24 fps (since you
pointed it
>out)
>
Before you
>call bullshit, hear me out.
>
>I was watching an A&E special on the modern amusement ride
industry (and I
>am taking television production classes this semester as a
>Radio/Television Major and my professor mentioned this too) and
they were
>talking about at the Luxor hotel in Las Vegas, there was a new
ride being
>built buy one of the guys at Industrial Light and Magic
(Lucasfilm's
>special effects people) and in an interview, he said that he
chose a 60
sufficient to give
>the full illusion of movement, 60 fps is the maximum practical
rate at
>which the eye can perceive change.
>
>Kinda like how the human ear can't really hear above 20,000 hz,
but
>harmonics above it can help to "color" sound that we can hear.
>
a practical
>purpose for 60 fps.
I saw the same show and the amusement ride is NOT 60fps, but 48!
Marty Chinn
Adam Marshall (Kul...@citynet.net) wrote:
: Pan of Anthrox wrote:
: >
: > i'd like to see the PSX handle those translucent water effects seen in
: > Wave Race.. and WITHOUT the immense pixelation!
: Go look at Crash Bandicoot. It has smooth and completly non-pixelated
: water in several levels. You Nintendo Nuts should really stop with the
: "We got better shit" stuff. Nintendo 64 is a system with both extreme
: potential and severe limitations. It has yet to top PSX graphically.
I disagree, PW64, SOTE, SM64, and WR64 already surpass anything
graphically on the PS or Saturn. Come on why deny that the N64 is a more
powerful system. There shouldn't be any dispute to this. While the PS can
handle translucencies, could it do it to the extent of WR64? Who knows.
Jet Moto so far doesn't show any sign of it.
: --
: kul...@citynet.net >Tenchi Muyo * Dragon Ball * Ranma½<
: >>>>>>>>>>>Adam Marshall<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
: >Evangelion * GunSmith Cats *< DB/DBZ/DBGT LF
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marty Chinn *** N64 Modification Info @ Our WWW Site ***
Video Source PlayStation, Nintendo 64, Saturn, Imports
973 Foxglove Dr. M-F: 9:30-6:00, Sa: 10:00-3:00 PST, Sun: Closed
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Mailing List, Ordering, and Preordering info at:
<408> 720-8575 Voice E-Mail: vids...@netcom.com
<408> 720-8576 FAX WWW : http://www.video-source.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Sewart
Purple Lightning wrote:
>
> Greg Sewart <gse...@atcon.com> wrote in article
> <52sodv$5...@thor.atcon.com>...
> > >
> > >
> > > Well first off 60fps is ludicrous. The human eye at best can register
> > > 30fps. That is what motion pictures are shown at. Maybe you need
> > > to check up on some of your numbers before your post.
> > >
> > you've read, I can discern the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps.
> > Just turn on VF1, then turn on VF2. If you can't see a difference in
> > the movement of the characters, you should go to the optometrist(sp?)
> > immediately!
> >
> > Greg(Whose sick of the same old fps/human eye argument)
> >
>
> Greg,
>
> Granted this gets a little tiring to hear over and over again, but it also
> gets very tiring to hear people crow about the difference between 30fps and
> 60 fps. The point that the human can only register 30 fps is probably
> better said as the human eye can distinguish easily between any frame rate
> up to 30 fps. Beyond that, the eye will note a difference, but how will 50
> fps look different from 60 fps.
>
> 60 fps is better. But 30 fps is what we watch televison and movies at (or
> somewhere around there, right?) Does a movie need to be anything more than
> that? Then why do vid games need to be? It shouldn't necessarily be how
> many fps a game moves at that's important but rather how the programmer's
> USE those fps's.
>
Sorry if I came off that way. I wasn't trying to imply that 30 fps is
bad(hell, I'll take it for a racing game any day), I just hate it when
this guy comes on here and tells me that I can't see a difference btween
30 fps and 60 fps.
The way you put it, however, is acceptable, and effectively kills the
whole fps argument, thank you.
BTW, I think the frame rate in Mario and Pilotwings is more than
acceptable, although I do notice some slow down in both from time to
time, but, hey, they're first generation titles.
Greg
"Honor is a man's gift to himself."
-Liam Neeson
Saturn/N64
Ricky W. Brown
Mike Fitzpatrick <fi...@devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>James Arguello wrote:
>> get a good view. So don't worry Saturn and PSX owners. N64 is equal I
>> think to your systems, power-wise. Besides. I'm still waiting to see
>> something that moves 60 fps on a N64, something which Saturn and PSX have
>> already accomplished. But still. N64 is available for free play at Toy's
>> R Us so just see what you think. But still. I'm not really wetting my
>> pants over how neat N64 can joly out 3-D.
>Well first off 60fps is ludicrous. The human eye at best can register
>30fps. That is what motion pictures are shown at. Maybe you need
>to check up on some of your numbers before your post.
Will this ludicrous fps crap never end?
Charles Miller
Ok end of this thread.
The human eye cannot tell the difference between 30fps
and 60fps.
But, the eye will blur what it sees above 30fps so it looks
like it is going faster. Now, if you have 30fps and some blur
added then the EYE cannot tell the difference between 30fps
and 60fps on a VIDEO GAME SYSTEM.
As far as movies, the eye cannot tell the difference between
30fps and 60fps because the images are motion blured by default
when making the movie. That is why (hate to use it) Jurasic Parks
dinasouars looked real! Because when they were rendered they used
motion blur.
Final word, The eye cannot tell the difference between 30 and 60
in an analog world where things do not "POP" from one place to another.
It can't tell in video games (which are not analog) either, but the brain
can.
