<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_06_1428226</id>
	<title>Framerates Matter</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1262798760000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"As more and more games move away from 60fps, the myth of the human eye only being able to detect 30fps keeps popping up. What's more, most people don't seem to realize the <a href="http://www.significant-bits.com/framerates-do-matter">numerous advantages of a high framerate</a>, and there's plenty of those."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " As more and more games move away from 60fps , the myth of the human eye only being able to detect 30fps keeps popping up .
What 's more , most people do n't seem to realize the numerous advantages of a high framerate , and there 's plenty of those .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "As more and more games move away from 60fps, the myth of the human eye only being able to detect 30fps keeps popping up.
What's more, most people don't seem to realize the numerous advantages of a high framerate, and there's plenty of those.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30677488</id>
	<title>Re:Outside Looking In</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262786280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Those who could probably detect 30 fps discontinuity are those who see the TV screen jiggle and waver when they chew something crunchy while watching (you know who you are, here's a place to own up to it).</p></div> </blockquote><p>I thought that almost everyone saw that effect? To me, it's something very obvious. Old NTSC CRT TVs are flickery because they only refresh at 59.94 fields per second. I bet PAL CRTs are even worse.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those who could probably detect 30 fps discontinuity are those who see the TV screen jiggle and waver when they chew something crunchy while watching ( you know who you are , here 's a place to own up to it ) .
I thought that almost everyone saw that effect ?
To me , it 's something very obvious .
Old NTSC CRT TVs are flickery because they only refresh at 59.94 fields per second .
I bet PAL CRTs are even worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those who could probably detect 30 fps discontinuity are those who see the TV screen jiggle and waver when they chew something crunchy while watching (you know who you are, here's a place to own up to it).
I thought that almost everyone saw that effect?
To me, it's something very obvious.
Old NTSC CRT TVs are flickery because they only refresh at 59.94 fields per second.
I bet PAL CRTs are even worse.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673386</id>
	<title>Good animators know that motion blur matters</title>
	<author>Boss Sauce</author>
	<datestamp>1262808780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A film camera shooting at 24fps typically has an exposure of 1/48 of a second.  The other 1/48 of a second is used to move the exposed bit of film out of the way and to position the next bit of film in the gate for exposure.  This is referred to at a 180-degree shutter, since the shutter is open for 1/2 of the 360 degrees of the camera movement's rotation.  When the film is shot overcranked-- at 48fps or 72fps or whatever for a slo-mo effect-- the shutter is still usually 180 degrees, so the motion blur looks about the same when played back at 24fps.</p><p>Your test doesn't indicate as much about frame rate as it points to flaws in your rendering technique.</p><p>With accurate motion blur, your viewers would have a very hard time telling the difference between 24fps, 30fps, and 60fps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A film camera shooting at 24fps typically has an exposure of 1/48 of a second .
The other 1/48 of a second is used to move the exposed bit of film out of the way and to position the next bit of film in the gate for exposure .
This is referred to at a 180-degree shutter , since the shutter is open for 1/2 of the 360 degrees of the camera movement 's rotation .
When the film is shot overcranked-- at 48fps or 72fps or whatever for a slo-mo effect-- the shutter is still usually 180 degrees , so the motion blur looks about the same when played back at 24fps.Your test does n't indicate as much about frame rate as it points to flaws in your rendering technique.With accurate motion blur , your viewers would have a very hard time telling the difference between 24fps , 30fps , and 60fps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A film camera shooting at 24fps typically has an exposure of 1/48 of a second.
The other 1/48 of a second is used to move the exposed bit of film out of the way and to position the next bit of film in the gate for exposure.
This is referred to at a 180-degree shutter, since the shutter is open for 1/2 of the 360 degrees of the camera movement's rotation.
When the film is shot overcranked-- at 48fps or 72fps or whatever for a slo-mo effect-- the shutter is still usually 180 degrees, so the motion blur looks about the same when played back at 24fps.Your test doesn't indicate as much about frame rate as it points to flaws in your rendering technique.With accurate motion blur, your viewers would have a very hard time telling the difference between 24fps, 30fps, and 60fps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673466</id>
	<title>It also matters in input</title>
	<author>caywen</author>
	<datestamp>1262809020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's a foregone conclusion that 60fps looks smoother than 30fps. However, it also matters for game input for fast action games. 30fps means that you have a maximum latency of about 33ms, or an average of about 16ms between when something happens and the time you could possibly observe it. 60fps cuts that in half, and removes about 8ms of latency on average. Two players being equal and having equal network latency and bandwidth, the one running at 60fps will edge the other out by a small but significant margin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's a foregone conclusion that 60fps looks smoother than 30fps .
However , it also matters for game input for fast action games .
30fps means that you have a maximum latency of about 33ms , or an average of about 16ms between when something happens and the time you could possibly observe it .
60fps cuts that in half , and removes about 8ms of latency on average .
Two players being equal and having equal network latency and bandwidth , the one running at 60fps will edge the other out by a small but significant margin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's a foregone conclusion that 60fps looks smoother than 30fps.
However, it also matters for game input for fast action games.
30fps means that you have a maximum latency of about 33ms, or an average of about 16ms between when something happens and the time you could possibly observe it.
60fps cuts that in half, and removes about 8ms of latency on average.
Two players being equal and having equal network latency and bandwidth, the one running at 60fps will edge the other out by a small but significant margin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672078</id>
	<title>Re:LCDs = need even higher FPS</title>
	<author>IndieKid</author>
	<datestamp>1262803260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and some high-end TVs have a 'game mode' that amongst other things switches the interpolation off to avoid the delay you speak of. Specifically, I think some Samsung models have this feature.</p><p>There is a related point though which is the fact that a number of TVs/LCD Displays claim to be 100Hz or even 120Hz but can't actually accept a 100/120Hz input. Supposedly the coming generation of '3D ready' displays will rectify this since for a comfortable 3D viewing experience 60 FPS to each eye is required.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and some high-end TVs have a 'game mode ' that amongst other things switches the interpolation off to avoid the delay you speak of .
Specifically , I think some Samsung models have this feature.There is a related point though which is the fact that a number of TVs/LCD Displays claim to be 100Hz or even 120Hz but ca n't actually accept a 100/120Hz input .
Supposedly the coming generation of '3D ready ' displays will rectify this since for a comfortable 3D viewing experience 60 FPS to each eye is required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and some high-end TVs have a 'game mode' that amongst other things switches the interpolation off to avoid the delay you speak of.
Specifically, I think some Samsung models have this feature.There is a related point though which is the fact that a number of TVs/LCD Displays claim to be 100Hz or even 120Hz but can't actually accept a 100/120Hz input.
Supposedly the coming generation of '3D ready' displays will rectify this since for a comfortable 3D viewing experience 60 FPS to each eye is required.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674164</id>
	<title>FWIW, we do high rate visual studies in my</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262769060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FWIW, we do high rate visual studies in my research lab at school.  When using isochronic stimuli (in other words, the amount of time between frames is exactly equal), then the 30 Hz rate does seem to be a good approximation of fusion for most individuals.  However, if the frames are nonisochronic, and are jittered by even a small amount, then the brain is capable of detecting rates upwards of even 60 Hz.  So speed isn't exactly everything, there is an element of quality that should be considered as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FWIW , we do high rate visual studies in my research lab at school .
When using isochronic stimuli ( in other words , the amount of time between frames is exactly equal ) , then the 30 Hz rate does seem to be a good approximation of fusion for most individuals .
However , if the frames are nonisochronic , and are jittered by even a small amount , then the brain is capable of detecting rates upwards of even 60 Hz .
So speed is n't exactly everything , there is an element of quality that should be considered as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FWIW, we do high rate visual studies in my research lab at school.
When using isochronic stimuli (in other words, the amount of time between frames is exactly equal), then the 30 Hz rate does seem to be a good approximation of fusion for most individuals.
However, if the frames are nonisochronic, and are jittered by even a small amount, then the brain is capable of detecting rates upwards of even 60 Hz.
So speed isn't exactly everything, there is an element of quality that should be considered as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672996</id>
	<title>Double and Triple buffer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262807040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure it is hard to tell the difference between 30 and 60, but in a very high speed game FPS or fighting game, or even your super mario type people feel the difference.</p><p>This is compounded by the fact that almost all games are double or triple buffered.<br>For example double buffering:<br>Frame 0 = Computer logic is here,  think of things like I move the controller or mouse. Also draw stuff to the back buffer.<br>Frame -1 = This is the frame you actually see</p><p>For triple buffering:<br>Frame 0 = Computer logic is here,  think of things like I move the controller or mouse. Also draw stuff to the back buffer.<br>Frame -1 = This is waiting in the off buffer<br>Frame -2 = This is the frame you actually see</p><p>For double buffering plus deferred draw(many games do this)<br>Frame 0 = Computer logic is here,  think of things like I move the controller or mouse. Also schedule stuff to the to draw.<br>Frame -1 = This is being drawn to the back buffer<br>Frame -2 = This is the frame you actually see</p><p>For 30 fps the delay from what you do to the game controls to what you see is usually 100 milliseconds.<br>For 60 fps the delay from what you do to the game controls to what you see is usually 50 milliseconds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure it is hard to tell the difference between 30 and 60 , but in a very high speed game FPS or fighting game , or even your super mario type people feel the difference.This is compounded by the fact that almost all games are double or triple buffered.For example double buffering : Frame 0 = Computer logic is here , think of things like I move the controller or mouse .
Also draw stuff to the back buffer.Frame -1 = This is the frame you actually seeFor triple buffering : Frame 0 = Computer logic is here , think of things like I move the controller or mouse .
Also draw stuff to the back buffer.Frame -1 = This is waiting in the off bufferFrame -2 = This is the frame you actually seeFor double buffering plus deferred draw ( many games do this ) Frame 0 = Computer logic is here , think of things like I move the controller or mouse .
Also schedule stuff to the to draw.Frame -1 = This is being drawn to the back bufferFrame -2 = This is the frame you actually seeFor 30 fps the delay from what you do to the game controls to what you see is usually 100 milliseconds.For 60 fps the delay from what you do to the game controls to what you see is usually 50 milliseconds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure it is hard to tell the difference between 30 and 60, but in a very high speed game FPS or fighting game, or even your super mario type people feel the difference.This is compounded by the fact that almost all games are double or triple buffered.For example double buffering:Frame 0 = Computer logic is here,  think of things like I move the controller or mouse.
Also draw stuff to the back buffer.Frame -1 = This is the frame you actually seeFor triple buffering:Frame 0 = Computer logic is here,  think of things like I move the controller or mouse.
Also draw stuff to the back buffer.Frame -1 = This is waiting in the off bufferFrame -2 = This is the frame you actually seeFor double buffering plus deferred draw(many games do this)Frame 0 = Computer logic is here,  think of things like I move the controller or mouse.
Also schedule stuff to the to draw.Frame -1 = This is being drawn to the back bufferFrame -2 = This is the frame you actually seeFor 30 fps the delay from what you do to the game controls to what you see is usually 100 milliseconds.For 60 fps the delay from what you do to the game controls to what you see is usually 50 milliseconds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672570</id>
	<title>120fps vs 60fps is like night and day</title>
	<author>Iyonesco</author>
	<datestamp>1262805300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For a high speed game like Quake even 60fps is totally unplayable and there's a massive difference between 90fps and 120fps.  I consider 120fps the minimum for Quake and for that reason I continue to use a CRT.  If you put my CRT at 120Hz+120fps next to a 60Hz+60fps LCD the difference is night and day and the LCD looks extremely choppy.  You don't even have to do a side by side comparison and if you're used to playing at 120fps on a daily basis then you'll instantly see the difference when you see the game running at 60fps.</p><p>People who think you can't tell above 60fps have obviously never done any sort of valid comparisons because the difference is extremely pronounced.  Research done by Sony found that "240Hz is the perception limit for the degradation of motion image quality for the human eye in following natural images" (Journal of the Society for Information Display Vol 15.1).  I suspect there would be a noticeable difference between 240fps and 120fps but I've never had the opportunity to compare.</p><p>These comments are all in the context of playing Quake which is a very fast moving game so there is a large difference between each frame.  If you play a much slower game then the difference between each frame will be significantly less, in which case 30fps might look absolutely fine.  However, just because some games look fine at 30fps doesn't justify the whole "the human eye can't perceive above 30fps" idiocy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For a high speed game like Quake even 60fps is totally unplayable and there 's a massive difference between 90fps and 120fps .
I consider 120fps the minimum for Quake and for that reason I continue to use a CRT .
If you put my CRT at 120Hz + 120fps next to a 60Hz + 60fps LCD the difference is night and day and the LCD looks extremely choppy .
You do n't even have to do a side by side comparison and if you 're used to playing at 120fps on a daily basis then you 'll instantly see the difference when you see the game running at 60fps.People who think you ca n't tell above 60fps have obviously never done any sort of valid comparisons because the difference is extremely pronounced .
Research done by Sony found that " 240Hz is the perception limit for the degradation of motion image quality for the human eye in following natural images " ( Journal of the Society for Information Display Vol 15.1 ) .
I suspect there would be a noticeable difference between 240fps and 120fps but I 've never had the opportunity to compare.These comments are all in the context of playing Quake which is a very fast moving game so there is a large difference between each frame .
If you play a much slower game then the difference between each frame will be significantly less , in which case 30fps might look absolutely fine .
However , just because some games look fine at 30fps does n't justify the whole " the human eye ca n't perceive above 30fps " idiocy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a high speed game like Quake even 60fps is totally unplayable and there's a massive difference between 90fps and 120fps.
I consider 120fps the minimum for Quake and for that reason I continue to use a CRT.
If you put my CRT at 120Hz+120fps next to a 60Hz+60fps LCD the difference is night and day and the LCD looks extremely choppy.
You don't even have to do a side by side comparison and if you're used to playing at 120fps on a daily basis then you'll instantly see the difference when you see the game running at 60fps.People who think you can't tell above 60fps have obviously never done any sort of valid comparisons because the difference is extremely pronounced.
Research done by Sony found that "240Hz is the perception limit for the degradation of motion image quality for the human eye in following natural images" (Journal of the Society for Information Display Vol 15.1).
I suspect there would be a noticeable difference between 240fps and 120fps but I've never had the opportunity to compare.These comments are all in the context of playing Quake which is a very fast moving game so there is a large difference between each frame.
If you play a much slower game then the difference between each frame will be significantly less, in which case 30fps might look absolutely fine.
