Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why do we seem to be snobs with our ears but not our eyes?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why do we seem to be snobs with our ears but not our eyes? - Page 3

post #31 of 65
3/7/10 at 6:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ninjikiran View Post
Gamers have their own placebo, its called input lag.
humm? input lag is very real, watch the photos: Les LCD en retard à l'affichage sur les CRT ? Oui ! - HardWare.fr

a worst case scenario will give a 110ms/6.5 frames delay! enough to get pwned big time

4K is said to be like 192kHz...all it does is capture noise, so useful! we need 48fps(as James Cameron said), not 4K
Reply

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

post #32 of 65
3/7/10 at 7:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ninjikiran View Post
Gamers have their own placebo, its called input lag.

Input lag as it is for the most part is barely noticeable and not very much within human perception. Of course there are certain effects(ambient occlusion, and vsync) which when combined with a monitors native input lag can become noticeable on slight levels. If it is completely visible chances are the implementation is borked.

Besides that our eyes are more objective than our ears. Put two screens together and what your eyes saw as red for instance might of been completely inaccurate, the problems with various panel technologies are completely apparent and even those who prefer one or the other realize this and don't try to defend it.

Certain things that might be seen as placebo in the audio world, might hold weight in the video world. Bias lighting for instance is just a simple light, but just the right amount can fool our eyes into seeing a deeper contrast as well as provide less strain. It is not opinion, but fact.

We all see the same thing as well, but we all don't hear the same.

When it comes to fighting games 30fps vs 60fps can be the difference between pulling a properly timed combo since combos are frame by frame. At the same time stare at a game in 30fps for an extended period of time and it becomes normal. Move to a 60fps game and the difference in speed is apparent, a game running higher than 60 fps might seem "smoother" but in reality it is just too fast hence why even if you are getting 200fps in a game there is a limiter some where such that your game is not going so much faster than another persons.

Really only movies can get away with <30fps since they employ visual tricks to fool our eyes.
Games are designed for specific FPS. Especially fighting games. If a fighting game is designed with 30 fps in mind it will look normal at 30fps and anything over or under will make the game look like in slow motion or speed up (although not choppy). Thats why most fighting games lock their fps.

Also taking a look at crysis there is a HUGE difference between 60fps and 30fps. However the same good use of motion blur allow the game to be played well at 30fps without input lag which is a problem for poorly coded games. You want to see how real input lag is? Go play Dead Space PC. Even turning off the Vsync, the game is depends on a high fps to make inputs accurate.

And we DON'T see everything the same. I will never see how you see because I have red/green deficiency aka colour blindness. So just like hearing everyone seeings things differently
Reply
post #33 of 65
3/8/10 at 5:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ninjikiran View Post
Gamers have their own placebo, its called input lag.
If input lag is what I think it is, it certainly isn't placebo. Guitar hero is almost unplayable without calibrating for input lag (or at least calibrating something, if what I am thinking about is different) on my TV.
Reply
post #34 of 65
3/8/10 at 5:59pm
There are some noobs out there that when they are playing an online fps, if they get killed, they say they lagged.
Reply
post #35 of 65
3/8/10 at 6:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stang View Post
There are some noobs out there that when they are playing an online fps, if they get killed, they say they lagged.
That happens to me a lot. I don't usually see latency under 150 on my online gaming because my ISP is so bad. I've never heard people complaining about input lag being their cause of death though.
Reply
post #36 of 65
3/8/10 at 6:06pm
What games do you play? I play (or used to) Quake 3, Urban Terror, COD4 and COD MW2. Quit Urban Terror coz I kept getting banned from servers because I always pwned the admin and he reckons I hacked. Damn AD700+X-Fi Elite Pro Might start playing it again though...
Reply
post #37 of 65
3/8/10 at 6:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DayoftheGreek View Post
That happens to me a lot. I don't usually see latency under 150 on my online gaming because my ISP is so bad. I've never heard people complaining about input lag being their cause of death though.
Input lag is different than the latency you have due to Internet. Input lag is the latency between your PC sending the image to your monitor and the monitor actually displaying it. It's due to image processing the monitor has to do before it can show the image. Input lag is not that easy to notice, because it's relatively small. But it is there and it will make you miss shots once in a while because the image is lagging behind what is actually happening.

The network latency is added on top of that.

Modern games also have a lot of post processing effects, the image is rendered and then some effects are added after that (motion blur, depth of field, etc), which can also add lag to your inputs. This is the easiest to notice when the game is running poorly. But this shouldn't be confused with the input lag from the monitor.