Harrison Williams
On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Greg Sewart wrote:
> Mike Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> Are you the same guy who makes this post every month or so? Will you
> please stop? I don't care how many courses you've taken or textbooks
> you've read, I can discern the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps.
> Just turn on VF1, then turn on VF2. If you can't see a difference in
> the movement of the characters, you should go to the optometrist(sp?)
> immediately!
>
> Greg(Whose sick of the same old fps/human eye argument)
Concerning the differences etween VF1 and VF2, it in't a matter of frame
rate, it is a matter of animation quality. VF2 just uses higher quality
animation than VF1. And that applies for any ohter game. It doesn;t matter
whether it runs at 24fps or 70fps, if it uses poor quality animation, it
will show. It all depends on the animation quality.
Harrison Williams IV
email: hwi...@icarus.uic.edu
the web: http://www2.uic.edu/~hwilli1
massa lamo
In article <530a1l$3...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, Gam...@ix.netcom.com
(William Longworth) wrote:
> jw...@negia.net (Jon Wong) wrote:
>
>
> >I saw the same show and the amusement ride is NOT 60fps, but 48!
>
> God, here I go for the 80 gazillionth time responding to a thread
> about human vision.
>
> Fact: The human can perceive 60 fps and HIGHER (though the benefit
> dimishes rapidly).
I beleve you. What I hate most though, is watching movies with their puny
24 frames/sec. Whenever the camera stays in one place, and don´t move
about too much, it´s ok. But when it´s moving fast, trying to pan over a
large area, it´s sooo evident that the framerate is too slow. The image
get´s all blurry. This really pisses me off. If that gets fixed, I´ll be
content.
-massa
Marty Chinn
Charles Miller (cwmiller@uiucedu) wrote:
: Ok end of this thread.
This is wrong. Lets finish this argument. The human eye cannot detect a
break in motion, or more frames in anything above 30 fps, however the human
eye can distinguish a higher frame rates above 30.
Marty Chinn
Harrison Williams (hwi...@uic.edu) wrote:
: Concerning the differences etween VF1 and VF2, it in't a matter of frame
: rate, it is a matter of animation quality. VF2 just uses higher quality
: animation than VF1. And that applies for any ohter game. It doesn;t matter
: whether it runs at 24fps or 70fps, if it uses poor quality animation, it
: will show. It all depends on the animation quality.
Yes the frame rate does matter, this is how it appears smoother. I
believe for the most part, VF and VF2 is pushing around a lot of the same
animation movement.
: Harrison Williams IV
: email: hwi...@icarus.uic.edu
: the web: http://www2.uic.edu/~hwilli1
Ian CR Mapleson
In article <52thnk$r...@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> hanc...@cs.man.ac.uk (David Hancock) writes:
>what should i do when i get one of the 60 fps games? where should i
>put the extra 34 frames? does the system slow down for tv display?
>should i connect my console to a 60Hz monitor for maximum enjoyment?
Can someone with an N64 please describe *exactly* what video output sockets
exist on the machine? I want to know whether it has:
- S-Video
- RGB
- Composite
- RF
Thanks!
Ian.
PS. To answer your question, if the system can output in RGB, then yes you
should be able to get a better display from a computer monitor IF the game
has a frame rate than 30. (or 26 :)
Ian CR Mapleson
In article <ajkko-02109...@news.dimensional.com> aj...@dimensional.com (Joe Ottoson) writes:
> ... It's a well documented fact that the eye is in
>fact capable of registering frame increases up to around 70fps.
It also varies depending on where you're looking at. My monitor is 1280x1024,
72fps, non-interlaced 24bit. If I look directly at the screen, I see no
flickering; but if I look to the side so that the screen is in my side vision,
I *can* see a slight flicker.
I think people who use high-fps equipment get used to the high frame rate
and become less tolerant to lower rates. These days, I can quite easily
see the flicker on an ordinary TV, and *especially* the cinema, and I find
it quite annoying. On the other hand, the monitor I use is very kind on one's
vision.
Ian.
PS. Try looking at *any* screen whilst rolling your eyes around in
circles. If your persistence of vision is working ok, you should be able
to see the edges of individual frames. Btw, this works better on a computer
monitor.
Ian CR Mapleson
In article <52of85$1...@wnnews1.netlink.net.nz> "Christopher G. Price" <pri...@netlink.co.nz> writes:
>At 100,000 mip-mapped textured polygons per sec, I believe Silicon
>Graphics have made a poor design choice. 100,000 is NOT competitive
>for character animation when spread over 30 to 60 frames. ...
How many times do you lot have to be told?? SGI have NOT released any
such figure; eg. for months people wittered on and on and on about 100MIPS
and 100MFLOPS for the RI copro chip - I said that was daft because no
official info had been released; now, SGI have given details and the *real*
figure is 500MIPS! 5 times higher than people thought! Jeez, even Nintendo
Power got it wrong! :D
Yet people *still* go on and on about 100000 this, 100000 that. Can you give the
code of the press release that contains this 100000 figure? No! Because there
isn't one.
And what use is a polygon rate number anyway without *details*?
If a test used 150 pixel triangles and the result was 100000/sec, what use
is that when ALL other companies use much smaller triangles (ie. the
no./sec becomes higher). SGI's own workstation web pages always talk about
either 25 pixel or 50 pixel triangles. Without knowing such things,
any figure is USELESS. You have NO such details so why do you keep
using the 100000 figure?
*sigh*
Ian.
PS. Go and take a look at the Revs screenshots. Are you *seriously* telling
me that that kind of quality imagery is indicative of a 'poor design choice'?
PPS. Note the follow-up because this repy *is* a flame as far as I'm concerned.