However, just because some games look fine at 30fps doesn't justify the whole "the human eye can't perceive above 30fps" idiocy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673476</id>
	<title>Size matter !</title>
	<author>meuhlavache</author>
	<datestamp>1262809080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And I have the biggest one !</htmltext>
<tokenext>And I have the biggest one !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I have the biggest one !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672006</id>
	<title>Re:Where it matters most.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262803020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For games where timing and targeting prescision is required, you need AT LEAST 30 fps. Less than that leads to noticeably worse performance. The open question is, if more than 30 fps does make any difference. It probably won't improve accuracy by much, but if you reduce your monitor rate to 60 Hz, you'll pretty soon notice that the eye can detect a lot more than 30 pictures per second. It does just not affect our sense of motion by much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For games where timing and targeting prescision is required , you need AT LEAST 30 fps .
Less than that leads to noticeably worse performance .
The open question is , if more than 30 fps does make any difference .
It probably wo n't improve accuracy by much , but if you reduce your monitor rate to 60 Hz , you 'll pretty soon notice that the eye can detect a lot more than 30 pictures per second .
It does just not affect our sense of motion by much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For games where timing and targeting prescision is required, you need AT LEAST 30 fps.
Less than that leads to noticeably worse performance.
The open question is, if more than 30 fps does make any difference.
It probably won't improve accuracy by much, but if you reduce your monitor rate to 60 Hz, you'll pretty soon notice that the eye can detect a lot more than 30 pictures per second.
It does just not affect our sense of motion by much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673900</id>
	<title>Re:Any animator knows...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262811180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How weird... You contradict your whole argument the last paragraph.</p><p>Anyhow: That is an interesting idea: Why not make an engine that does render all changes since the last frame in the same manner? Not with the primitive motion blur though. Something more intelligent, that helps you predict things too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How weird... You contradict your whole argument the last paragraph.Anyhow : That is an interesting idea : Why not make an engine that does render all changes since the last frame in the same manner ?
Not with the primitive motion blur though .
Something more intelligent , that helps you predict things too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How weird... You contradict your whole argument the last paragraph.Anyhow: That is an interesting idea: Why not make an engine that does render all changes since the last frame in the same manner?
Not with the primitive motion blur though.
Something more intelligent, that helps you predict things too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672230</id>
	<title>Re:Where it matters most.</title>
	<author>Speare</author>
	<datestamp>1262803920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In many embedded apps, like coin-op arcade games, the "model" is indeed tied to the frame rate.  The main loop assumes a fixed <i>dt</i>, and pipelines the input, update, render tasks.  Often this is done without threading, just <b> <tt>while (!dead) { do\_input(); do\_update(); do\_render(); }</tt> </b> in the main function.  Even with threads or co-processors, they often tie the rates 1:1:1.  Some have no room for adjustment, and some will at least update their <i>dt</i> if the render took too long.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In many embedded apps , like coin-op arcade games , the " model " is indeed tied to the frame rate .
The main loop assumes a fixed dt , and pipelines the input , update , render tasks .
Often this is done without threading , just while ( ! dead ) { do \ _input ( ) ; do \ _update ( ) ; do \ _render ( ) ; } in the main function .
Even with threads or co-processors , they often tie the rates 1 : 1 : 1 .
Some have no room for adjustment , and some will at least update their dt if the render took too long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In many embedded apps, like coin-op arcade games, the "model" is indeed tied to the frame rate.
The main loop assumes a fixed dt, and pipelines the input, update, render tasks.
Often this is done without threading, just  while (!dead) { do\_input(); do\_update(); do\_render(); }  in the main function.
Even with threads or co-processors, they often tie the rates 1:1:1.
Some have no room for adjustment, and some will at least update their dt if the render took too long.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672910</id>
	<title>Re:Where it matters most.</title>
	<author>Tacvek</author>
	<datestamp>1262806680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In reality different game engines work differently.</p><p>There are some games where the engine cycles and game framerate are tied together, so if game calculations take to long, the game will slow down, not outputting a frame when it was supposed to. Further in this type of game rendering taking too long will slow down everything (one type of 'lag').</p><p>In most modern 3D games, if the engine takes to long to calculate to make its ideal cycle-rate, the game may slow down ('lag'), but this only impacts the framerate in so far as a framerate higher than the engine's cycle rate does no good, as there is no new data to render. If the engine slowdown was due to CPU overload, then it is possible (perhaps even likely) that the framerate may also be hurt, as that may slow rendering if any part of rendering at all is using the CPU.</p><p>Then you also have the case where the game is still running full speed, but the rendering takes too long to maintain the desired framerate, so the visible framerate drops. The game is still running as normal, so the only 'lag' this can cause is a delay in getting new information from the game engine. Somebody with good timing can overcome any 'lag' of this type in many games, since the game is still running at full speed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In reality different game engines work differently.There are some games where the engine cycles and game framerate are tied together , so if game calculations take to long , the game will slow down , not outputting a frame when it was supposed to .
Further in this type of game rendering taking too long will slow down everything ( one type of 'lag ' ) .In most modern 3D games , if the engine takes to long to calculate to make its ideal cycle-rate , the game may slow down ( 'lag ' ) , but this only impacts the framerate in so far as a framerate higher than the engine 's cycle rate does no good , as there is no new data to render .
If the engine slowdown was due to CPU overload , then it is possible ( perhaps even likely ) that the framerate may also be hurt , as that may slow rendering if any part of rendering at all is using the CPU.Then you also have the case where the game is still running full speed , but the rendering takes too long to maintain the desired framerate , so the visible framerate drops .
The game is still running as normal , so the only 'lag ' this can cause is a delay in getting new information from the game engine .
Somebody with good timing can overcome any 'lag ' of this type in many games , since the game is still running at full speed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In reality different game engines work differently.There are some games where the engine cycles and game framerate are tied together, so if game calculations take to long, the game will slow down, not outputting a frame when it was supposed to.
Further in this type of game rendering taking too long will slow down everything (one type of 'lag').In most modern 3D games, if the engine takes to long to calculate to make its ideal cycle-rate, the game may slow down ('lag'), but this only impacts the framerate in so far as a framerate higher than the engine's cycle rate does no good, as there is no new data to render.
If the engine slowdown was due to CPU overload, then it is possible (perhaps even likely) that the framerate may also be hurt, as that may slow rendering if any part of rendering at all is using the CPU.Then you also have the case where the game is still running full speed, but the rendering takes too long to maintain the desired framerate, so the visible framerate drops.
The game is still running as normal, so the only 'lag' this can cause is a delay in getting new information from the game engine.
Somebody with good timing can overcome any 'lag' of this type in many games, since the game is still running at full speed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673820</id>
	<title>Re:Where it matters most.</title>
	<author>Bluebottel</author>
	<datestamp>1262810760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Surely you must be joking. The golden standard for fighting games is <b>60</b> and nothing else. <br>
<a href="http://www.gamefaqs.com/coinop/arcade/file/920857/34307" title="gamefaqs.com" rel="nofollow">Heres a faq for Tekken 5</a> [gamefaqs.com] Also have a look <a href="http://www.tekkenzaibatsu.com/" title="tekkenzaibatsu.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [tekkenzaibatsu.com] and <a href="http://www.shoryuken.com/forum.php" title="shoryuken.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [shoryuken.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely you must be joking .
The golden standard for fighting games is 60 and nothing else .
Heres a faq for Tekken 5 [ gamefaqs.com ] Also have a look here [ tekkenzaibatsu.com ] and here [ shoryuken.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely you must be joking.
The golden standard for fighting games is 60 and nothing else.
Heres a faq for Tekken 5 [gamefaqs.com] Also have a look here [tekkenzaibatsu.com] and here [shoryuken.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671982</id>
	<title>Apparently web servers also matter</title>
	<author>ForestHill</author>
	<datestamp>1262802960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>she's dead, Jim</htmltext>
<tokenext>she 's dead , Jim</tokentext>
<sentencetext>she's dead, Jim</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673586</id>
	<title>Re:Same with audio...</title>
	<author>compro01</author>
	<datestamp>1262809620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a common misunderstanding of the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem.  A sample rate of 44.1kHz gives you a Nyquist frequency of 22.05Khz.  Any signal below that (given ideal filtering) will not fold and alias to a different signal.  It gives nothing on the quality of the sampling and capability for that to be reconstructed to the original signal beyond that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a common misunderstanding of the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem .
A sample rate of 44.1kHz gives you a Nyquist frequency of 22.05Khz .
Any signal below that ( given ideal filtering ) will not fold and alias to a different signal .
It gives nothing on the quality of the sampling and capability for that to be reconstructed to the original signal beyond that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a common misunderstanding of the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem.
A sample rate of 44.1kHz gives you a Nyquist frequency of 22.05Khz.
Any signal below that (given ideal filtering) will not fold and alias to a different signal.
It gives nothing on the quality of the sampling and capability for that to be reconstructed to the original signal beyond that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672934</id>
	<title>Re:Any animator knows...</title>
	<author>Ksevio</author>
	<datestamp>1262806740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even in movie theaters, the projectors show each frame twice to give a framerate of 48 fps.  Makes it look smoother that way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even in movie theaters , the projectors show each frame twice to give a framerate of 48 fps .
Makes it look smoother that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even in movie theaters, the projectors show each frame twice to give a framerate of 48 fps.
Makes it look smoother that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672522</id>
	<title>Re:Where it matters most.</title>
	<author>lagfest</author>
	<datestamp>1262805000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most games on the Quake 3 engine have that. 125 fps was the sweet spot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most games on the Quake 3 engine have that .
125 fps was the sweet spot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most games on the Quake 3 engine have that.
125 fps was the sweet spot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671832</id>
	<title>Motion blur and bloom effects</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262802360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article notes about motion blurring, and links to <a href="http://http.developer.nvidia.com/GPUGems3/gpugems3\_ch27.html" title="nvidia.com">NVidia's page about it's technology</a> [nvidia.com]. The <a href="http://http.developer.nvidia.com/GPUGems3/elementLinks/27fig03.jpg" title="nvidia.com">last figure</a> [nvidia.com] shows a terrain with full-screen motion blur effect, which in my opinion is pretty important in games to create that feeling of speed. People usually object against this and bloom effects and just want a sharp picture, but maybe some games have taken it too far. It's important none the less, even if it's not all sharp picture, because your eye picture isn't all that sharp either and you experience the same blur.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article notes about motion blurring , and links to NVidia 's page about it 's technology [ nvidia.com ] .
The last figure [ nvidia.com ] shows a terrain with full-screen motion blur effect , which in my opinion is pretty important in games to create that feeling of speed .
People usually object against this and bloom effects and just want a sharp picture , but maybe some games have taken it too far .
It 's important none the less , even if it 's not all sharp picture , because your eye picture is n't all that sharp either and you experience the same blur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article notes about motion blurring, and links to NVidia's page about it's technology [nvidia.com].
The last figure [nvidia.com] shows a terrain with full-screen motion blur effect, which in my opinion is pretty important in games to create that feeling of speed.
People usually object against this and bloom effects and just want a sharp picture, but maybe some games have taken it too far.
It's important none the less, even if it's not all sharp picture, because your eye picture isn't all that sharp either and you experience the same blur.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672036</id>
	<title>Absolutely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262803140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I couldn't agree more.  That Internal Server Error looks way better at 120 Hz on my 45" HD display.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could n't agree more .
That Internal Server Error looks way better at 120 Hz on my 45 " HD display .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldn't agree more.
That Internal Server Error looks way better at 120 Hz on my 45" HD display.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673528</id>
	<title>shutter rates above 1/24th of a second</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262809380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do photography, so I'm not a film expert, but I don't think that It's necessarily true, as you claim, that in movies the film is always exposed for the 1/24th of a second at exists between frames. I would imagine that depending on scene lighting, desired exposure, desired depth of field, and other conditions, the exposure time could be anything from the upper limit of the camera's shutter all the way down to 1/24th of a second.</p><p>On a related note, if you're shooting at less than 1/60 of a second, you're likely to see blur in action scenes. If you wanted to eliminate blur from actions scenes in your movie, you'd probably need to be shooting at shutter speeds of 1/120 of a second or higher.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do photography , so I 'm not a film expert , but I do n't think that It 's necessarily true , as you claim , that in movies the film is always exposed for the 1/24th of a second at exists between frames .
I would imagine that depending on scene lighting , desired exposure , desired depth of field , and other conditions , the exposure time could be anything from the upper limit of the camera 's shutter all the way down to 1/24th of a second.On a related note , if you 're shooting at less than 1/60 of a second , you 're likely to see blur in action scenes .
If you wanted to eliminate blur from actions scenes in your movie , you 'd probably need to be shooting at shutter speeds of 1/120 of a second or higher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do photography, so I'm not a film expert, but I don't think that It's necessarily true, as you claim, that in movies the film is always exposed for the 1/24th of a second at exists between frames.
I would imagine that depending on scene lighting, desired exposure, desired depth of field, and other conditions, the exposure time could be anything from the upper limit of the camera's shutter all the way down to 1/24th of a second.On a related note, if you're shooting at less than 1/60 of a second, you're likely to see blur in action scenes.
If you wanted to eliminate blur from actions scenes in your movie, you'd probably need to be shooting at shutter speeds of 1/120 of a second or higher.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673750</id>
	<title>Re:The human eye can dectect 30</title>
	<author>HaZardman27</author>
	<datestamp>1262810520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if they're playing on a monitor?  I connect my 360 to a PC monitor via VGA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if they 're playing on a monitor ?
I connect my 360 to a PC monitor via VGA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if they're playing on a monitor?
I connect my 360 to a PC monitor via VGA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675196</id>
	<title>Mame and other emulators</title>
	<author>pancakegeels</author>
	<datestamp>1262773860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Emulation is a fantastic field, and one thing they are great at is making old games look great, Scale2x and so on. The thing is, I am pretty sure I have seen it crank out some super-massive framerates. for some titles. The video for Starblazer gave no indication of how it was rendered. Which, in addition to the video being encoded for flv, softens the initial point in this article.

Good links in it though - I like it when people give interesting references.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Emulation is a fantastic field , and one thing they are great at is making old games look great , Scale2x and so on .
The thing is , I am pretty sure I have seen it crank out some super-massive framerates .
for some titles .
The video for Starblazer gave no indication of how it was rendered .
Which , in addition to the video being encoded for flv , softens the initial point in this article .
Good links in it though - I like it when people give interesting references .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Emulation is a fantastic field, and one thing they are great at is making old games look great, Scale2x and so on.
The thing is, I am pretty sure I have seen it crank out some super-massive framerates.
for some titles.
The video for Starblazer gave no indication of how it was rendered.
Which, in addition to the video being encoded for flv, softens the initial point in this article.