Many "pro" gamers prefer old CRT monitors because of input lag. CRT monitors don't have any input lag because the image is drawn more directly.
Reply
post #38 of 65
3/8/10 at 7:06pm
Quote:
Right, its called "quad HD" (2160p) 3840x2160 resolution that can be up too 7680 × 4320 (7680p) "Ultra High Definition" by a method, that 16 time bigger than 1080p.

It put the former "HD" to shame, see the size comparative.

Its not quite new it exist in prototype since atleast 2003.

This is the future.
Meh. I can't see how that will be the future. It's one thing on a giant cinema screen, but home screens just aren't big enough to benefit from that kind of resolution. Even now, a lot of people think they are watching HD video when they are not. I can't imagine the average joe will notice the upgrade.
Reply
post #39 of 65
3/8/10 at 7:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stang View Post
What games do you play? I play (or used to) Quake 3, Urban Terror, COD4 and COD MW2. Quit Urban Terror coz I kept getting banned from servers because I always pwned the admin and he reckons I hacked. Damn AD700+X-Fi Elite Pro Might start playing it again though...
I used to play RTCW:ET, CS 1.6, and COD4. I don't really play many shooters now, except the occasional COD4 on my roommates 360.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tuoppi View Post
Input lag is different than the latency you have due to Internet. Input lag is the latency between your PC sending the image to your monitor and the monitor actually displaying it. It's due to image processing the monitor has to do before it can show the image. Input lag is not that easy to notice, because it's relatively small. But it is there and it will make you miss shots once in a while because the image is lagging behind what is actually happening.

The network latency is added on top of that.

Modern games also have a lot of post processing effects, the image is rendered and then some effects are added after that (motion blur, depth of field, etc), which can also add lag to your inputs. This is the easiest to notice when the game is running poorly. But this shouldn't be confused with the input lag from the monitor.

Many "pro" gamers prefer old CRT monitors because of input lag. CRT monitors don't have any input lag because the image is drawn more directly.
Yes I am aware. Stang just made a comment about lag an online gaming, so I was addressing that I had never heard someone in an online game complain about being killed because of input lag. I have heard of people complaining about network lag, which happens to me all the time.
Reply
post #40 of 65
3/9/10 at 1:21am
Yes, I hear people complaining about lag a lot. Whether it be fps, network or input lag. Most commonly network lag though. In todays society, no one should lag. Even graphics cards from a year ago are very powerful (I own a gtx 285, used to have two in SLI), modern modems and routers severely decrease lag and ISPs are a lot better. Also newer monitors are very advanced compared to some of the older LCDs. 120hz and 2ms response time
Reply
post #41 of 65
3/9/10 at 1:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by stang View Post
I personally could not live with anything less than my current graphics card (GTX 285). I had two in SLI, but am upgrading to an ati 5870. Why? Because I have seen the effects of what DX11 does to games and to me it is quite a dam big difference. It also gives more fps in games, so I won't get any lag etc.
That card is a beast, although it is kind of long
Reply
post #42 of 65
3/9/10 at 1:50am
I consider it more mainstream, as it is only about $240usd used these days. I am selling my evga gtx 285 SSC right now in Australia (can sell expensive here ) to fund an ati 5870. I crave DX11. Dunno why, just want it Could get two of them...but...I'd rather put that money toward a new DAC or headphones
Reply
post #43 of 65
3/9/10 at 5:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by stang View Post
Yes, I hear people complaining about lag a lot. Whether it be fps, network or input lag. Most commonly network lag though. In todays society, no one should lag
Lag hasn't gone anywhere.
Peoples Internet connections have gone faster over the years, but networks still lag. Network traffic simply can't go through a bunch of routers and hundreds of kilometers without any lag.
Input lag in monitors has actually gone up lately. Bigger monitors need more time to process the image. Those new 120Hz monitors are an improvement (their input lag is small), but many people still opt for cheaper, bigger, more higher resolution monitors instead of them.
Computers are faster now too, but games also require more power. And due to the post processing effects I mentioned earlier the latency before the image is drawn on the monitor has gone up as well.

So lag is definitely there and it makes a difference. Not that it's always to blame necessarily.
Reply
post #44 of 65
3/9/10 at 6:04am
Lag is definitely here, but fps lag should be a thing of the past. Look at crysis. When it came out, barely any machine could run it. Now a $1500 machine can run it maxed out. Network lag will always be here, yes, but people that complain of lag usually have a crappy connection in the first place.
Reply
post #45 of 65
3/9/10 at 6:22am
Crysis is 3 years old already. New games require more power. And they will always require more power as time goes on.

Also seems like a legit thing to complain about lag if you have a crappy connection
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why do we seem to be snobs with our ears but not our eyes?