After 18 *months* of nonsense, there's no excuse in my book for people still
wittering about numbers that were never released.
Perry Mercer
> Concerning the differences etween VF1 and VF2, it in't a matter of frame
> rate, it is a matter of animation quality. VF2 just uses higher quality
> animation than VF1. And that applies for any ohter game. It doesn;t matter
> whether it runs at 24fps or 70fps, if it uses poor quality animation, it
> will show. It all depends on the animation quality.
>
Your suppose to be an educated man? The animation quality IS part of the
frame rate. Have you looked up animation in the dictionary. Without a
fast enough frame rate the animation quality would suck. If VF2 only hard
5 frames a second it would as choppy as can be. You agree with that,
don't you. It's a fact that if games aren't running at least 30fps the
quality of the animation isn't that good. The game play is the most
important part of any game anyways. Why do you thinks games like Pacman &
Ateroids were such a hit.
Perry Mercer, aka:ACE
pme...@vgt.com
Video Game Time-Online
http://www.vgt.com
Steve Cutting
On 02-Oct-96 20:55:48, you wrote:
>In article <32504E1D...@devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>,
> Mike Fitzpatrick <fi...@devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> writes:
>> James Arguello wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> think to your systems, power-wise. Besides. I'm still waiting to see
>>> something that moves 60 fps on a N64, something which Saturn and PSX have
>>> already accomplished. But still. N64 is available for free play at Toy's
>>> R Us so just see what you think. But still. I'm not really wetting my
>>> pants over how neat N64 can joly out 3-D.
>>
>> Well first off 60fps is ludicrous. The human eye at best can register
>> 30fps. That is what motion pictures are shown at. Maybe you need
>> to check up on some of your numbers before your post.
>>
>>Michael Fitzpatrick || Jet Propulsion Laboratory
>>System Administrator|| fi...@devvax.jpl.nasa.gov
>>
>there have been a spate of postings in which people are claiming 60fps for
>games - presumably quoting these figures from games magazines which could
>never be accused of mindlessly reprinting whatever hype the developers
>send them.
>you're quite right when you say 30fps is the top end of human visual
>motion perception, although higher freqency flicker can sometimes be
>percieved - for example florescent lights.
>my PAL tv runs at 26 fps, drawing each frame in two halves, or
>fields. each field contains half of the scan lines that make up the
>complete image; giving me 52 fields per second. confusing fields and
>frames might be one explanation for the 60 fps claims.
>what should i do when i get one of the 60 fps games? where should i
>put the extra 34 frames? does the system slow down for tv display?
>should i connect my console to a 60Hz monitor for maximum enjoyment?
>the public must be told!
Hang on, some of these numbers are wrong...
Movies are 24fps
NTSC TV is 60 interlaced fields per second (ie 30 fps overall)
PAL TV is 50 interlaced fields per second (ie 25 fps overall)
If the NTSC/PAL display is interlaced, then you only get an
effective overall framerate of 30 or 25 fps because it takes 2
scans of the screen to draw a frame. If however the display is
non-interlaced (like most games) you get half the vertical
resolution but you get a true 60 or 50 fps.
So a game that claims to be running at 60fps (or 50 for PAL) will
have to be using a non-interlaced screenmode.
Don't worry about special monitors or anything for 60/50fps
games. Just buy the correct game for your system (NTSC/PAL) and
it will work on your TV or whatever you're using.
BTW in regards to the framerate of movies.. A while ago I
was playing some Model2 arcade games before going into the movies.
Then when I went into the movie directly afterwards, the movie
looked JERKY !! It a similar story when playing a 60fps game
for a while then looking at a 30fps one, it's still playable
but looks flickery. 60fps if definitely not overkill for games
IMO, it makes them look more REAL (not necessarily realistic,
but the objects in the game look like they are actually THERE
instead of being animated).
Steve
terrell gibbs
:It really doesn't matter how many "fields per second" a television is
:capable of. Cameras that tape the programs that are broadcast on
:television record images at 30 frames per second. It's a fact. Look it up
:if you want.
Actually, no. The camera scans the scene in the same way as the TV displays
it. That means that the second interlaced "field" of the video "frame" is a
bit later in time than the first field. So even though it is only one video
frame, the image is updated twice, so that movement is captured at a rate
of 60 Hz. This is similar to the way that games like VF2 work--each video
frame contains two animation frames, one for each of the two video fields.
Charles Miller
Marty Chinn <vids...@netcom.com> wrote in article
> : Final word, The eye cannot tell the difference between 30 and 60
> : in an analog world where things do not "POP" from one place to another.
> : It can't tell in video games (which are not analog) either, but the
brain
> : can.
>
> This is wrong. Lets finish this argument. The human eye cannot detect a
> break in motion, or more frames in anything above 30 fps, however the
human
> eye can distinguish a higher frame rates above 30.
> --
You say "The human eye cannot detect ... more frames in anything above
30fps." 60fps is more frames than 30fps. Yet you go on to say "however the
human eye can distinguish a higher frame rate above 30.", totally
contradicting what you just said.
Do you know what I was talking about when I cited Jurasic Park? That might
help you.
Harrison Williams
What I am saying is
that 60fps is not NECESSARY for smooth animation. 24fps is adequate for
smooth animation in the majority of circumstances. However, when you move
into FASTER animations, like an extremely fast pan(like in super-fast
sidescroller) you may need to up the frame rate to maintain SMOOTH
animation, otherwise you get a motion blur(which is not an undesirable
effect). At 24 frames/sec and higher, choppy animation is the result of a
poor animation source, ie. poor animation quality, ie. poor frame
selection. Most of the games that are on the market don't have fast enough
action to warrant anything severely higher than 30 frames. Not even the
the VF series, which is basically two polygonal characters in an
environment with very little or no extremely fast movement(like any other
fighter). I think it is in the FIELDS/sec debate where numbers between 30
and 75 start coming up, which has more to do with screen refresh
and not with quality animation selection and I'm not about to
get caught up in that one, since I've had enough already with this topic.