Good links in it though - I like it when people give interesting references.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672364</id>
	<title>Re:Any animator knows...</title>
	<author>StripedCow</author>
	<datestamp>1262804400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you use, instead of a circle, a turning wheel with spokes, you can "see" the wheel suddenly going backward as you drop the framerate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you use , instead of a circle , a turning wheel with spokes , you can " see " the wheel suddenly going backward as you drop the framerate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you use, instead of a circle, a turning wheel with spokes, you can "see" the wheel suddenly going backward as you drop the framerate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673368</id>
	<title>Appropriate news icon...</title>
	<author>yakumo.unr</author>
	<datestamp>1262808660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>as Quake players have known this for over a decade..</htmltext>
<tokenext>as Quake players have known this for over a decade. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as Quake players have known this for over a decade..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672010</id>
	<title>Re:Where it matters most.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262803020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tekken? 30fps? Real fighting games run on 60fps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tekken ?
30fps ? Real fighting games run on 60fps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tekken?
30fps? Real fighting games run on 60fps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675520</id>
	<title>Re:The human eye can dectect 30</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1262775300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hybrid engines are such a waist!! why do so many people promote the BS that they are in some way better.  They are a piss poor electric engine and an even crappier combustion engine.  They are even a bad financial decision since buying a civic or corolla which both get 35mpg or better each for about half the cost of a comparable hybrid.  Go diesel, pure electric, or economy car; but please, please don't buy a hybrid, they are such a waist and a horrible fad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hybrid engines are such a waist ! !
why do so many people promote the BS that they are in some way better .
They are a piss poor electric engine and an even crappier combustion engine .
They are even a bad financial decision since buying a civic or corolla which both get 35mpg or better each for about half the cost of a comparable hybrid .
Go diesel , pure electric , or economy car ; but please , please do n't buy a hybrid , they are such a waist and a horrible fad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hybrid engines are such a waist!!
why do so many people promote the BS that they are in some way better.
They are a piss poor electric engine and an even crappier combustion engine.
They are even a bad financial decision since buying a civic or corolla which both get 35mpg or better each for about half the cost of a comparable hybrid.
Go diesel, pure electric, or economy car; but please, please don't buy a hybrid, they are such a waist and a horrible fad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673760</id>
	<title>Re:Any animator knows...</title>
	<author>TheEvilOverlord</author>
	<datestamp>1262810520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If by 'supposedly' you mean 'definitely' and if by 'most movie theaters' you mean 'all theaters and even all motion picture production processes in recent years', then yes.</p></div><p>I'm sorry but that's not quite correct.  I worked as a movie projectionist for several years, so I know this from experience.  While 24fps works, and is what used to be used in cinemas, it is noticeably flickery.  As with most advancements in cinema technology, they came up with a bit of a hack.  While there are still only 24 frames of film per second, <b>the projector shows each frame twice, giving an effective frame rate of 48fps</b>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If by 'supposedly ' you mean 'definitely ' and if by 'most movie theaters ' you mean 'all theaters and even all motion picture production processes in recent years ' , then yes.I 'm sorry but that 's not quite correct .
I worked as a movie projectionist for several years , so I know this from experience .
While 24fps works , and is what used to be used in cinemas , it is noticeably flickery .
As with most advancements in cinema technology , they came up with a bit of a hack .
While there are still only 24 frames of film per second , the projector shows each frame twice , giving an effective frame rate of 48fps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If by 'supposedly' you mean 'definitely' and if by 'most movie theaters' you mean 'all theaters and even all motion picture production processes in recent years', then yes.I'm sorry but that's not quite correct.
I worked as a movie projectionist for several years, so I know this from experience.
While 24fps works, and is what used to be used in cinemas, it is noticeably flickery.
As with most advancements in cinema technology, they came up with a bit of a hack.
While there are still only 24 frames of film per second, the projector shows each frame twice, giving an effective frame rate of 48fps.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672020</id>
	<title>The human eye can dectect 30</title>
	<author>gurps\_npc</author>
	<datestamp>1262803020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The human eye can clearly detect frame rates far greater than 30.  So can the human brain.
<p>
HOWEVER
</p><p>
The human mind is evolutionary designed to make instant assumptions.  Cat in mid air facing us = DANGER.  No "Is it dead and being thrown at us?"  No "Is it a picture?"  As such, video games can quite easily take advantage of this evolutionary assumptions and trick the MIND, if not the brain. into thinking something is real.
</p><p>So while a higher frame rate will increase the quality of the game, it is not essential.  It's like getting gold plated controls on your car's dashboard.  Yes it is a real increase in quality, but most people would rather spend the money on a GPS device, real leather, plug-in-hybrid engines before you get around to putting gold in the car.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The human eye can clearly detect frame rates far greater than 30 .
So can the human brain .
HOWEVER The human mind is evolutionary designed to make instant assumptions .
Cat in mid air facing us = DANGER .
No " Is it dead and being thrown at us ?
" No " Is it a picture ?
" As such , video games can quite easily take advantage of this evolutionary assumptions and trick the MIND , if not the brain .
into thinking something is real .
So while a higher frame rate will increase the quality of the game , it is not essential .
It 's like getting gold plated controls on your car 's dashboard .
Yes it is a real increase in quality , but most people would rather spend the money on a GPS device , real leather , plug-in-hybrid engines before you get around to putting gold in the car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The human eye can clearly detect frame rates far greater than 30.
So can the human brain.
HOWEVER

The human mind is evolutionary designed to make instant assumptions.
Cat in mid air facing us = DANGER.
No "Is it dead and being thrown at us?
"  No "Is it a picture?
"  As such, video games can quite easily take advantage of this evolutionary assumptions and trick the MIND, if not the brain.
into thinking something is real.
So while a higher frame rate will increase the quality of the game, it is not essential.
It's like getting gold plated controls on your car's dashboard.
Yes it is a real increase in quality, but most people would rather spend the money on a GPS device, real leather, plug-in-hybrid engines before you get around to putting gold in the car.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673784</id>
	<title>Re:The human eye can dectect 30</title>
	<author>HaZardman27</author>
	<datestamp>1262810640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think if got in 3 motorcycle accidents, my brain would recognize my bike as dangerous, and I wouldn't get on it anymore.  ^\_^</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think if got in 3 motorcycle accidents , my brain would recognize my bike as dangerous , and I would n't get on it anymore .
^ \ _ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think if got in 3 motorcycle accidents, my brain would recognize my bike as dangerous, and I wouldn't get on it anymore.
^\_^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30684340</id>
	<title>Re:Same with audio...</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1262887440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Entirely different, or rather, you're comparing something that's over 700 times the rate. Give me a video game and I'll tell you in two seconds with 99\% reliability whether it's 30 or 60 FPS, and after a few seconds whether it's 30 or less than 30 (Zelda Ocarina of Time, I'm looking at you!). The real question is what sort of mood the rate sets; I think having the Zelda games at 60 might not look so great, but having something like Metroid Prime or God of War at 30 would be noticeably inferior.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Entirely different , or rather , you 're comparing something that 's over 700 times the rate .
Give me a video game and I 'll tell you in two seconds with 99 \ % reliability whether it 's 30 or 60 FPS , and after a few seconds whether it 's 30 or less than 30 ( Zelda Ocarina of Time , I 'm looking at you ! ) .
The real question is what sort of mood the rate sets ; I think having the Zelda games at 60 might not look so great , but having something like Metroid Prime or God of War at 30 would be noticeably inferior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Entirely different, or rather, you're comparing something that's over 700 times the rate.
Give me a video game and I'll tell you in two seconds with 99\% reliability whether it's 30 or 60 FPS, and after a few seconds whether it's 30 or less than 30 (Zelda Ocarina of Time, I'm looking at you!).
The real question is what sort of mood the rate sets; I think having the Zelda games at 60 might not look so great, but having something like Metroid Prime or God of War at 30 would be noticeably inferior.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675030</id>
	<title>Re:The human eye can dectect 30</title>
	<author>Hyppy</author>
	<datestamp>1262773080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, if it was at night then it was definitely due to the 60Hz light sources.  Strangely enough, you can tighten shiny lug nuts on your car in such a way that it produces the wagon-wheel effect during continuous (natural) light.  It all has to do with your eyes focusing on the reflections.  Humming at just the right pitch works, too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , if it was at night then it was definitely due to the 60Hz light sources .
Strangely enough , you can tighten shiny lug nuts on your car in such a way that it produces the wagon-wheel effect during continuous ( natural ) light .
It all has to do with your eyes focusing on the reflections .
Humming at just the right pitch works , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, if it was at night then it was definitely due to the 60Hz light sources.
Strangely enough, you can tighten shiny lug nuts on your car in such a way that it produces the wagon-wheel effect during continuous (natural) light.
It all has to do with your eyes focusing on the reflections.
Humming at just the right pitch works, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30676432</id>
	<title>Re:Outside Looking In</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1262779800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. Too expensive and many issue in neurology can't really be solved with anythint else then faster is better.</p><p>As you are well aware, people make decisions before they are cognitively aware of what's happening.</p><p>Since you are the expert, maybe you can think of a way they could use your skills. If so, start your own business and sell a product. If you could create a package that plugs into a game dev. environment you will probably make quite a bit of money from licensing. You could probable grab 50K per title.</p><p>Quite frankly, softgames could use more experts in the fields they create. Physics, Environment, HID.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
Too expensive and many issue in neurology ca n't really be solved with anythint else then faster is better.As you are well aware , people make decisions before they are cognitively aware of what 's happening.Since you are the expert , maybe you can think of a way they could use your skills .
If so , start your own business and sell a product .
If you could create a package that plugs into a game dev .
environment you will probably make quite a bit of money from licensing .
You could probable grab 50K per title.Quite frankly , softgames could use more experts in the fields they create .
Physics , Environment , HID .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
Too expensive and many issue in neurology can't really be solved with anythint else then faster is better.As you are well aware, people make decisions before they are cognitively aware of what's happening.Since you are the expert, maybe you can think of a way they could use your skills.
If so, start your own business and sell a product.
If you could create a package that plugs into a game dev.
environment you will probably make quite a bit of money from licensing.
You could probable grab 50K per title.Quite frankly, softgames could use more experts in the fields they create.
Physics, Environment, HID.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672484</id>
	<title>Sorry, you lost me</title>
	<author>nobodyman</author>
	<datestamp>1262804940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>As more and more games move away from 60fps <em>*snip*</em></p></div> </blockquote><p>Hmm... I don't accept that premise, either on the PC (where midrange graphics cards can easily pull 60fps with any game on the market now) or on the consoles (where framerates are only going up as PS3 and 360 development matures).</p><p>I think that this article (or at least the summary) is a bit of a strawman.  Most of the gamers I know recognize that good framerates are important.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As more and more games move away from 60fps * snip * Hmm... I do n't accept that premise , either on the PC ( where midrange graphics cards can easily pull 60fps with any game on the market now ) or on the consoles ( where framerates are only going up as PS3 and 360 development matures ) .I think that this article ( or at least the summary ) is a bit of a strawman .
Most of the gamers I know recognize that good framerates are important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As more and more games move away from 60fps *snip* Hmm... I don't accept that premise, either on the PC (where midrange graphics cards can easily pull 60fps with any game on the market now) or on the consoles (where framerates are only going up as PS3 and 360 development matures).I think that this article (or at least the summary) is a bit of a strawman.
Most of the gamers I know recognize that good framerates are important.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673894</id>
	<title>Re:Any animator knows...</title>
	<author>cnaumann</author>
	<datestamp>1262811180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Avatar in 3D looked really jumpy to me, kind of like watching movement under a strobe light. I wish movies would move beyond 24FPS. The technology is there, but I am not holding my breath.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Avatar in 3D looked really jumpy to me , kind of like watching movement under a strobe light .
I wish movies would move beyond 24FPS .
The technology is there , but I am not holding my breath .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Avatar in 3D looked really jumpy to me, kind of like watching movement under a strobe light.
I wish movies would move beyond 24FPS.
The technology is there, but I am not holding my breath.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30676866</id>
	<title>Re:Lots of evidence for higher frame rates</title>
	<author>purplepolecat</author>
	<datestamp>1262781960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On TV you can see the difference between shows that have been shot on film (at 24 Hz) versus on video (at 30 or 60 Hz).  Video seems clearer, less movie like.</p></div><p>This is more likely because when you show a 24fps movie on 29.97fps TV, it has to go through a framerate conversion process called Telecine, which (grossly oversimplified explanation) breaks each frame up into 2 fields (odd &amp; even numbered lines), repeats every 1 in 4 fields, and plays the result out at 59.94 fields per second. (See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine#2:3\_pulldown" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine#2:3\_pulldown</a> [wikipedia.org] for detailed explanation)
</p><p>
The result is that any moving objects look jerky, especially for smooth horizontal movement, because one of the fields will appear to stand still every 1/12 second. It's a product of the framerate conversion process, not because the source material has 20\% lower framerate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On TV you can see the difference between shows that have been shot on film ( at 24 Hz ) versus on video ( at 30 or 60 Hz ) .
Video seems clearer , less movie like.This is more likely because when you show a 24fps movie on 29.97fps TV , it has to go through a framerate conversion process called Telecine , which ( grossly oversimplified explanation ) breaks each frame up into 2 fields ( odd &amp; even numbered lines ) , repeats every 1 in 4 fields , and plays the result out at 59.94 fields per second .
( See http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine # 2 : 3 \ _pulldown [ wikipedia.org ] for detailed explanation ) The result is that any moving objects look jerky , especially for smooth horizontal movement , because one of the fields will appear to stand still every 1/12 second .
It 's a product of the framerate conversion process , not because the source material has 20 \ % lower framerate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On TV you can see the difference between shows that have been shot on film (at 24 Hz) versus on video (at 30 or 60 Hz).
Video seems clearer, less movie like.This is more likely because when you show a 24fps movie on 29.97fps TV, it has to go through a framerate conversion process called Telecine, which (grossly oversimplified explanation) breaks each frame up into 2 fields (odd &amp; even numbered lines), repeats every 1 in 4 fields, and plays the result out at 59.94 fields per second.
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine#2:3\_pulldown [wikipedia.org] for detailed explanation)

The result is that any moving objects look jerky, especially for smooth horizontal movement, because one of the fields will appear to stand still every 1/12 second.
