On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 07:55:06PM -0600, bc wrote:
> [whoops. did not read the next post which was about NTSC/PAL.
> one comment about patrick's follow up post, about questioning
> frame rates...
>
> now i am curious, with computers, when a graphic engine in a
> video game console (playstation/x-box/sega, or mac/pc) when
> the FPS (frames-per-second) is related to the output of the game's
> performace, such as '80 FPS!!!' as a clock of how fast a graphic
> chipset is at rendering bazillions of polygons in 4 dimensions.
>
> if the human eye/physiology cannot distinguish between different
> frames of an animation, at a certain point, what is the purpose of
> having extra data? just because it can exist? what is gained? bc]
The point is actually about 80 fps; the 30 (interlaced 60) fps
television uses is a bandwidth-reducing compromise.
Randolph
> [whoops. did not read the next post which was about NTSC/PAL.
> one comment about patrick's follow up post, about questioning
> frame rates...
>
> now i am curious, with computers, when a graphic engine in a
> video game console (playstation/x-box/sega, or mac/pc) when
> the FPS (frames-per-second) is related to the output of the game's
> performace, such as '80 FPS!!!' as a clock of how fast a graphic
> chipset is at rendering bazillions of polygons in 4 dimensions.
>
> if the human eye/physiology cannot distinguish between different
> frames of an animation, at a certain point, what is the purpose of
> having extra data? just because it can exist? what is gained? bc]
The point is actually about 80 fps; the 30 (interlaced 60) fps
television uses is a bandwidth-reducing compromise.
Randolph