There are numerous posts that tout facts on the fields/frames per second
debate that you should check out, since I learned a couple extra details
from there as well.
On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, Marty Chinn wrote:
> Yes the frame rate does matter, this is how it appears smoother. I
> believe for the most part, VF and VF2 is pushing around a lot of the same
> animation movement.
Harrison Williams IV
Harrison Williams
On 3 Oct 1996, Perry Mercer wrote:
> Your suppose to be an educated man? The animation quality IS part of the
> frame rate. Have you looked up animation in the dictionary. Without a
> fast enough frame rate the animation quality would suck. If VF2 only hard
> 5 frames a second it would as choppy as can be. You agree with that,
> don't you. It's a fact that if games aren't running at least 30fps the
> quality of the animation isn't that good. The game play is the most
> important part of any game anyways. Why do you thinks games like Pacman &
> Ateroids were such a hit.
>
> Perry Mercer, aka:ACE
> pme...@vgt.com
> Video Game Time-Online
> http://www.vgt.com
I agree that gameplay is more pertinant, but this discussion concerns
frame rate/animation quality. It is silly to say that a 5fps(FRAMES/sec)
animation could ever run smoothly, since the Quicktime on my Mac runs at
an average of 15fps, and it is consistantly choppy. What I am saying is
that 60fps is not NECESSARY for smooth animation. 24fps is adequate for
smooth animation in the majority of circumstances. However, when you move
into FASTER animations, like an extremely fast pan(like in super-fast
sidescroller) you may need to up the frame rate to maintain SMOOTH
animation, otherwise you get a motion blur(which is not an undesirable
effect). At 24 frames/sec and higher, choppy animation is the result of a
poor animation source, ie. poor animation quality, ie. poor frame
selection. Most of the games that are on the market don't have fast enough
action to warrant anything severely higher than 30 frames. Not even the
the VF series, which is basically two polygonal characters in an
environment with very little or no extremely fast movement(like any other
fighter). I think it is in the FIELDS/sec debate where numbers between 30
and 75 start coming up, which has more to do with screen refresh
and not with quality animation selection and I'm not about to
get caught up in that one, since I've had enough already with this topic.
There are numerous posts that tout facts on the fields/frames per second
debate that you should check out, since I learned a couple extra details
from there as well.
Harrison Williams IV
Web-Slinger
Ian CR Mapleson wrote:
>
>
> Can someone with an N64 please describe *exactly* what video output sockets
> exist on the machine? I want to know whether it has:
>
> - S-Video
> - RGB
> - Composite
> - RF
Hey Ian. :)
I'm pretty sure (although I've yet to try it out personally) that the
N64 has
all of those video outputs. I can confirm S-Video, Composite (AV) & RF
(you'll
need an RF modulator, though).
RGB is the tricky one. From what I understand, the RGB signal is
different to
that of the SNES, so if you try a SNES Scart cable it won't work. Don't
have
details of how to rewire a regular SNES Scart cable at this point in
time.
Since absolutely nobody in the US uses RGB anymore, it would seem as if
Nintendo
deliberately altered the regular RGB signal as a deterrent for PAL
importers.
Lame.
All the signals are handled via a single multi-out port, unlike the
SNES, which
had a seperate RF port.
--
Web-Slinger -- "That's one for JJ!", Spider-Man, MSH
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
sli...@websling.demon.co.uk
Nintendo 64 Gazetta = http://www.websling.demon.co.uk/
Chad Ray McDaniel
(followups to rec.games.video.advocacy
Because video games lack the ability to do motion blur they will not
portray motion as convincingly as film running at the same
rate. Motion blur is much like anti-aliasing across time instead of
space. It simulates much higher frame rates in the same way that
spacial anti-aliasing can simulate higher pixel density. If you were
to compare two images that had the same color depth and resolution,
the one with anti-aliasing would appear to be better. In a similar
way, motion blur makes an animation seem more realistic.
--
-chad
Marty Chinn
Charles Miller (cwmiller@uiucedu) wrote:
: You say "The human eye cannot detect ... more frames in anything above
: 30fps." 60fps is more frames than 30fps. Yet you go on to say "however the
: human eye can distinguish a higher frame rate above 30.", totally
: contradicting what you just said.
: Do you know what I was talking about when I cited Jurasic Park? That might
: help you.
Err I typed it really late, what i meant is individual frames above 30
per second. It will be able to tell that there is a difference.
Greg Sewart
Harrison Williams wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Greg Sewart wrote:
>
> > Mike Fitzpatrick wrote:
> >
> > Are you the same guy who makes this post every month or so? Will you
> > please stop? I don't care how many courses you've taken or textbooks
> > you've read, I can discern the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps.
> > Just turn on VF1, then turn on VF2. If you can't see a difference in
> > the movement of the characters, you should go to the optometrist(sp?)
> > immediately!
> >
> > Greg(Whose sick of the same old fps/human eye argument)
>
> rate, it is a matter of animation quality. VF2 just uses higher quality
> animation than VF1. And that applies for any ohter game. It doesn;t matter
> whether it runs at 24fps or 70fps, if it uses poor quality animation, it
> will show. It all depends on the animation quality.
>
But, wait, I thought they were both motion captured. If that's the
case, wouldn't the animation only be of higher quality if the frame rate
was a little higher. Otherwise, how could you have high quality and low
quality motion captured animation?