It's a product of the framerate conversion process, not because the source material has 20\% lower framerate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675074</id>
	<title>Re:Motion blur and bloom effects</title>
	<author>phoenix321</author>
	<datestamp>1262773320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Human reaction is less than 100ms in trained people when muscle contractions have only short distances to travel, like in gamers pressing a button.</p><p>Human perception, on the other hand, is a lot faster than 100ms. Humans just can't output a useable signal (pressing a button, stomping on the brake pedal, talk etc.) fast enough.</p><p>It's mostly about visual smoothness and the naturally fluid looking motion it produces. Maybe movement prediction works better then, but it certainly feels more immersed. Quake 1 and a recent computer are capable of reaching insane frame rates and hard limited 60fps certainly look a lot better than hardlimited 30fps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Human reaction is less than 100ms in trained people when muscle contractions have only short distances to travel , like in gamers pressing a button.Human perception , on the other hand , is a lot faster than 100ms .
Humans just ca n't output a useable signal ( pressing a button , stomping on the brake pedal , talk etc .
) fast enough.It 's mostly about visual smoothness and the naturally fluid looking motion it produces .
Maybe movement prediction works better then , but it certainly feels more immersed .
Quake 1 and a recent computer are capable of reaching insane frame rates and hard limited 60fps certainly look a lot better than hardlimited 30fps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Human reaction is less than 100ms in trained people when muscle contractions have only short distances to travel, like in gamers pressing a button.Human perception, on the other hand, is a lot faster than 100ms.
Humans just can't output a useable signal (pressing a button, stomping on the brake pedal, talk etc.
) fast enough.It's mostly about visual smoothness and the naturally fluid looking motion it produces.
Maybe movement prediction works better then, but it certainly feels more immersed.
Quake 1 and a recent computer are capable of reaching insane frame rates and hard limited 60fps certainly look a lot better than hardlimited 30fps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672982</id>
	<title>Lots of evidence for higher frame rates</title>
	<author>pz</author>
	<datestamp>1262806980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a visual neuroscientist (IAAVNS).  The standard idea of refresh rate comes from CRT based monitors where the image is drawn by a scanning electron beam.  If you use an instrument to measure the instantaneous brightness at a given point on the screen it will rapidly peak as the beam swings by, and then decay as the phosphor continues to release absorbed energy in the form of photons.  Different monitors have different decay rates, and, typically, CRTs that were designed for television use have pretty slow decay rates.  CRTs that were designed for computer monitors typically have faster decay rates.  If the decay rate were very very fast, then the hypothetical point on the screen would be dark most of the time and only occasionally very bright as the beam sweeps by on each frame.</p><p>As you can imagine this highly impulsive temporal profile is hard to smooth out into something closer to the constant brightness of the world around us.  The human retina has an inherent dynamic response rate to it, but it's actually quite fast, and there have been studies showing clear responses in higher order visual areas of the brain up to 135 Hz.  But standard phosphors used in CRTs have a little smoother response, and so at more-or-less 80 Hz, the brain stops seeing the flicker (at 60 Hz most people see flicker on a computer monitor).  The exact refresh rate where perceptual blurring happens (so the flickering goes away) varies widely between individual, and with the exact details of the environment and what is being shown on the screen.  More-or-less at 100 Hz refresh, no one sees the flicker anymore (although the brain can be shown to be still responding).</p><p>Contemporary screens, however, are LCD based (I'm going to ignore plasma screens since the field is still working out how they interact with the visual system).  Making the same experiment as above, the temporal profile of brightness at a given spot on the screen will look more like a staircase, holding a value until the next frame gets drawn.  This is a far, far smoother stimulus for the visual system, so a 60 Hz frame rate produces a perceptually far more flicker-free experience.  That's why most CRTs at 60 Hz make your eyes bleed, while LCDs at 60 Hz are just fine.</p><p>Except that newer LCDs have LED backlighting which is no longer constant, but flashed (WHY? WHY? WHY? Just to save some power?  Please, computer manufacturers, let *me* make that decision!), so the experience is somewhat more like a CRT.</p><p>So that's one part of the equation: flicker.</p><p>The other part of the equation is update rate, which still applies even there might be no flicker at all.  Here, we have the evidence that the brain is responding at up to 135 Hz.  In measurements made in my lab, I've found some responses up to 160 Hz.  But the brain is super good at interpolating static images and deducing the motion.  This is called "apparent motion" and is why strings of lights illuminated in sequence seem to move around a theater marquis.  The brain is really good at that. Which is why even a 24 Hz movie (with 48 Hz frame doubling) in a movie theater is perceptually acceptable, but a 200 Hz movie would look much more like a window into reality.  On TV you can see the difference between shows that have been shot on film (at 24 Hz) versus on video (at 30 or 60 Hz).  Video seems clearer, less movie like.</p><p>For games, 60 Hz means 16 ms between frame updates -- and that can be a significant delay for twitch response.  Further, modern LCD monitors have an inherent two or three frame processing delay, adding to the latency.  As we know, long latency leads to poor gameplay.  Faster updates means, potentially shorter latency, since it is a frame-by-frame issue.</p><p>So, just as with audio equipment where inexpensive low-fidelity equipment can produce an acceptable experience, while a more expensive setup can create the illusion of being at a concert, so too inexpensive video equipment (from camera to video board to monitor) can produce an acceptable experience, while a more expensive setup can create the illusion of visual reality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a visual neuroscientist ( IAAVNS ) .
The standard idea of refresh rate comes from CRT based monitors where the image is drawn by a scanning electron beam .
If you use an instrument to measure the instantaneous brightness at a given point on the screen it will rapidly peak as the beam swings by , and then decay as the phosphor continues to release absorbed energy in the form of photons .
Different monitors have different decay rates , and , typically , CRTs that were designed for television use have pretty slow decay rates .
CRTs that were designed for computer monitors typically have faster decay rates .
If the decay rate were very very fast , then the hypothetical point on the screen would be dark most of the time and only occasionally very bright as the beam sweeps by on each frame.As you can imagine this highly impulsive temporal profile is hard to smooth out into something closer to the constant brightness of the world around us .
The human retina has an inherent dynamic response rate to it , but it 's actually quite fast , and there have been studies showing clear responses in higher order visual areas of the brain up to 135 Hz .
But standard phosphors used in CRTs have a little smoother response , and so at more-or-less 80 Hz , the brain stops seeing the flicker ( at 60 Hz most people see flicker on a computer monitor ) .
The exact refresh rate where perceptual blurring happens ( so the flickering goes away ) varies widely between individual , and with the exact details of the environment and what is being shown on the screen .
More-or-less at 100 Hz refresh , no one sees the flicker anymore ( although the brain can be shown to be still responding ) .Contemporary screens , however , are LCD based ( I 'm going to ignore plasma screens since the field is still working out how they interact with the visual system ) .
Making the same experiment as above , the temporal profile of brightness at a given spot on the screen will look more like a staircase , holding a value until the next frame gets drawn .
This is a far , far smoother stimulus for the visual system , so a 60 Hz frame rate produces a perceptually far more flicker-free experience .
That 's why most CRTs at 60 Hz make your eyes bleed , while LCDs at 60 Hz are just fine.Except that newer LCDs have LED backlighting which is no longer constant , but flashed ( WHY ?
WHY ? WHY ?
Just to save some power ?
Please , computer manufacturers , let * me * make that decision !
) , so the experience is somewhat more like a CRT.So that 's one part of the equation : flicker.The other part of the equation is update rate , which still applies even there might be no flicker at all .
Here , we have the evidence that the brain is responding at up to 135 Hz .
In measurements made in my lab , I 've found some responses up to 160 Hz .
But the brain is super good at interpolating static images and deducing the motion .
This is called " apparent motion " and is why strings of lights illuminated in sequence seem to move around a theater marquis .
The brain is really good at that .
Which is why even a 24 Hz movie ( with 48 Hz frame doubling ) in a movie theater is perceptually acceptable , but a 200 Hz movie would look much more like a window into reality .
On TV you can see the difference between shows that have been shot on film ( at 24 Hz ) versus on video ( at 30 or 60 Hz ) .
Video seems clearer , less movie like.For games , 60 Hz means 16 ms between frame updates -- and that can be a significant delay for twitch response .
Further , modern LCD monitors have an inherent two or three frame processing delay , adding to the latency .
As we know , long latency leads to poor gameplay .
Faster updates means , potentially shorter latency , since it is a frame-by-frame issue.So , just as with audio equipment where inexpensive low-fidelity equipment can produce an acceptable experience , while a more expensive setup can create the illusion of being at a concert , so too inexpensive video equipment ( from camera to video board to monitor ) can produce an acceptable experience , while a more expensive setup can create the illusion of visual reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a visual neuroscientist (IAAVNS).
The standard idea of refresh rate comes from CRT based monitors where the image is drawn by a scanning electron beam.
If you use an instrument to measure the instantaneous brightness at a given point on the screen it will rapidly peak as the beam swings by, and then decay as the phosphor continues to release absorbed energy in the form of photons.
Different monitors have different decay rates, and, typically, CRTs that were designed for television use have pretty slow decay rates.
CRTs that were designed for computer monitors typically have faster decay rates.
If the decay rate were very very fast, then the hypothetical point on the screen would be dark most of the time and only occasionally very bright as the beam sweeps by on each frame.As you can imagine this highly impulsive temporal profile is hard to smooth out into something closer to the constant brightness of the world around us.
The human retina has an inherent dynamic response rate to it, but it's actually quite fast, and there have been studies showing clear responses in higher order visual areas of the brain up to 135 Hz.
But standard phosphors used in CRTs have a little smoother response, and so at more-or-less 80 Hz, the brain stops seeing the flicker (at 60 Hz most people see flicker on a computer monitor).
The exact refresh rate where perceptual blurring happens (so the flickering goes away) varies widely between individual, and with the exact details of the environment and what is being shown on the screen.
More-or-less at 100 Hz refresh, no one sees the flicker anymore (although the brain can be shown to be still responding).Contemporary screens, however, are LCD based (I'm going to ignore plasma screens since the field is still working out how they interact with the visual system).
Making the same experiment as above, the temporal profile of brightness at a given spot on the screen will look more like a staircase, holding a value until the next frame gets drawn.
This is a far, far smoother stimulus for the visual system, so a 60 Hz frame rate produces a perceptually far more flicker-free experience.
That's why most CRTs at 60 Hz make your eyes bleed, while LCDs at 60 Hz are just fine.Except that newer LCDs have LED backlighting which is no longer constant, but flashed (WHY?
WHY? WHY?
Just to save some power?
Please, computer manufacturers, let *me* make that decision!
), so the experience is somewhat more like a CRT.So that's one part of the equation: flicker.The other part of the equation is update rate, which still applies even there might be no flicker at all.
Here, we have the evidence that the brain is responding at up to 135 Hz.
In measurements made in my lab, I've found some responses up to 160 Hz.
But the brain is super good at interpolating static images and deducing the motion.
This is called "apparent motion" and is why strings of lights illuminated in sequence seem to move around a theater marquis.
The brain is really good at that.
Which is why even a 24 Hz movie (with 48 Hz frame doubling) in a movie theater is perceptually acceptable, but a 200 Hz movie would look much more like a window into reality.
On TV you can see the difference between shows that have been shot on film (at 24 Hz) versus on video (at 30 or 60 Hz).
Video seems clearer, less movie like.For games, 60 Hz means 16 ms between frame updates -- and that can be a significant delay for twitch response.
Further, modern LCD monitors have an inherent two or three frame processing delay, adding to the latency.
As we know, long latency leads to poor gameplay.
Faster updates means, potentially shorter latency, since it is a frame-by-frame issue.So, just as with audio equipment where inexpensive low-fidelity equipment can produce an acceptable experience, while a more expensive setup can create the illusion of being at a concert, so too inexpensive video equipment (from camera to video board to monitor) can produce an acceptable experience, while a more expensive setup can create the illusion of visual reality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672050</id>
	<title>Re:Where it matters most.</title>
	<author>spun</author>
	<datestamp>1262803200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't understand how frame rate works, do you? The pictures drawn on the screen aren't the real model the game uses. Adding frames in between other frames won't generate lag (if the processing speed is high enough) So, if activating a block at a given frame works with 30fps, it will work with 15fps, 60fps, or 300fps. The frames aren't the 'real thing,' the game's unseen internal model is the real thing. The frames are drawn as often as is possible, given the hardware, and are drawn to comply with the current state of the internal model.</p><p>HTH.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't understand how frame rate works , do you ?
The pictures drawn on the screen are n't the real model the game uses .
Adding frames in between other frames wo n't generate lag ( if the processing speed is high enough ) So , if activating a block at a given frame works with 30fps , it will work with 15fps , 60fps , or 300fps .
The frames are n't the 'real thing, ' the game 's unseen internal model is the real thing .
The frames are drawn as often as is possible , given the hardware , and are drawn to comply with the current state of the internal model.HTH .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't understand how frame rate works, do you?
The pictures drawn on the screen aren't the real model the game uses.
Adding frames in between other frames won't generate lag (if the processing speed is high enough) So, if activating a block at a given frame works with 30fps, it will work with 15fps, 60fps, or 300fps.
The frames aren't the 'real thing,' the game's unseen internal model is the real thing.
The frames are drawn as often as is possible, given the hardware, and are drawn to comply with the current state of the internal model.HTH.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672752</id>
	<title>2 is completly untrue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262806020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it does not matter, if the game reacts in the first frame of 30fps or 60fps</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it does not matter , if the game reacts in the first frame of 30fps or 60fps</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it does not matter, if the game reacts in the first frame of 30fps or 60fps</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30680420</id>
	<title>Re:Any animator knows...</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1262861820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A big part of my former job was to make our AR tools work at 60 Hz instead of 30 Hz (Well 59.94 Hz and 29.97 Hz, these values have driven me crazy). You can definitely tell the difference at first look, we did it routinely up to the point that it is now blindingly obvious. A correctly displayed HD video at 60 Hz with a monitor synchronized at the same frequency is incredibly smoother. <br> <br>
The most evident effect is the presence of persistence of vision : at 30 fps, objects can almost not move faster than the eye can perceive, therefore you can perceive successive positions of an object in a sharp way. At 60 fps, it can be too fast and successive sharp images of an object will be perceived as having a motion blur. I think that using this effect and with a little training, one could differentiate between even higher framerates. People I know that tried 100 or 120 Hz monitors told me that the comfort was also very appreciable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A big part of my former job was to make our AR tools work at 60 Hz instead of 30 Hz ( Well 59.94 Hz and 29.97 Hz , these values have driven me crazy ) .
You can definitely tell the difference at first look , we did it routinely up to the point that it is now blindingly obvious .
A correctly displayed HD video at 60 Hz with a monitor synchronized at the same frequency is incredibly smoother .
The most evident effect is the presence of persistence of vision : at 30 fps , objects can almost not move faster than the eye can perceive , therefore you can perceive successive positions of an object in a sharp way .
At 60 fps , it can be too fast and successive sharp images of an object will be perceived as having a motion blur .
