Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "FPS u0026 Digital Video - Computerphile" video.

  1. Senatsu It depends on the type of things being displayed at 24 FPS. There's some things we can't see at 24 fps, and there's some things we can see at over 100 fps, because like I said, our eye sees different things as different speeds.
    3
  2. +Computerphile Um, there's another issue at hand though, monitors made to run 60 Hz output... When you try to feed them with a number of frames that's not an fraction of that (like 20, since that can be multiplied with 3 to get 60 or 30 because it can be multiplied with 2 to get 60 you end up with... issues...) When you divide 60 with 50 you end up with 1.2 You can't really show each of those 50 frames 1.2 times... You can show them once, or twice, but not in between, unless you update the screen part way through the rendering on the screen causing screen tearing... Got any good suggestions for how to deal with that?
    1
  3. jmicycle True, but there's still just a minority of monitors actually capable of doing that and those are also limited by the hardware combinations you make use of. For instance a freesync monitor with a Nvidia GPU or a G-sync monitor with a AMD GPU simply on't be able to fix a lack of frames.
    1
  4. Gull Lars Personally I'd rather sacrifice frame rate and latency then color accuracy and resolution for gaming. shrugs I'm ok with the consequences though, and in most of the games I'm into that isn't a huge deal...
    1
  5. MaxArceus It's a matter of priority. I'm ok with the latency and frame rate being lower. They don't play that much a role to me. On the other hand I like the immersion of high quality and high resolution monitors. I'm thinking of making the LG 34UC98-W my next monitor for instance to go with a RX 480. I'm ok with less then 30 FPS on average.
    1
  6. Bartosz Olszewski And you complain about my English with that sentence structure of yours...
    1