James Arguello
This discussion is getting BORRRRING! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
Bryan Cristina
On 2 Oct 1996, HungryJack wrote:
> Secondly, the human eye _can_ register movevent at 60 fps. Before you
> call bullshit, hear me out.
> fps framerate because even though 30 fps was more than sufficient to give
> the full illusion of movement, 60 fps is the maximum practical rate at
> which the eye can perceive change.
>
> So.... to make a long story short (too late, I know), there is a practical
> purpose for 60 fps.
Ok.. I guess after what everyone has been saying, we can tell the
difference b/w 30fps and 60fps.
But, can the TV even display a difference? I mean, if the TV can't do
more than 25-30, can we really even see the difference if it's 25,30,60,
or 80 fps?
Not trying to proclaim anything.. just questioning.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
The crowd roars, it's deep and so unhealthy. The rest you know, I'll feel
the hands that felt me. Cold hands. Your hands. Cover my mouth while
I'm staring into bright lights. Applause, applause, applause, applause.
-- Malpractice -- Faith No More --
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Phat Hong Tran
In article <52tp0s$j...@herald.concentric.net>,
Jedi <sc...@pop3.concentric.net> wrote:
>I know that this is off the subject but I work in TV and have worked
>in film and film runs at 25 fps and video runs at 30 fps
Films run at 24 frames per second, unless you're watching them on PAL
video, in which they'd be 25 fps. NTSC video "runs" at 60 fields per
second, which is quite a bit more fluid than 30 frames per second because
of interfield update.
Phat.
Phat Hong Tran
In article <32531cb5...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
Hanson <fat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>However, the problem is that NTSC TV's refresh at 60 interlaced fields
>per second (or 30 fps), not 60 frames per second. A frame is made up
>of 2 fields passing twice, but the 2 fields have the same information
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Most people seem to be making this tacit assumption and are WRONG.
The 2 fields making a frame need not be from the same snapshot in time.
In fact, with live video, they never are! Just think of NTSC as a 60
frames per second system in which only the odd lines of one frame a
sent, followed by the even lines of the next frame, and so on.
This is why we can perceive the difference in smoothness between 60 fps
Tekken and 30 fps Tohshinden on TVs.
Phat.
vejita
On Tue, 1 Oct 1996, Pan of Anthrox wrote:
>
>i'd like to see the PSX handle those translucent water effects seen in
>Wave Race.. and WITHOUT the immense pixelation!
>
Um yeah, I'd REALLY love to see that on my Playstation too (cos then it would
be proof that the PS is equal to the N64) but it can't and it does have
seemingly half the capacity of the N64. So I guess I'll just have to watch the
nice pretty effects on the WipeoutXL movies to feed my fat just for the moment
eh?
Seriously people, comparing the N64 to the PS or SS is like comparing a 25
year old girl to a ten year old girl (bad analogy, I know). You just can't do
it.
vej...@daemon.apana.org.au "I go soggy in milk"
------------------------------------------------------------------
.sS$$$$$ .sS$$$$$ .sS$$$$$ .sS$ .sS$ .sS$$$Ss. .sS$$$Ss. o /
$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$ $$$$ $$$$ $$$~ ~$$$ $$$~ ~$$$ / o
$$$$. $$$$. $$$$. $$$$ $$$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$ $$$$$$$ $$$$ $$$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$
$$$$~ $$$$. $$$$. $$$$. $$$$ $$$, ,$$$ $$$, ,$$$
$$$$ ~$$$$$$$ ~$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$ $$$$ ~S$$$$$S~ ~S$$$$$S~
f e e l 1 0 0 %
I can't read it but I love it anyway =). Well, either that or Sammy Cheng =>
Gary Wolfe
fat...@ix.netcom.com (Hanson) wrote:
[.....]
>However, the problem is that NTSC TV's refresh at 60 interlaced fields
>per second (or 30 fps), not 60 frames per second. A frame is made up
>of 2 fields passing twice, but the 2 fields have the same information
>Unless a home console is somehow transmitting 60 different fields
>(instead of 30 fields of the same frame twice) per second to the TV, I
Ah, but that's what it does! Tekken, VF2, etc., change each and every
field. The tricky part is that Tekken is using non-interlace mode, so one
field is the same as one frame. This isn't quite "standard" NTSC, but most
everything supports it anyways. So 60 frames per sec. is really the same
thing as 60 fields per second, and is possible.
Standard TV is interlaced, with 480 vertical lines, but few games use this
resolution; VF2 does. VF2 does 60 fields (not frames) per second, but 60
fields per second is Good Enough; heck, it's standard TV. 60 fields/second
IS better than 30 frames/second, as far as motion is concerned, but,
obviously, not quite up there with 60 full frames/sec.
If possible, make my games 60 fps (either frames or fields, depending on
resolution)! The extra smoothness is noticable, if subtle.
--
Gary Wolfe
t...@ix.netcom.com
Purple Lightning
Marty Chinn <vids...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<vidsourcD...@netcom.com>...
> Adam Marshall (Kul...@citynet.net) wrote:
> : Pan of Anthrox wrote:
>
> : >
> : > i'd like to see the PSX handle those translucent water effects seen
in
> : > Wave Race.. and WITHOUT the immense pixelation!
>
> : Go look at Crash Bandicoot. It has smooth and completly non-pixelated
> : water in several levels. You Nintendo Nuts should really stop with the
> : "We got better shit" stuff. Nintendo 64 is a system with both extreme
> : potential and severe limitations. It has yet to top PSX graphically.