I think that using this effect and with a little training , one could differentiate between even higher framerates .
People I know that tried 100 or 120 Hz monitors told me that the comfort was also very appreciable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A big part of my former job was to make our AR tools work at 60 Hz instead of 30 Hz (Well 59.94 Hz and 29.97 Hz, these values have driven me crazy).
You can definitely tell the difference at first look, we did it routinely up to the point that it is now blindingly obvious.
A correctly displayed HD video at 60 Hz with a monitor synchronized at the same frequency is incredibly smoother.
The most evident effect is the presence of persistence of vision : at 30 fps, objects can almost not move faster than the eye can perceive, therefore you can perceive successive positions of an object in a sharp way.
At 60 fps, it can be too fast and successive sharp images of an object will be perceived as having a motion blur.
I think that using this effect and with a little training, one could differentiate between even higher framerates.
People I know that tried 100 or 120 Hz monitors told me that the comfort was also very appreciable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30678200</id>
	<title>Re:Same with audio...</title>
	<author>smaddox</author>
	<datestamp>1262791740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, it is completely different. The mechanism for hearing is not like the mechanism for seeing. Hearing uses a fluid filled sac that oscillates when tapped by your eardrum. The cilia inside the sack then stimulate neurons. So, there is a step in between the absorption of the stimulus, and the firing of the neurons. This step has the effect of damping (or filtering) both very low, and very high frequency sound. It is true that some people can hear higher pitches than other people, but 20 KHz is generally considered the upper limit of human hearing.</p><p>The Nyquist&ndash;Shannon sampling theorem basically states that a signal with frequency no higher than 20 KHz is uniquely defined by a sampling at 40 KHz. Of course, this theorem only really holds when the signal extends infinitely long in time, but in practice - a sampling rate twice the highest frequency provides for very accurate signal recreation.</p><p>This is in contrast to human vision, in which neurons are directly stimulated by light. In vision, there is no stimulus frequency filtering (note that the stimulus frequency is seperate from the frequency of light, which IS filtered by pigments. This is what allows us to see colors).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it is completely different .
The mechanism for hearing is not like the mechanism for seeing .
Hearing uses a fluid filled sac that oscillates when tapped by your eardrum .
The cilia inside the sack then stimulate neurons .
So , there is a step in between the absorption of the stimulus , and the firing of the neurons .
This step has the effect of damping ( or filtering ) both very low , and very high frequency sound .
It is true that some people can hear higher pitches than other people , but 20 KHz is generally considered the upper limit of human hearing.The Nyquist    Shannon sampling theorem basically states that a signal with frequency no higher than 20 KHz is uniquely defined by a sampling at 40 KHz .
Of course , this theorem only really holds when the signal extends infinitely long in time , but in practice - a sampling rate twice the highest frequency provides for very accurate signal recreation.This is in contrast to human vision , in which neurons are directly stimulated by light .
In vision , there is no stimulus frequency filtering ( note that the stimulus frequency is seperate from the frequency of light , which IS filtered by pigments .
This is what allows us to see colors ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it is completely different.
The mechanism for hearing is not like the mechanism for seeing.
Hearing uses a fluid filled sac that oscillates when tapped by your eardrum.
The cilia inside the sack then stimulate neurons.
So, there is a step in between the absorption of the stimulus, and the firing of the neurons.
This step has the effect of damping (or filtering) both very low, and very high frequency sound.
It is true that some people can hear higher pitches than other people, but 20 KHz is generally considered the upper limit of human hearing.The Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem basically states that a signal with frequency no higher than 20 KHz is uniquely defined by a sampling at 40 KHz.
Of course, this theorem only really holds when the signal extends infinitely long in time, but in practice - a sampling rate twice the highest frequency provides for very accurate signal recreation.This is in contrast to human vision, in which neurons are directly stimulated by light.
In vision, there is no stimulus frequency filtering (note that the stimulus frequency is seperate from the frequency of light, which IS filtered by pigments.
This is what allows us to see colors).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673108</id>
	<title>Newer TVs</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1262807580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are plenty of TVs on the market now that take a 30 FPS source, and then create frames in between. Many LCDs are offering 120 HZ and 240 HZ models. I've heard some new Plasmas are bragging about 600 HZ.</p><p>Does it matter if a game only provides 30 or 60 FPS, if the TV is actually refreshing at 240 HZ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are plenty of TVs on the market now that take a 30 FPS source , and then create frames in between .
Many LCDs are offering 120 HZ and 240 HZ models .
I 've heard some new Plasmas are bragging about 600 HZ.Does it matter if a game only provides 30 or 60 FPS , if the TV is actually refreshing at 240 HZ ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are plenty of TVs on the market now that take a 30 FPS source, and then create frames in between.
Many LCDs are offering 120 HZ and 240 HZ models.
I've heard some new Plasmas are bragging about 600 HZ.Does it matter if a game only provides 30 or 60 FPS, if the TV is actually refreshing at 240 HZ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30676976</id>
	<title>Re:The human eye can dectect 30</title>
	<author>AmberBlackCat</author>
	<datestamp>1262782740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the article is crap on an even more basic level. Maybe a higher framerate game can beat Starfox but I bet Avatar will look a lot better than those 60fps games even shown at 24fps.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the article is crap on an even more basic level .
Maybe a higher framerate game can beat Starfox but I bet Avatar will look a lot better than those 60fps games even shown at 24fps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the article is crap on an even more basic level.
Maybe a higher framerate game can beat Starfox but I bet Avatar will look a lot better than those 60fps games even shown at 24fps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30676950</id>
	<title>Re:Any animator knows...</title>
	<author>alexhs</author>
	<datestamp>1262782620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only think you proved is that your test is wrong.</p><p>Render the animation once in (say) 240 fps.</p><p>Then <strong>blend</strong> the frames to drop the framerate (so, blend 10 frames for your 24 fps rendering)</p><p>You should get different results.</p><p>However, as another poster mention, there is tracking, which will still make some difference.</p><p>I've read a long time ago (no source, sorry) that some neuroscientists observed that the brain processes about 20 / 25 images/second.</p><p>Now the content of the images is determined partly by the movement of the eyes, so practically, the higher the framerate, the better experience.</p><p>If you had high-end equipment, with a laser tracking your eyes movement and calculating the images taking into account those movements, 30 fps would be more than enough though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only think you proved is that your test is wrong.Render the animation once in ( say ) 240 fps.Then blend the frames to drop the framerate ( so , blend 10 frames for your 24 fps rendering ) You should get different results.However , as another poster mention , there is tracking , which will still make some difference.I 've read a long time ago ( no source , sorry ) that some neuroscientists observed that the brain processes about 20 / 25 images/second.Now the content of the images is determined partly by the movement of the eyes , so practically , the higher the framerate , the better experience.If you had high-end equipment , with a laser tracking your eyes movement and calculating the images taking into account those movements , 30 fps would be more than enough though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only think you proved is that your test is wrong.Render the animation once in (say) 240 fps.Then blend the frames to drop the framerate (so, blend 10 frames for your 24 fps rendering)You should get different results.However, as another poster mention, there is tracking, which will still make some difference.I've read a long time ago (no source, sorry) that some neuroscientists observed that the brain processes about 20 / 25 images/second.Now the content of the images is determined partly by the movement of the eyes, so practically, the higher the framerate, the better experience.If you had high-end equipment, with a laser tracking your eyes movement and calculating the images taking into account those movements, 30 fps would be more than enough though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30679612</id>
	<title>Re:Lots of evidence for higher frame rates</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262806320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tell that to the auto manufacturers. Some crappy cars out there have their tail lights set blink in the tens of hertz. It looks like there are a dozen cars about every time you scan your eyes around, which is no problem for the Chatty Cathies that aren't looking at the road in the first place. For anyone that does actually put effort into driving though, it's a dangerous mirage that should have never been make street legal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell that to the auto manufacturers .
Some crappy cars out there have their tail lights set blink in the tens of hertz .
It looks like there are a dozen cars about every time you scan your eyes around , which is no problem for the Chatty Cathies that are n't looking at the road in the first place .
For anyone that does actually put effort into driving though , it 's a dangerous mirage that should have never been make street legal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell that to the auto manufacturers.
Some crappy cars out there have their tail lights set blink in the tens of hertz.
It looks like there are a dozen cars about every time you scan your eyes around, which is no problem for the Chatty Cathies that aren't looking at the road in the first place.
For anyone that does actually put effort into driving though, it's a dangerous mirage that should have never been make street legal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672026</id>
	<title>Important in movies as well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262803080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Avatar had a lot of flickering because of the frame rate. The flicker gets more obvious with 3D and Imax. Apparently there is talk of going to 60 frames for projected movies but I wouldn't hold my breath since theaters are already squealing about switching to digital projection and 3D. The technology is becoming available but I'll be surprised if they try to deploy it before the 2020s. Too bad because it would make a massive difference for action films especially 3D. With talking head pictures you'd never notice the difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Avatar had a lot of flickering because of the frame rate .
The flicker gets more obvious with 3D and Imax .
Apparently there is talk of going to 60 frames for projected movies but I would n't hold my breath since theaters are already squealing about switching to digital projection and 3D .
The technology is becoming available but I 'll be surprised if they try to deploy it before the 2020s .
Too bad because it would make a massive difference for action films especially 3D .
With talking head pictures you 'd never notice the difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Avatar had a lot of flickering because of the frame rate.
The flicker gets more obvious with 3D and Imax.
Apparently there is talk of going to 60 frames for projected movies but I wouldn't hold my breath since theaters are already squealing about switching to digital projection and 3D.
The technology is becoming available but I'll be surprised if they try to deploy it before the 2020s.
Too bad because it would make a massive difference for action films especially 3D.
With talking head pictures you'd never notice the difference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671992</id>
	<title>Grammar??</title>
	<author>jmvbxx</author>
	<datestamp>1262802960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There ARE many!  Not, there's many.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There ARE many !
Not , there 's many .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There ARE many!
Not, there's many.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30684734</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry, you lost me</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1262889120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Good framerates" aren't important. "Good enough" frame rates are important. Anything below good enough is obviously bad, and anything above is not noticeable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Good framerates " are n't important .
" Good enough " frame rates are important .
Anything below good enough is obviously bad , and anything above is not noticeable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Good framerates" aren't important.
"Good enough" frame rates are important.
Anything below good enough is obviously bad, and anything above is not noticeable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673958</id>
	<title>Showscan experiments</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1262811480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
When <a href="http://www.showscan.com/" title="showscan.com">Showscan</a> [showscan.com] (which, after a 2002 bankruptcy and acquisition, now just does ride films) was developed, they did blind tests in theaters to find out how fast the frame rate had to be before people couldn't detect any improvement.  The threshold turned out to be in the 75-100 FPS range.
"Peak emotional involvement" was around 72 FPS.  Commercially, Showscan used 60FPS film, which was a compromise between indetectability and projector wear.
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983864.html?categoryid=1043&amp;cs=1" title="variety.com">James Cameron, the director, talks about FPS in Variety.</a> [variety.com] He knows 24FPS is too slow, and wants to get to at least 48.  "Maybe on Avatar 2", he says.  He points out that the NBA did the All-Star game at 60FPS (transmitted to theaters) and that was very well received.  He points out that doubling theater resolution doesn't do much (only the first few rows are close enough to the screen to see the extra pixels) but increasing the frame rate is noticeable to everyone in the theater.  With digital 3D, 24FPS strobing is now the weak point for the quality of the experience.
</p><p>
Cameron: "If every single digital theater was perceived by the audience as being equivalent to Imax or Showscan in image quality, which is readily achievable with off-the-shelf technology now, running at higher frame rates, then isn't that the same kind of marketing hook as 3-D itself? Something you can't get at home. An aspect of the film that you can't pirate."
</p><p>
With Cameron pushing for higher frame rates, it's going to happen. He'll figure out a way to use it, too; with high enough frame rates you can have fast, clean pans without strobing or blurring.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When Showscan [ showscan.com ] ( which , after a 2002 bankruptcy and acquisition , now just does ride films ) was developed , they did blind tests in theaters to find out how fast the frame rate had to be before people could n't detect any improvement .
The threshold turned out to be in the 75-100 FPS range .
" Peak emotional involvement " was around 72 FPS .
Commercially , Showscan used 60FPS film , which was a compromise between indetectability and projector wear .
James Cameron , the director , talks about FPS in Variety .
[ variety.com ] He knows 24FPS is too slow , and wants to get to at least 48 .
" Maybe on Avatar 2 " , he says .
He points out that the NBA did the All-Star game at 60FPS ( transmitted to theaters ) and that was very well received .
He points out that doubling theater resolution does n't do much ( only the first few rows are close enough to the screen to see the extra pixels ) but increasing the frame rate is noticeable to everyone in the theater .
With digital 3D , 24FPS strobing is now the weak point for the quality of the experience .
Cameron : " If every single digital theater was perceived by the audience as being equivalent to Imax or Showscan in image quality , which is readily achievable with off-the-shelf technology now , running at higher frame rates , then is n't that the same kind of marketing hook as 3-D itself ?
Something you ca n't get at home .
An aspect of the film that you ca n't pirate .
" With Cameron pushing for higher frame rates , it 's going to happen .
He 'll figure out a way to use it , too ; with high enough frame rates you can have fast , clean pans without strobing or blurring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
When Showscan [showscan.com] (which, after a 2002 bankruptcy and acquisition, now just does ride films) was developed, they did blind tests in theaters to find out how fast the frame rate had to be before people couldn't detect any improvement.
The threshold turned out to be in the 75-100 FPS range.
"Peak emotional involvement" was around 72 FPS.
Commercially, Showscan used 60FPS film, which was a compromise between indetectability and projector wear.
James Cameron, the director, talks about FPS in Variety.
[variety.com] He knows 24FPS is too slow, and wants to get to at least 48.
"Maybe on Avatar 2", he says.
He points out that the NBA did the All-Star game at 60FPS (transmitted to theaters) and that was very well received.
He points out that doubling theater resolution doesn't do much (only the first few rows are close enough to the screen to see the extra pixels) but increasing the frame rate is noticeable to everyone in the theater.
With digital 3D, 24FPS strobing is now the weak point for the quality of the experience.
Cameron: "If every single digital theater was perceived by the audience as being equivalent to Imax or Showscan in image quality, which is readily achievable with off-the-shelf technology now, running at higher frame rates, then isn't that the same kind of marketing hook as 3-D itself?
Something you can't get at home.
An aspect of the film that you can't pirate.
"

With Cameron pushing for higher frame rates, it's going to happen.
