How good can you run Minecraft?

Wishmaster · 23 Jan 2014

You can't see it.

Its impossible, physically, for the display to show anything beyond its refresh rate. All those extra frames are just being thrown away.

I know many say they can see it, but I honestly don't see how. That extra FPS beyond refresh never gets to the screen to be seen.

As mentioned earlier, I can tell the difference between 30 and 60 myself.
But beyond that, no gain other than turning into imaging tearing hell. And that I am sensitive to as it distracts me. It constantly pulling my attention to it.

ShamrockRig · 23 Jan 2014

i can tell the difference by 30-60 its just more smooth haha

badger906 · 24 Jan 2014

the reson you can see it in games is because its not instant theirs always a microsecond delay.
us as humans only see 24 frames per second in the real world. computer screens refresh rate, screen flicker and loads of other things make it noticeable. a cheap monitor with a slow response time will even make 100fps look rubbish while gaming.

ShamrockRig · 24 Jan 2014

24 fps is the rate of video or most anyway, the eye can see 30

badger906 · 24 Jan 2014

my 3 years of mamalian physiology and may eye disections told me 24-28 depending on the individal ^_^

personally I cant see the difference between 30 and 60 but ive never done a comparative test.. as you cant exactly switch between the 2 instantly in a game. as long as theres no lag im happy.

ShamrockRig · 24 Jan 2014

Amen

Contrabardus · 24 Jan 2014

Games and even films are different than reality.

When people say it looks 'smoother' it's because our eyes see movement as unnatural because of subtle imperfections on the screen. That includes everything from latency, to motion blur, to color bleeding caused by how image displays work. Higher framerates and resolutions cut down on that, which is why 60fps and even 120fps images have a higher visual quality over 30fps and why 1080p and 2160p look different to a lot of people.

It's not because our eyes see things any better on the display, but rather because the display sees them better and is able to show movement in a smoother and more natural looking way.

The Hobbit had a framerate of 48fps. I saw both versions in theaters and there was a noticable difference from 24 to 48 fps. The image looked crisper and actually a little too good. Some of the special effects were spoiled and the lighting often looked different by the higher framerate because it looked too natural. Smoke that looked much better in the lower framerate version of the film looked more like it was being puffed out of a smoke machine and seemed more artificial in the HFR version. The lack of motion blur in some scenes made the action seem slower and CGI effects stood out more.

Biologists don't have a complete understanding of exactly how the eyes work. We know the basics of course, but there are a lot of subtle things that we can't quantify and don't fully understand about vision.

I can see a difference in a 120 fps image with a 2160p resolution, but it's not because I can see more details. Movement is smoother looking and there is less motion blur. Colors also appear different in higher resolution displays. I mean outside of simply being calibrated differently as well.

It's got to do with how projection displays work and a bleeding or color blurring effect rather than any sort of fine detail that is imparted by the higher specs for the display. More tiny dots means more accurate color display even though we can't see the individual microscopic detail of fabric weave on a linebacker's shirt or individual pixels on a texture. We can still see subtleties in regard to how color is displayed on a higher resolution screen.

Put simply, high framerate and resolution displays look better more because of subtle, unnatural looking imperfections the images lack rather than any finer detail added to anything or extra frames of movement the eye can see.