>
> I disagree, PW64, SOTE, SM64, and WR64 already surpass anything
> graphically on the PS or Saturn. Come on why deny that the N64 is a more
> powerful system. There shouldn't be any dispute to this. While the PS can
> handle translucencies, could it do it to the extent of WR64? Who knows.
> Jet Moto so far doesn't show any sign of it.
>
Graphics can be just as subjective as anything else about a game. I
personally think Crash Bandicoot is a much more graphically "superior" game
than SM64 or PW64. So far all the 64 games seem to rely on fairly simple
textures.
I'm won't deny that the N64 is a more powerful system but there are so many
subjective elements to videogames, how much does that really matter?
As for the translucency thing - I REEEAALLLY hope that this does not become
a benchmark for comparing the big 3. I mean do races like those depicted
in waverace normally take place in the shallow, crystal clear waters of the
Carribean? Is this really realistic? Jet ski races I've seen take place
in bays and lakes and so forth and RARELY has the water been purely
transparent, even if it's shallow. Jet moto *might* just turn out more
realistic! Transparency as it has been used thus far is just gratuitous
eye-candy.
> : --
> : kul...@citynet.net >Tenchi Muyo * Dragon Ball * Ranma½<
>
> : >>>>>>>>>>>Adam Marshall<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> : >Evangelion * GunSmith Cats *< DB/DBZ/DBGT LF
> --
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian CR Mapleson
Ok, it's time to settle this. There was a thread on a buncha different
newsgroups all about fps rates, field rates, etc. and a dude called
Michael Cranford from Intel posted a very good explanation of the whole
business, including details such as the effects of colour, brightness,
field of view, etc., on the perceivable flicker rate. I enclose a copy
of what he posted below, minus the post headers. Read it well people!
Ian.
(thanks to Michael for the info, of course)
The Doom Help Service (DHS): http://doomgate.gamers.org/dhs/
SGI Network Admin, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, England, PR1 2HE.
Doom: mapl...@gamers.org | Tel: (+44) 01772 893297, Fax: (+44) 01772 892913
Misc: mapl...@cee.hw.ac.uk | "There is no magic, only stuff." - Nakor.
*******************************************************************************
Previously posted to: comp.benchmarks,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.misc,
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video,rec.games.computer.quake.misc
Subject: Flicker Fusion Rates, etc. (was Re: QUAKE poorly done or demanding ?)
Date: 2 Oct 1996 05:55:47 GMT
Summary: more than you ever wanted to know about this topic
Keywords: NTSC, PAL, TV, film, flicker fusion frequency
Chris Clarke wrote:
>j...@tdk.dk (Jan Magdal Panduro) wrote:
>
>>But tv's don't run at 25 fps, they don't use frames at all! PAL tv's
>>run at 50 Hz "interlaced", and that's a good deal more "smooth" than
>>25 Hz non-interlaced. In fact, as long as the animation frames sync.
>>with the screen update, the animation will be percieved as smooth.
>>Film in the cinema don't flicker at 24 fps, because the images are
>>shown as whole frames, they are not generated "line-by-line" as tv
>>images are. On the other hand, you can se some jerkyness in panning
>>scenes.
>
>>Do you feel framed?
>
>One half of a redraw on a TV is called a Frame.
>
>So, (PAL) TVs run at 25 FPS.
Point by point rebuttal:
"But tv's don't run at 25 fps, they don't use frames at all!"
PAL TVs *do* run at 25 Hz frame rates and TVs *do* use frames. See just about
any book covering the technical aspects of television.
"Film in the cinema don't flicker at 24 fps, because the images are
shown as whole frames, they are not generated "line-by-line" as tv
images are."
Film in the cinema *does* flicker at 50 Hz (Europe) or 48 Hz (US) because the
image is blanked while the film is moved and the current frame is replaced with
the next frame. Each frame is shown twice or it would flicker at 25 Hz and 24
Hz respectively. See a book covering the technical aspects of film projectors.
"One half of a redraw on a TV is called a Frame."
One half of the "redraw" time is called a *Field* and the whole "redraw" time
is called a *frame*. See a book covering the technical aspects of television.
"So, (PAL) TVs run at 25 FPS."
While this statement is correct it is also a non-sequitur since it followed
"One half of a redraw on a TV is called a Frame" (i.e. the conclusion does not
follow since one half of the time would be twice the frequency - 50 Hz, not 25
Hz).
The above quoted statements (and most of the previous uninformed commentary)
are complete nonsense. In standard interlaced TV each Field displays one-half
of a Frame by only scanning alternate lines. Thus the odd Fields display the
odd numbered lines and the even Fields display the even numbered lines making
up a full Frame of interlaced video. The real purpose of the interlace is to
reduce the required transmission bandwidth and the downside to this scheme is
at least two-fold (there are other disadvantages that I won't go into here).
(1) If the video image lacks sufficient redundancy (i.e. adjacent lines are
not essentially identical) the resulting image will have large amounts
of Frame-rate flicker (as opposed to field-rate flicker which is at 2X
the frame-rate flicker). You can frequently see this if (for example)
horizontal features are captured by a single field of the video camera
(window blinds, car grills, etc). These will be displayed in only one
field and produce unmistakable flicker.
(2) Even with perfect redundancy (i.e. identical line pairs) any horizontal
motion will result in "spearing" (ragged edges) caused by the temporal
displacement of the two Fields. You will notice this when the camera
pans horizontally across high-contrast straight vertical features.
The US standard for interlaced Black and White TV uses a 60 Hz Field rate and
a 30 Hz Frame rate and Color TV uses a 59.94 Hz Field rate and a 29.97 Hz Frame
rate (the latter values are actually 1000/1001 times the Black and White rates)
and the corresponding numbers for PAL TV are 50 and 25 Hz respectively.