He'll figure out a way to use it, too; with high enough frame rates you can have fast, clean pans without strobing or blurring.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672700</id>
	<title>Re:Where it matters most.</title>
	<author>Spazmania</author>
	<datestamp>1262805840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>The pictures drawn on the screen aren't the real model the game uses.</em></p><p>That's not necessarily true. There's a long history of games relying on the graphics processor to determine when two objects overlap or otherwise meet specific conditions relative to each other. Goes all the way back to the 8-bit days when the graphics processor could tell you whether the non-transparent parts of two sprites overlapped.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The pictures drawn on the screen are n't the real model the game uses.That 's not necessarily true .
There 's a long history of games relying on the graphics processor to determine when two objects overlap or otherwise meet specific conditions relative to each other .
Goes all the way back to the 8-bit days when the graphics processor could tell you whether the non-transparent parts of two sprites overlapped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The pictures drawn on the screen aren't the real model the game uses.That's not necessarily true.
There's a long history of games relying on the graphics processor to determine when two objects overlap or otherwise meet specific conditions relative to each other.
Goes all the way back to the 8-bit days when the graphics processor could tell you whether the non-transparent parts of two sprites overlapped.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673582</id>
	<title>Re:120fps vs 60fps is like night and day</title>
	<author>chocapix</author>
	<datestamp>1262809560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For a high speed game like Quake even 60fps is totally unplayable and there's a massive difference between 90fps and 120fps.  I consider 120fps the minimum for Quake and for that reason I continue to use a CRT.  If you put my CRT at 120Hz+120fps next to a 60Hz+60fps LCD the difference is night and day and the LCD looks extremely choppy.  You don't even have to do a side by side comparison and if you're used to playing at 120fps on a daily basis then you'll instantly see the difference when you see the game running at 60fps.</p></div><p>You may want to try one those new 120Hz LCD monitor when your CRT dies, or when you need the space on your desk. I really like mine (and like you, I can't stand playing Quake at 60fps, it actually hurts my eyes.)</p><p>I'd really like to try a double-blind test to see if I can tell 120Hz vs moreHz.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For a high speed game like Quake even 60fps is totally unplayable and there 's a massive difference between 90fps and 120fps .
I consider 120fps the minimum for Quake and for that reason I continue to use a CRT .
If you put my CRT at 120Hz + 120fps next to a 60Hz + 60fps LCD the difference is night and day and the LCD looks extremely choppy .
You do n't even have to do a side by side comparison and if you 're used to playing at 120fps on a daily basis then you 'll instantly see the difference when you see the game running at 60fps.You may want to try one those new 120Hz LCD monitor when your CRT dies , or when you need the space on your desk .
I really like mine ( and like you , I ca n't stand playing Quake at 60fps , it actually hurts my eyes .
) I 'd really like to try a double-blind test to see if I can tell 120Hz vs moreHz .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a high speed game like Quake even 60fps is totally unplayable and there's a massive difference between 90fps and 120fps.
I consider 120fps the minimum for Quake and for that reason I continue to use a CRT.
If you put my CRT at 120Hz+120fps next to a 60Hz+60fps LCD the difference is night and day and the LCD looks extremely choppy.
You don't even have to do a side by side comparison and if you're used to playing at 120fps on a daily basis then you'll instantly see the difference when you see the game running at 60fps.You may want to try one those new 120Hz LCD monitor when your CRT dies, or when you need the space on your desk.
I really like mine (and like you, I can't stand playing Quake at 60fps, it actually hurts my eyes.
)I'd really like to try a double-blind test to see if I can tell 120Hz vs moreHz.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30679920</id>
	<title>Re:Lots of evidence for higher frame rates</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262896800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>

I'm surprised that as an ex-LED-backlight designer, you state:<p><div class="quote"><p>The reason I say 'the only good way' is because LED's are constant-current devices and all the drivers I'm familiar with are all designed around that, so you can't just go varying the voltage to try and dim them: the drivers aren't really voltage devices.</p></div><p>LED are Light Emitting Diodes.  Diodes function as a switch- once you reach and surpass the 'turn on' voltage, the brightness of the diode remains constant.  The only option is to apply the voltage to the diode as a wave.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised that as an ex-LED-backlight designer , you state : The reason I say 'the only good way ' is because LED 's are constant-current devices and all the drivers I 'm familiar with are all designed around that , so you ca n't just go varying the voltage to try and dim them : the drivers are n't really voltage devices.LED are Light Emitting Diodes .
Diodes function as a switch- once you reach and surpass the 'turn on ' voltage , the brightness of the diode remains constant .
The only option is to apply the voltage to the diode as a wave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

I'm surprised that as an ex-LED-backlight designer, you state:The reason I say 'the only good way' is because LED's are constant-current devices and all the drivers I'm familiar with are all designed around that, so you can't just go varying the voltage to try and dim them: the drivers aren't really voltage devices.LED are Light Emitting Diodes.
Diodes function as a switch- once you reach and surpass the 'turn on' voltage, the brightness of the diode remains constant.
The only option is to apply the voltage to the diode as a wave.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675792</id>
	<title>Idiotic slashdot masses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262776380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As usual the idiotic slashdot masses only care about what the article says, and not the scientific facts.</p><p>Sure, you can 'see' differences greater than 30Hz, but the human brain on average takes 100-200ms to actually react to visual stimulus.</p><p>There have been many MANY MANY scientific studies on human response times (simple search on any known paper repository will bring up many whitepapers) to visual and auditory stimulus, none of which have recorded response times of anything less than 80ms to my knowledge - which means in terms of humans reacting to games, you really only need 15Hz+.</p><p>But as I said, we can still 'see' things faster than that - even if we don't comprehend it - thus 60Hz will look smoother and prettier than 30Hz.</p><p>Associating game mechanics and input processing to framerate is a poor argument as well, any decently written engine/game will have an asynchronous rendering pipeline completely independent of any game processing or input processing - and any that don't are simply poorly written games by poor programmers.  Similarly many games written on a fixed Hz game-update-timer are going to have flaws as well, and really ought to have their design completely re-thought.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As usual the idiotic slashdot masses only care about what the article says , and not the scientific facts.Sure , you can 'see ' differences greater than 30Hz , but the human brain on average takes 100-200ms to actually react to visual stimulus.There have been many MANY MANY scientific studies on human response times ( simple search on any known paper repository will bring up many whitepapers ) to visual and auditory stimulus , none of which have recorded response times of anything less than 80ms to my knowledge - which means in terms of humans reacting to games , you really only need 15Hz + .But as I said , we can still 'see ' things faster than that - even if we do n't comprehend it - thus 60Hz will look smoother and prettier than 30Hz.Associating game mechanics and input processing to framerate is a poor argument as well , any decently written engine/game will have an asynchronous rendering pipeline completely independent of any game processing or input processing - and any that do n't are simply poorly written games by poor programmers .
Similarly many games written on a fixed Hz game-update-timer are going to have flaws as well , and really ought to have their design completely re-thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As usual the idiotic slashdot masses only care about what the article says, and not the scientific facts.Sure, you can 'see' differences greater than 30Hz, but the human brain on average takes 100-200ms to actually react to visual stimulus.There have been many MANY MANY scientific studies on human response times (simple search on any known paper repository will bring up many whitepapers) to visual and auditory stimulus, none of which have recorded response times of anything less than 80ms to my knowledge - which means in terms of humans reacting to games, you really only need 15Hz+.But as I said, we can still 'see' things faster than that - even if we don't comprehend it - thus 60Hz will look smoother and prettier than 30Hz.Associating game mechanics and input processing to framerate is a poor argument as well, any decently written engine/game will have an asynchronous rendering pipeline completely independent of any game processing or input processing - and any that don't are simply poorly written games by poor programmers.
Similarly many games written on a fixed Hz game-update-timer are going to have flaws as well, and really ought to have their design completely re-thought.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30680058</id>
	<title>He's got it all wrong</title>
	<author>Eraesr</author>
	<datestamp>1262856060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The debate about 30fps vs 60fps isn't about whether people can actually notice the difference. I don't think I've ever seen a developer say that the difference is not noticeable. The thing is that if they render at 30fps rather than 60fps, they have twice the amount of time to render a single frame, allowing for much more details and effects in each scene. So the question isn't whether people can see the difference in framerate, but it's about what level of detail the developer wants to achieve and whether or not that's possible at 60fps.</p><p>People interested in the subject should take a look at Eurogamer's Digital Foundry (http://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry/). They got loads of technical game reviews and articles about this very subject.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The debate about 30fps vs 60fps is n't about whether people can actually notice the difference .
I do n't think I 've ever seen a developer say that the difference is not noticeable .
The thing is that if they render at 30fps rather than 60fps , they have twice the amount of time to render a single frame , allowing for much more details and effects in each scene .
So the question is n't whether people can see the difference in framerate , but it 's about what level of detail the developer wants to achieve and whether or not that 's possible at 60fps.People interested in the subject should take a look at Eurogamer 's Digital Foundry ( http : //www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry/ ) .
They got loads of technical game reviews and articles about this very subject .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The debate about 30fps vs 60fps isn't about whether people can actually notice the difference.
I don't think I've ever seen a developer say that the difference is not noticeable.
The thing is that if they render at 30fps rather than 60fps, they have twice the amount of time to render a single frame, allowing for much more details and effects in each scene.
So the question isn't whether people can see the difference in framerate, but it's about what level of detail the developer wants to achieve and whether or not that's possible at 60fps.People interested in the subject should take a look at Eurogamer's Digital Foundry (http://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry/).
They got loads of technical game reviews and articles about this very subject.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30684526</id>
	<title>Re:Lots of evidence for higher frame rates</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1262888280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Except that newer LCDs have LED backlighting which is no longer constant, but flashed (WHY? WHY? WHY? Just to save some power? Please, computer manufacturers, let *me* make that decision!), so the experience is somewhat more like a CRT.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Even an LCD with zero lag (i.e. 0 msec GTG performance) and a backlight that's constantly on <a href="http://board.byuu.org/viewtopic.php?p=6904&amp;sid=a48778a6593579dbdb1e69c8805677c6#p6904" title="byuu.org">looks blurry when things move and you follow them with your eye</a> [byuu.org]. An LCD with 0 msec GTG and an LED backlight that pulses ONCE per frame will not have that blur as you follow the object with your eyes. This is similar to how a CRT has much less blur for the same situation, because as you note, the phosphor is only brightly lit for a very small part of the refresh.

</p><p>When you follow the moving object with your eyes, your eyes move smoothly, even though the object is jumping to a new position every 1/60 second. If the object only flashes for a short time at each new position, the flash is always at the center of your vision. If the object is shown for each entire frame, it gets smeared across the center of your eyes, since your eyes are constantly moving during the entire frame. Thus, until LCDs flash the backlight for a short duration only ONCE per frame, there will be motion blur for human viewers (unless the viewer fixes his eyes on a point and never moves them).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that newer LCDs have LED backlighting which is no longer constant , but flashed ( WHY ?
WHY ? WHY ?
Just to save some power ?
Please , computer manufacturers , let * me * make that decision !
) , so the experience is somewhat more like a CRT .
Even an LCD with zero lag ( i.e .
0 msec GTG performance ) and a backlight that 's constantly on looks blurry when things move and you follow them with your eye [ byuu.org ] .
An LCD with 0 msec GTG and an LED backlight that pulses ONCE per frame will not have that blur as you follow the object with your eyes .
This is similar to how a CRT has much less blur for the same situation , because as you note , the phosphor is only brightly lit for a very small part of the refresh .
When you follow the moving object with your eyes , your eyes move smoothly , even though the object is jumping to a new position every 1/60 second .
If the object only flashes for a short time at each new position , the flash is always at the center of your vision .
If the object is shown for each entire frame , it gets smeared across the center of your eyes , since your eyes are constantly moving during the entire frame .
Thus , until LCDs flash the backlight for a short duration only ONCE per frame , there will be motion blur for human viewers ( unless the viewer fixes his eyes on a point and never moves them ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that newer LCDs have LED backlighting which is no longer constant, but flashed (WHY?
WHY? WHY?
Just to save some power?
Please, computer manufacturers, let *me* make that decision!
), so the experience is somewhat more like a CRT.
Even an LCD with zero lag (i.e.
0 msec GTG performance) and a backlight that's constantly on looks blurry when things move and you follow them with your eye [byuu.org].
An LCD with 0 msec GTG and an LED backlight that pulses ONCE per frame will not have that blur as you follow the object with your eyes.
This is similar to how a CRT has much less blur for the same situation, because as you note, the phosphor is only brightly lit for a very small part of the refresh.
When you follow the moving object with your eyes, your eyes move smoothly, even though the object is jumping to a new position every 1/60 second.
If the object only flashes for a short time at each new position, the flash is always at the center of your vision.
If the object is shown for each entire frame, it gets smeared across the center of your eyes, since your eyes are constantly moving during the entire frame.
Thus, until LCDs flash the backlight for a short duration only ONCE per frame, there will be motion blur for human viewers (unless the viewer fixes his eyes on a point and never moves them).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673204</id>
	<title>Jade Empire</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1262807880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I recently bought Jade Empire on Steam, and when I started it I could tell right away how choppy everything was.  Seems by default it runs at 30fps.  Tinkered with the config file to unclamp it to 60, and everything became much smoother.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I recently bought Jade Empire on Steam , and when I started it I could tell right away how choppy everything was .
Seems by default it runs at 30fps .
Tinkered with the config file to unclamp it to 60 , and everything became much smoother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recently bought Jade Empire on Steam, and when I started it I could tell right away how choppy everything was.
Seems by default it runs at 30fps.
Tinkered with the config file to unclamp it to 60, and everything became much smoother.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674056</id>
	<title>Disagree with 2 of 4 items</title>
	<author>dcollins</author>
	<datestamp>1262768640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, items #1 and #2 are pretty far off the mark.</p><p>"The framerate of a game is usually directly tied to the processing of its logic." That really shouldn't be the case. Working on top-end race sim games back in the mid-90's, the very first mission statement was to have separate input, logic, and graphics threads so as to decouple these issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , items # 1 and # 2 are pretty far off the mark .
" The framerate of a game is usually directly tied to the processing of its logic .
" That really should n't be the case .
Working on top-end race sim games back in the mid-90 's , the very first mission statement was to have separate input , logic , and graphics threads so as to decouple these issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, items #1 and #2 are pretty far off the mark.
"The framerate of a game is usually directly tied to the processing of its logic.
" That really shouldn't be the case.