Computer monitors today are generally non-interlaced (i.e. progressive scan)
to reduce the artifacts present in interlaced video. Obviously, the bandwidth
of computer displays is far less restrictive than broadcast TV so higher data-
rates are very practical. The VESA standard for computer displays "specifies"
progressive scans at Frame rates of at least 72-75 Hz (at a minimum) to reduce
the flicker to acceptable essentially undetectable levels. At high brightness
levels most people will perceive a 60 Hz display as flickering quite badly in
their peripheral vision.
Film in the US is displayed at a 24 Hz frame-rate (i.e. each Frame of film is
displayed for about 1/24 seconds). To reduce the flicker to acceptable levels
each Frame is actually displayed twice (i.e. double-shuttered) which raises the
flicker frequency to 48 Hz. European film is displayed at a 25 Hz frame-rate
and is also double shuttered to reach a 50 Hz flicker frequency.
The Flicker Fusion Rate (the frequency where flicker becomes undetectable) of
the human visual system is a function of retinal field-of-view, brightness and
color. This is also sometimes referred to as the Critical Flicker Frequency.
Since human peripheral vision is more sensitive to flicker, sitting closer to
a monitor will increase the field-of-view and the resulting Flicker Fusion Rate
will increase making the amount of perceived flicker also increase. You can see
this effect by changing the viewing distance from a 60 Hz computer monitor with
a bright white background. Looking to one side of the monitor will also expose
your peripheral vision to the display, increasing the perceived flicker.
Increased brightness also increases the Flicker Fusion Rate and this is why
PAL TVs (with 25 Hz Frame rates) must operate at lower brightness levels than
NTSC (US) TVs (with 30 Hz Frame rates) to produce acceptable levels of flicker.
You can see this effect by operating a computer monitor at a 60 Hz Frame rate
(for example) while increasing and decreasing the brightness level of a solid
white background image. Displaying small objects at very low brightness levels
produces undetectable flicker levels even when using sub-10 Hz frame rates and
this effect was commonly used with calligraphic DVST (Direct View Storage Tube)
terminals nearly two decades ago. These vector displays showed very thin lines
that were very dim at oftentimes very low update rates. Theatures are able to
use quite low frame rates (24 Hz to 25 Hz) because the images are so dim. Have
you noticed how blindingly bright it is outside when you leave a movie theature
in the daytime? - your eyes have accommodated to the low luminance levels while
watching the film. To watch movies (i.e. film) on television a device known as
a telecine must used to convert between the differing frame rates. In the US a
3:2 pull-down is used (24 Hz to 60 Hz) and in Europe double shuttering is used
(25 Hz to 50 Hz). In 3:2 pull-down every-other-frame is shown 3 times and the
alternate frames are shown 2 times. US films are shown in European theatures
by simply speeding up the projectors by about 4% (24 Hz to 25 Hz frame rates).
The slightly speeded-up motion and increased sound pitch are usually accepted.
At very low brightness levels the color Flicker Fusion Rates diverge with red
requiring the lowest refresh rate and blue requiring the highest refresh rate.
Recommended reading:
"Color Science", by Wyszecki and Stiles, John Wiley and Sons
"Television Simplified", by Kiver and Kaufman, Van Norstrand Reinhold
"Raster Graphics Handbook", by the Conrac Corporation, Van Norstrand Reinhold
There are over a hundred other books covering the above topics in sufficient
detail to destroy uninformed claims. You could also contact a video engineer
or visual perception scientist.
*******************************************************************************
Micheal Cranford Resident Skeptic Intel P6 Architecture Labs
Marty Chinn
Purple Lightning (kac...@bc.cybernex.net) wrote:
: >
: Graphics can be just as subjective as anything else about a game. I
: personally think Crash Bandicoot is a much more graphically "superior" game
: than SM64 or PW64. So far all the 64 games seem to rely on fairly simple
: textures.
But Crash is using a limited engine. Its only from one view and pre
determined. SM64 and PW64 are not. Their graphic engine is much more complex.
: I'm won't deny that the N64 is a more powerful system but there are so many
: subjective elements to videogames, how much does that really matter?
I just think its stupid to say that the PS or Saturn can equal the power
of the N64 in graphics. We know it can't. Its as simple as that.
: As for the translucency thing - I REEEAALLLY hope that this does not become
: a benchmark for comparing the big 3. I mean do races like those depicted
: in waverace normally take place in the shallow, crystal clear waters of the
: Carribean? Is this really realistic? Jet ski races I've seen take place
: in bays and lakes and so forth and RARELY has the water been purely
: transparent, even if it's shallow. Jet moto *might* just turn out more
: realistic! Transparency as it has been used thus far is just gratuitous
: eye-candy.
Its one of many effects. I can point out many instances where a polished
game or a polished effect gives a much better look or feel to a game. Why
don't you play Wave Race before you criticize the water or where it takes
place.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Miller
Yes! I see now! That makes alot of sense. It would be where a simulated
MOTITION blur comes from? It would seem the two images would be "blured"
As, it isn't 60 FPR but it looks the same as 60FPS taking the edge off the
difference between the frames?
Harrison Williams
On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, Greg Sewart wrote:
>
> But, wait, I thought they were both motion captured. If that's the
> case, wouldn't the animation only be of higher quality if the frame rate
> was a little higher. Otherwise, how could you have high quality and low
> quality motion captured animation?
>
> Greg
I believe that in the case of VF and VF2, the major difference was in
screen update rates, or fields/sec. There are a lot of other things you
have to take into account with digital images on a monitor(which as I said
before I really don't want or need to get into). On a movie screen, which
runs techincally at 24 frames/sec, the animations are of the live actors
in their actual motions at 24 frames/sec, and is still smoother than VF1.