Working on top-end race sim games back in the mid-90's, the very first mission statement was to have separate input, logic, and graphics threads so as to decouple these issues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672462</id>
	<title>30 Fps myth</title>
	<author>ggendel</author>
	<datestamp>1262804820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There were a lot of studies done a long time ago, and there are some very accurate psycho-visual computer models of the human visual system. I had the pleasure of working with the Jeff Lubin model when I worked at Sarnoff Corp, which won an Emmy Award back in 2000.</p><p>The 30 fps requirement is not a fixed point, but depends upon a lot of other factors, including  viewing distance, field of view, and lighting conditions.  The reason that film operates at 24 fps is because it is expected to be viewed in a darkened room. When film is trans-coded for TVs, they have to modify the gamma for a normally lighted viewing area or it will look bad.  NTSC TVs are interlaced, displaying 60 fields per second, even though the frame rate is 30 frames per second.</p><p>Bottom line is that this article should include the environmental factors under which this point was made.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There were a lot of studies done a long time ago , and there are some very accurate psycho-visual computer models of the human visual system .
I had the pleasure of working with the Jeff Lubin model when I worked at Sarnoff Corp , which won an Emmy Award back in 2000.The 30 fps requirement is not a fixed point , but depends upon a lot of other factors , including viewing distance , field of view , and lighting conditions .
The reason that film operates at 24 fps is because it is expected to be viewed in a darkened room .
When film is trans-coded for TVs , they have to modify the gamma for a normally lighted viewing area or it will look bad .
NTSC TVs are interlaced , displaying 60 fields per second , even though the frame rate is 30 frames per second.Bottom line is that this article should include the environmental factors under which this point was made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There were a lot of studies done a long time ago, and there are some very accurate psycho-visual computer models of the human visual system.
I had the pleasure of working with the Jeff Lubin model when I worked at Sarnoff Corp, which won an Emmy Award back in 2000.The 30 fps requirement is not a fixed point, but depends upon a lot of other factors, including  viewing distance, field of view, and lighting conditions.
The reason that film operates at 24 fps is because it is expected to be viewed in a darkened room.
When film is trans-coded for TVs, they have to modify the gamma for a normally lighted viewing area or it will look bad.
NTSC TVs are interlaced, displaying 60 fields per second, even though the frame rate is 30 frames per second.Bottom line is that this article should include the environmental factors under which this point was made.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30688200</id>
	<title>Re:The human eye can dectect 30</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262862000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do the same trick with a young child who has never played "catch" before, and your rock is going to bean him right off his skull.</p></div><p>So you've done this experiment?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do the same trick with a young child who has never played " catch " before , and your rock is going to bean him right off his skull.So you 've done this experiment ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do the same trick with a young child who has never played "catch" before, and your rock is going to bean him right off his skull.So you've done this experiment?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673364</id>
	<title>Re:I never understood why...</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1262808660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I still have an analog CRT monitor that supports much higher frame rates at HD resolutions which gives a very noticeable edge when playing twitch-games like Unreal Tournament.</i></p><p>Yeah right.</p><p>You have to prove statements like that, you can't just spit them out and expect us all to believe it. Let's see a double-blind test, you playing 10 games limited to 60 FPS and then playing 10 games at your usual FPS and average the scores.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I still have an analog CRT monitor that supports much higher frame rates at HD resolutions which gives a very noticeable edge when playing twitch-games like Unreal Tournament.Yeah right.You have to prove statements like that , you ca n't just spit them out and expect us all to believe it .
Let 's see a double-blind test , you playing 10 games limited to 60 FPS and then playing 10 games at your usual FPS and average the scores .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still have an analog CRT monitor that supports much higher frame rates at HD resolutions which gives a very noticeable edge when playing twitch-games like Unreal Tournament.Yeah right.You have to prove statements like that, you can't just spit them out and expect us all to believe it.
Let's see a double-blind test, you playing 10 games limited to 60 FPS and then playing 10 games at your usual FPS and average the scores.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674490</id>
	<title>Re:The human eye can dectect 30</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262770380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>get a car, Knievel</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>get a car , Knievel</tokentext>
<sentencetext>get a car, Knievel</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671968</id>
	<title>Re:Motion blur and bloom effects</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1262802900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because you're still looking at a single object, your monitor, and the picture and movement in it is artificially created. If you look at real objects moving or move or shake your head you'll notice theres huge motion blur effect. If you do it in game that has no motion blur effect, you notice how it instantly jumps to where you want to look at.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because you 're still looking at a single object , your monitor , and the picture and movement in it is artificially created .
If you look at real objects moving or move or shake your head you 'll notice theres huge motion blur effect .
If you do it in game that has no motion blur effect , you notice how it instantly jumps to where you want to look at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because you're still looking at a single object, your monitor, and the picture and movement in it is artificially created.
If you look at real objects moving or move or shake your head you'll notice theres huge motion blur effect.
If you do it in game that has no motion blur effect, you notice how it instantly jumps to where you want to look at.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672056</id>
	<title>Headroom...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262803200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the biggest reason to go for the highest frame rate possible is headroom. If your framerate is 30 at best, it'll dip down to 10 sometimes. If it's at 120 optimal  it can dip down to 30, and still be playable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the biggest reason to go for the highest frame rate possible is headroom .
If your framerate is 30 at best , it 'll dip down to 10 sometimes .
If it 's at 120 optimal it can dip down to 30 , and still be playable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the biggest reason to go for the highest frame rate possible is headroom.
If your framerate is 30 at best, it'll dip down to 10 sometimes.
If it's at 120 optimal  it can dip down to 30, and still be playable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30678486</id>
	<title>Re:Same with audio...</title>
	<author>tangent3</author>
	<datestamp>1262794140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..and strangely enough, their capability of hearing "better imaging, depth and transparency at higher sample rates" disappear the moment they attempt an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABX\_test" title="wikipedia.org">ABX Text</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..and strangely enough , their capability of hearing " better imaging , depth and transparency at higher sample rates " disappear the moment they attempt an ABX Text [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..and strangely enough, their capability of hearing "better imaging, depth and transparency at higher sample rates" disappear the moment they attempt an ABX Text [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672746</id>
	<title>120fps ftw</title>
	<author>Twinbee</author>
	<datestamp>1262805960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really high frame rates (say 100fps+) from the SOURCE and display are the only way that we're going to get rid of flicker and all type of blurring for good. Even a perfect display technology which has incredibly fast pixel refreshing will still either flicker or blur (depending on how much black is inserted between each frame), *unless* the source is higher than around 60fps. Future OLED tv will be in this position soon.</p><p>Disregarding flicker and blur, 60fps and especially 120fps rates provide silky smooth graphics which really improves over the horrid 30fps rates everyone has had to endure for so long. It bugs the heck out of me that films still only use 24fps. Yes I know each frame is a motion blur of the past 24th of a second, but it would be much nicer to just have a higher frame rate to begin with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really high frame rates ( say 100fps + ) from the SOURCE and display are the only way that we 're going to get rid of flicker and all type of blurring for good .
Even a perfect display technology which has incredibly fast pixel refreshing will still either flicker or blur ( depending on how much black is inserted between each frame ) , * unless * the source is higher than around 60fps .
Future OLED tv will be in this position soon.Disregarding flicker and blur , 60fps and especially 120fps rates provide silky smooth graphics which really improves over the horrid 30fps rates everyone has had to endure for so long .
It bugs the heck out of me that films still only use 24fps .
Yes I know each frame is a motion blur of the past 24th of a second , but it would be much nicer to just have a higher frame rate to begin with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really high frame rates (say 100fps+) from the SOURCE and display are the only way that we're going to get rid of flicker and all type of blurring for good.
Even a perfect display technology which has incredibly fast pixel refreshing will still either flicker or blur (depending on how much black is inserted between each frame), *unless* the source is higher than around 60fps.
Future OLED tv will be in this position soon.Disregarding flicker and blur, 60fps and especially 120fps rates provide silky smooth graphics which really improves over the horrid 30fps rates everyone has had to endure for so long.
It bugs the heck out of me that films still only use 24fps.
Yes I know each frame is a motion blur of the past 24th of a second, but it would be much nicer to just have a higher frame rate to begin with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674166</id>
	<title>Obligatory 100fps.com link...</title>
	<author>KonoWatakushi</author>
	<datestamp>1262769060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have an interesting page about the question of <a href="http://www.100fps.com/how\_many\_frames\_can\_humans\_see.htm" title="100fps.com">"How many frames per second can the human eye see?"</a> [100fps.com]</p><p>120hz displays make a lot of sense in the near term, but even that frame rate may be woefully inadequate for providing a true, indistinguishable from reality VR experience.  (Of course, it will be a while before the resolution and color reproduction also catch up, but it is an interesting topic.)</p><p>In any case, no one really knows what will be enough, but 24fps is certainly not.  120hz displays will be a great improvement, both for gaming and video.  The latter, because both 24fps movies, and 30fps video (or perhaps 60 fields/s interlaced) divide into it nicely.  (If you want to be pedantic, it isn't exactly 30fps, but it is close enough, and even PAL would look better.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have an interesting page about the question of " How many frames per second can the human eye see ?
" [ 100fps.com ] 120hz displays make a lot of sense in the near term , but even that frame rate may be woefully inadequate for providing a true , indistinguishable from reality VR experience .
( Of course , it will be a while before the resolution and color reproduction also catch up , but it is an interesting topic .
) In any case , no one really knows what will be enough , but 24fps is certainly not .
120hz displays will be a great improvement , both for gaming and video .
The latter , because both 24fps movies , and 30fps video ( or perhaps 60 fields/s interlaced ) divide into it nicely .
( If you want to be pedantic , it is n't exactly 30fps , but it is close enough , and even PAL would look better .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have an interesting page about the question of "How many frames per second can the human eye see?
" [100fps.com]120hz displays make a lot of sense in the near term, but even that frame rate may be woefully inadequate for providing a true, indistinguishable from reality VR experience.
(Of course, it will be a while before the resolution and color reproduction also catch up, but it is an interesting topic.
)In any case, no one really knows what will be enough, but 24fps is certainly not.
120hz displays will be a great improvement, both for gaming and video.
The latter, because both 24fps movies, and 30fps video (or perhaps 60 fields/s interlaced) divide into it nicely.
(If you want to be pedantic, it isn't exactly 30fps, but it is close enough, and even PAL would look better.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671874</id>
	<title>Re:Motion blur and bloom effects</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262802600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's important none the less, even if it's not all sharp picture, because your eye picture isn't all that sharp either and you experience the same blur.</i></p><p>If my eye creates the blur, why do I need artificial motion blur?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's important none the less , even if it 's not all sharp picture , because your eye picture is n't all that sharp either and you experience the same blur.If my eye creates the blur , why do I need artificial motion blur ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's important none the less, even if it's not all sharp picture, because your eye picture isn't all that sharp either and you experience the same blur.If my eye creates the blur, why do I need artificial motion blur?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675912</id>
	<title>Re:Important in movies as well</title>
	<author>Chas</author>
	<datestamp>1262776860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually what you were seeing wasn't flickering.
</p><p>It was stuttering during horizontal movement.  It's a byproduct of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealD\_3D" title="wikipedia.org">Real3D process.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually what you were seeing was n't flickering .
It was stuttering during horizontal movement .
It 's a byproduct of the Real3D process .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually what you were seeing wasn't flickering.
It was stuttering during horizontal movement.
It's a byproduct of the Real3D process.
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674376</id>
	<title>NOT the Same with audio...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262769900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Audio is different from video. People who "hear better imaging, depth and transparency" at higher sampling rates are either imagining it, or using equipment that does not operate properly at 44.1/48.</p><p>Blind test, year long, trained audio professionals and musicians. Random chance results at telling the difference between 24-bit/96kHz audio and 16-bit/44.1kHz audio:</p><p>http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio\_emperors\_new\_sampling/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Audio is different from video .
People who " hear better imaging , depth and transparency " at higher sampling rates are either imagining it , or using equipment that does not operate properly at 44.1/48.Blind test , year long , trained audio professionals and musicians .
Random chance results at telling the difference between 24-bit/96kHz audio and 16-bit/44.1kHz audio : http : //mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio \ _emperors \ _new \ _sampling/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Audio is different from video.
People who "hear better imaging, depth and transparency" at higher sampling rates are either imagining it, or using equipment that does not operate properly at 44.1/48.Blind test, year long, trained audio professionals and musicians.
Random chance results at telling the difference between 24-bit/96kHz audio and 16-bit/44.1kHz audio:http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio\_emperors\_new\_sampling/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672756</id>
	<title>Re:The human eye can dectect 30</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262806020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"but most people would rather spend the money on a GPS device, real leather, plug-in-hybrid engines before you get around to putting gold in the car."</p><p>Most People.....? I've seen plenty of Cadillacs and Buicks running around with lots of gold!!!</p><p>SO many places to take this one. Letting it go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" but most people would rather spend the money on a GPS device , real leather , plug-in-hybrid engines before you get around to putting gold in the car .
" Most People..... ?
I 've seen plenty of Cadillacs and Buicks running around with lots of gold ! !
! SO many places to take this one .
Letting it go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"but most people would rather spend the money on a GPS device, real leather, plug-in-hybrid engines before you get around to putting gold in the car.
"Most People.....?
I've seen plenty of Cadillacs and Buicks running around with lots of gold!!
!SO many places to take this one.
Letting it go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672848</id>
	<title>Re:Any animator knows...</title>
	<author>sootman</author>
	<datestamp>1262806380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for saving me from having to write the same post.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) And this is why ILM invented "go-motion" in the early 80s which made the animation in 1981's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonslayer" title="wikipedia.org">Dragonslayer</a> [wikipedia.org] look much better than <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash\_of\_the\_Titans\_(1981\_film)" title="wikipedia.org">Clash of the Titans</a> [wikipedia.org] from the same year. Video games, producing instantaneous, perfectly-sharp images, look like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray\_Harryhausen" title="wikipedia.org">Ray Harryhausen</a> [wikipedia.org] films unless the frame rates get really high.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for saving me from having to write the same post .
: - ) And this is why ILM invented " go-motion " in the early 80s which made the animation in 1981 's Dragonslayer [ wikipedia.org ] look much better than Clash of the Titans [ wikipedia.org ] from the same year .
Video games , producing instantaneous , perfectly-sharp images , look like Ray Harryhausen [ wikipedia.org ] films unless the frame rates get really high .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for saving me from having to write the same post.
:-) And this is why ILM invented "go-motion" in the early 80s which made the animation in 1981's Dragonslayer [wikipedia.org] look much better than Clash of the Titans [wikipedia.org] from the same year.