Why? Because in VF1 (and VF2, and most 3D games), the system alternates
between updating the background, and then the characters, through each
update cycle. This doesn't happen in movie theaters or broadcast TV. The
increase in fields/sec(not frames/sec) shortens the time between updating
the background and character images, among other things.
Orion
In article <Pine.OSF.3.93.961003...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu>,
Bryan Cristina <bc24...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu> wrote:
> Ok.. I guess after what everyone has been saying, we can tell the
> difference b/w 30fps and 60fps.
>
> But, can the TV even display a difference? I mean, if the TV can't do
> more than 25-30, can we really even see the difference if it's 25,30,60,
> or 80 fps?
This has already been discussed elsewhere, but in short, the answer is that
NTSC TVs can display 60 frames per second, usually.
-Orion
terrell gibbs
In article <DynEs...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, mapl...@cee.hw.ac.uk (Ian CR
Mapleson) wrote:
:In article <orion-ya02318000...@news.nas.com>
or...@kali.nas.com (Orion) writes:
:>In article <nargun-3009...@mk103a.mckenna.edu>,
:>nar...@ix.netcom.com (Trevor Powell) wrote:
:>
:>> In article <52nqkr$7...@news.asu.edu>, kag...@imap2.asu.edu wrote:
:>> > Piltowings runs
:>> > at 30 fps, and it shows BIG time.
:>>
:>> Broadcast TV runs at 30 fps.
:>
:>Wrong. Broadcast TV runs at 60 fields per second, interlaced. Believe me,
:>there's a *big* difference.
:
:Which is 30fps. You should read up on what field and frame actually mean.
:And actually US TV runs at 29.95fps, not 30fps. :)
:
:
:From SGI's "IRIS Digital Media Programming Guide", section 3 'Video
:Programming':
:
: "NTSC employs a total of 525 horizontal lines per frame, with two fields
: per frame of 262.5 lines each. Each field refreshes at 60Hz (actually
: 59.94Hz). NTSC encodes brightness, color, and synchronizing information in
: one signal."
:
A lot of the confusion is because people are talking about different types
of "frames." Be careful not to confuse video frames with frames of movement
or frames of animation. One video frame can hold two animation frames, one
in each video "field." Similarly, a video camera captures two frames of
movement in each video frame, because the second field is recorded at a
later time.
terrell gibbs
In article <01bbb0ff$6ba8e340$bdcaae80@revelations>, "Charles Miller"
<cwmiller@uiucedu> wrote:
:Ok end of this thread.
:The human eye cannot tell the difference between 30fps
:and 60fps....As far as movies, the eye cannot tell the difference between
:30fps and 60fps because the images are motion blured by default
:when making the movie.
Repeating a fallacy does not make it true. In fact, Doug Trumbull
demonstrated over a decade ago that increasing the frame rate of film to 60
fps dramatically improves the apparent realism of motion. Blur helps with
the illusion of motion, but it is still possible to get improvement with an
increase in frame rate.
Roger Kendall
I just saw the N64. I do not like games. I am not easily impressed.
I work with high end computers.
N64 is AWESOME and I want one - $200.00 for THIS???? Come over and
play with my $30k Silicon Graphics...it is better in pixel
resolution...but in realtime rendering...N64 is almost as good!
Enough said...I have a deposit in...will get mine in November.
scharff
In article <52ul9s$7...@herald.concentric.net>, Eag...@mail.concentric.net
says...
>
>Adam Marshall <Kul...@citynet.net> wrote:
>>Richard T Jordan wrote:
>>
>>{SNIP}
>>
>>> So don't worry Saturn and PSX owners. N64 is equal I
>>> >think to your systems, power-wise.
>>>
>>
>>
>>He's laughing because in about a year, PSX2 is going to show us what a
>>great and powerful system is.
>
>In the October issue of Gamefan Ken Kutaragi, Executive VP of SCE's R&D,
>said that the PlayStation2 will probably happen next century
>
Thats not the playstation 2. Thats the nex gen of playstation with real
synththesized characters etc. The playstation 2 will be out in late 1997.
The Mega-Playstation will be out in the year 2000 or beyond.
r...@nicholson.com
In article <orion-ya02318000...@news.nas.com>,
Orion <or...@kali.nas.com> wrote:
>
>This has already been discussed elsewhere, but in short, the answer is
>that NTSC TVs can display 60 frames per second, usually.
NTSC displays at a fixed 60 FIELDS per second (59.94 to be exact),
where a field consist of either just the even lines or just the odd
lines of a frame. The FRAME rate (where a frame consists of all 485
lines) is only 30 per second. This rate is fixed by the TV set
standard. Most movies are filmed at 24 fps; when displayed on an NTSC
TV, some movie frames are repeated for 2 fields, some movie frames are
repeated for 3 fields.
A good books on this subject is:
"Video Demystified" by Keith Jack, ISBN 1-878707-23-X
---
Ron Nicholson r...@nicholson.com http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/
r...@sgi.com
#include <canonical.disclaimer> // only my own opinions, etc.
Sean
Phat Hong Tran wrote:
>
> In article <52tp0s$j...@herald.concentric.net>,
> Jedi <sc...@pop3.concentric.net> wrote:
> >I know that this is off the subject but I work in TV and have worked
> >in film and film runs at 25 fps and video runs at 30 fps
>
> Films run at 24 frames per second, unless you're watching them on PAL
> second, which is quite a bit more fluid than 30 frames per second because
> of interfield update.
>
> Phat.
second (which is actually 30 Frames per second). A feild is just groups
of odd or even lines on the TV, which are interlaced to create one
frame.
Sean