Video games, producing instantaneous, perfectly-sharp images, look like Ray Harryhausen [wikipedia.org] films unless the frame rates get really high.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672596</id>
	<title>Re:Motion blur and bloom effects</title>
	<author>Moryath</author>
	<datestamp>1262805360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not quite.</p><p>The eye blur happens for two reasons. The first is the fact that the human eye is "assembling" an analog reading of the light taken over a specific time, very similar to how a camera exposure works. We aren't "digital" beings, in the sense that there is allowance forward and back in our visual processing, but we DO assemble "frames" for the rest of our brain to analyze.</p><p>The second is focusing. A fast-moving object moves into, and out of, the focused field quite quickly. Either we keep tracking it (in which case the unfocused foreground and background areas alter) or we don't, and it goes out of focus. We mentally render this as blurring. Directors in 2D movies use depth-of-field to do a quick transition between two speaking characters and ensure the right one has prominence, by keeping the speaker in focus and then quickly shifting focus in/out to bring the other to prominence when the dialogue turns.</p><p>The real sin, and unalterable problem currently, for 3D technology is that everything renders in-focus. Motion blurs work to some degree, but a large-scale image with "background" objects sharply in focus gives us headaches. We follow the other visual cues, try to "focus" to distance, try to "refocus" for the fuzziness it causes, and then wobble back and forth till we have sore, tired eye muscles.</p><p>The 3D Brendan Frasier <i>Journey to the Center of the Earth</i> was the closest done so far, because they did introduce some background blur, but it still had problems should the viewer decide to focus on something other than what the director wanted them to focus on, visually. Avatar commits the same sin as well, and doesn't even try to do it properly. It's like watching some big pixely, perfect-focus-for-miles video game.</p><p>As for the other items they mention - "<i>The framerate of a game is usually directly tied to the processing of its logic.</i>" Not true. Indeed, only true if you've got shoddy programmers (the fix for one of the most notorious examples, the jumping-height differences of various iterations of the Quake engine, was to simply <a href="http://ucguides.savagehelp.com/Quake3/FAQFPSJumps.html" title="savagehelp.com">lock the calculations to assume a static framerate</a> [savagehelp.com]; the id software programmers, who chose to instead discard "erroneous" round-up errors, wound up widely criticized for STILL making the jumps somewhat randomly framerate-dependent. The truth is that the visual rendering framerate of a game simply does not have to be the same as the internal calculation "frame" rate.</p><p>As for input lag... the difference in "lag" between a 30-fps framerate and a 60-fps framerate is 16 ms. Even if you get to 120-fps and have a monitor capable of doing so at your chosen resolution, your difference is 25 ms. Human reaction to visual stimuli is generally in the neighborhood of 150-300 ms.</p><p>Even playing on a LAN in the same building, you're looking at random lag times longer than the difference between 120fps and 30fps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not quite.The eye blur happens for two reasons .
The first is the fact that the human eye is " assembling " an analog reading of the light taken over a specific time , very similar to how a camera exposure works .
We are n't " digital " beings , in the sense that there is allowance forward and back in our visual processing , but we DO assemble " frames " for the rest of our brain to analyze.The second is focusing .
A fast-moving object moves into , and out of , the focused field quite quickly .
Either we keep tracking it ( in which case the unfocused foreground and background areas alter ) or we do n't , and it goes out of focus .
We mentally render this as blurring .
Directors in 2D movies use depth-of-field to do a quick transition between two speaking characters and ensure the right one has prominence , by keeping the speaker in focus and then quickly shifting focus in/out to bring the other to prominence when the dialogue turns.The real sin , and unalterable problem currently , for 3D technology is that everything renders in-focus .
Motion blurs work to some degree , but a large-scale image with " background " objects sharply in focus gives us headaches .
We follow the other visual cues , try to " focus " to distance , try to " refocus " for the fuzziness it causes , and then wobble back and forth till we have sore , tired eye muscles.The 3D Brendan Frasier Journey to the Center of the Earth was the closest done so far , because they did introduce some background blur , but it still had problems should the viewer decide to focus on something other than what the director wanted them to focus on , visually .
Avatar commits the same sin as well , and does n't even try to do it properly .
It 's like watching some big pixely , perfect-focus-for-miles video game.As for the other items they mention - " The framerate of a game is usually directly tied to the processing of its logic .
" Not true .
Indeed , only true if you 've got shoddy programmers ( the fix for one of the most notorious examples , the jumping-height differences of various iterations of the Quake engine , was to simply lock the calculations to assume a static framerate [ savagehelp.com ] ; the id software programmers , who chose to instead discard " erroneous " round-up errors , wound up widely criticized for STILL making the jumps somewhat randomly framerate-dependent .
The truth is that the visual rendering framerate of a game simply does not have to be the same as the internal calculation " frame " rate.As for input lag... the difference in " lag " between a 30-fps framerate and a 60-fps framerate is 16 ms. Even if you get to 120-fps and have a monitor capable of doing so at your chosen resolution , your difference is 25 ms. Human reaction to visual stimuli is generally in the neighborhood of 150-300 ms.Even playing on a LAN in the same building , you 're looking at random lag times longer than the difference between 120fps and 30fps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not quite.The eye blur happens for two reasons.
The first is the fact that the human eye is "assembling" an analog reading of the light taken over a specific time, very similar to how a camera exposure works.
We aren't "digital" beings, in the sense that there is allowance forward and back in our visual processing, but we DO assemble "frames" for the rest of our brain to analyze.The second is focusing.
A fast-moving object moves into, and out of, the focused field quite quickly.
Either we keep tracking it (in which case the unfocused foreground and background areas alter) or we don't, and it goes out of focus.
We mentally render this as blurring.
Directors in 2D movies use depth-of-field to do a quick transition between two speaking characters and ensure the right one has prominence, by keeping the speaker in focus and then quickly shifting focus in/out to bring the other to prominence when the dialogue turns.The real sin, and unalterable problem currently, for 3D technology is that everything renders in-focus.
Motion blurs work to some degree, but a large-scale image with "background" objects sharply in focus gives us headaches.
We follow the other visual cues, try to "focus" to distance, try to "refocus" for the fuzziness it causes, and then wobble back and forth till we have sore, tired eye muscles.The 3D Brendan Frasier Journey to the Center of the Earth was the closest done so far, because they did introduce some background blur, but it still had problems should the viewer decide to focus on something other than what the director wanted them to focus on, visually.
Avatar commits the same sin as well, and doesn't even try to do it properly.
It's like watching some big pixely, perfect-focus-for-miles video game.As for the other items they mention - "The framerate of a game is usually directly tied to the processing of its logic.
" Not true.
Indeed, only true if you've got shoddy programmers (the fix for one of the most notorious examples, the jumping-height differences of various iterations of the Quake engine, was to simply lock the calculations to assume a static framerate [savagehelp.com]; the id software programmers, who chose to instead discard "erroneous" round-up errors, wound up widely criticized for STILL making the jumps somewhat randomly framerate-dependent.
The truth is that the visual rendering framerate of a game simply does not have to be the same as the internal calculation "frame" rate.As for input lag... the difference in "lag" between a 30-fps framerate and a 60-fps framerate is 16 ms. Even if you get to 120-fps and have a monitor capable of doing so at your chosen resolution, your difference is 25 ms. Human reaction to visual stimuli is generally in the neighborhood of 150-300 ms.Even playing on a LAN in the same building, you're looking at random lag times longer than the difference between 120fps and 30fps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30678322</id>
	<title>Re:Motion blur and bloom effects</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262792880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about the simulated depth-of-field that's used in some video games nowadays? Essentially it intentionally blurs objects in the distance. It's still far from perfect, but it does seem to improve things quite a bit.</p><p>On the other hand, I dislike simulated motion blur in games. Feels really fake, and a lot of games do it excessively and don't let you control how much blur there is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the simulated depth-of-field that 's used in some video games nowadays ?
Essentially it intentionally blurs objects in the distance .
It 's still far from perfect , but it does seem to improve things quite a bit.On the other hand , I dislike simulated motion blur in games .
Feels really fake , and a lot of games do it excessively and do n't let you control how much blur there is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the simulated depth-of-field that's used in some video games nowadays?
Essentially it intentionally blurs objects in the distance.
It's still far from perfect, but it does seem to improve things quite a bit.On the other hand, I dislike simulated motion blur in games.
Feels really fake, and a lot of games do it excessively and don't let you control how much blur there is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672334</id>
	<title>Re:The human eye can dectect 30</title>
	<author>wgaryhas</author>
	<datestamp>1262804220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In what way does gold plating increase the quality of the dashboard controls?</htmltext>
<tokenext>In what way does gold plating increase the quality of the dashboard controls ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In what way does gold plating increase the quality of the dashboard controls?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30684610</id>
	<title>Damn, time for a new graphics card</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1262888580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...sounds like this entire article was sponsored by nVidia.</p><p>What this blog fails to discuss is the concept of "good enough" is good enough. A game running a 60 fps is plenty good enough and hardly anybody would notice an improvement if you bump that number up. That's why it's good enough, because the amount of money it takes to improve the frame rate isn't worth the return (little to no perceived quality improvement).</p><p>I know a few of you like your giant, uncompressed audio files as well, but I'm just fine with my 128 mp3s (anything below that is noticeably degraded, anything bigger than that makes no difference to this 40 year old drummer's ears).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...sounds like this entire article was sponsored by nVidia.What this blog fails to discuss is the concept of " good enough " is good enough .
A game running a 60 fps is plenty good enough and hardly anybody would notice an improvement if you bump that number up .
That 's why it 's good enough , because the amount of money it takes to improve the frame rate is n't worth the return ( little to no perceived quality improvement ) .I know a few of you like your giant , uncompressed audio files as well , but I 'm just fine with my 128 mp3s ( anything below that is noticeably degraded , anything bigger than that makes no difference to this 40 year old drummer 's ears ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...sounds like this entire article was sponsored by nVidia.What this blog fails to discuss is the concept of "good enough" is good enough.
A game running a 60 fps is plenty good enough and hardly anybody would notice an improvement if you bump that number up.
That's why it's good enough, because the amount of money it takes to improve the frame rate isn't worth the return (little to no perceived quality improvement).I know a few of you like your giant, uncompressed audio files as well, but I'm just fine with my 128 mp3s (anything below that is noticeably degraded, anything bigger than that makes no difference to this 40 year old drummer's ears).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30742734</id>
	<title>Why higher framereate \_really\_ matters in an fps..</title>
	<author>fcrick</author>
	<datestamp>1263290940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I play FPS games - 30 fps is fine as far as visual quality goes - sure, 60 fps is better, but I don't care - it's not the visual quality that concerns me.</p><p>What does concern me is the delay in getting the information I need when I'm playing.</p><p>Ideally, I'd like infinite FPS - then, when an opponent appears, I'd see it as soon as possible after the data makes it from the computer to the monitor.  At 30 FPS, there is an additional delay, probably up to 33 ms, probably averaging 16 ms.  At 60 FPS, that additional delay is cut in half, and at 120 FPS, it's cut in half again.  In short, I get relevant information sooner, and that makes me play better.</p><p>Often battles in FPS games are literally two people who both shoot each other in the head for a one shot kill as soon as they see each other.  Players want to minimize any delay so the game will decide they shot first, and win the encounter - every little ms matters, as any skilled gamer knows all too well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I play FPS games - 30 fps is fine as far as visual quality goes - sure , 60 fps is better , but I do n't care - it 's not the visual quality that concerns me.What does concern me is the delay in getting the information I need when I 'm playing.Ideally , I 'd like infinite FPS - then , when an opponent appears , I 'd see it as soon as possible after the data makes it from the computer to the monitor .
At 30 FPS , there is an additional delay , probably up to 33 ms , probably averaging 16 ms. At 60 FPS , that additional delay is cut in half , and at 120 FPS , it 's cut in half again .
In short , I get relevant information sooner , and that makes me play better.Often battles in FPS games are literally two people who both shoot each other in the head for a one shot kill as soon as they see each other .
Players want to minimize any delay so the game will decide they shot first , and win the encounter - every little ms matters , as any skilled gamer knows all too well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I play FPS games - 30 fps is fine as far as visual quality goes - sure, 60 fps is better, but I don't care - it's not the visual quality that concerns me.What does concern me is the delay in getting the information I need when I'm playing.Ideally, I'd like infinite FPS - then, when an opponent appears, I'd see it as soon as possible after the data makes it from the computer to the monitor.
At 30 FPS, there is an additional delay, probably up to 33 ms, probably averaging 16 ms.  At 60 FPS, that additional delay is cut in half, and at 120 FPS, it's cut in half again.
In short, I get relevant information sooner, and that makes me play better.Often battles in FPS games are literally two people who both shoot each other in the head for a one shot kill as soon as they see each other.
Players want to minimize any delay so the game will decide they shot first, and win the encounter - every little ms matters, as any skilled gamer knows all too well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30682464</id>
	<title>Frame rates are not only what the eye sees</title>
	<author>gerryn</author>
	<datestamp>1262880180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As briefly mentioned in the article linked, it's not only about if the picture is percieved as being smooth or not. When playing FPS games the mouse's responsiveness is directly linked to the FPS.


A good example of this is the V-SYNC option available in many games, even though the game runs very smooth with V-SYNC on, the controls are all but smooth, and you end up with a very unresponsive and "rigid" camera.
At least that's how it is for me.


I have discussed this issue with quite a lot of people and some say they don't notice anything while others say they do.


I have always noticed, and it does not matter what kind of hardware I use (it happens with all hardware and all games). I think some people have the ABILITY to notice these kind of things, while others don't (I might be wrong...)


The nightmare scenario is 1) 30 FPS and the responsiveness of the mouse that comes with it, secondly the visual experience which is also greatly reduced. With 60 FPS (at least) it feels good, and I have noticed that with even higher framerates the responsiveness is increased, which makes sense since the DPI of the mouse has increased greatly over the years as well. I dont know the ratio of mouse dpi / framerate for a good experience but its obvious that there must be one.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/G</htmltext>
<tokenext>As briefly mentioned in the article linked , it 's not only about if the picture is percieved as being smooth or not .
When playing FPS games the mouse 's responsiveness is directly linked to the FPS .
A good example of this is the V-SYNC option available in many games , even though the game runs very smooth with V-SYNC on , the controls are all but smooth , and you end up with a very unresponsive and " rigid " camera .
At least that 's how it is for me .
I have discussed this issue with quite a lot of people and some say they do n't notice anything while others say they do .
I have always noticed , and it does not matter what kind of hardware I use ( it happens with all hardware and all games ) .
I think some people have the ABILITY to notice these kind of things , while others do n't ( I might be wrong... ) The nightmare scenario is 1 ) 30 FPS and the responsiveness of the mouse that comes with it , secondly the visual experience which is also greatly reduced .
With 60 FPS ( at least ) it feels good , and I have noticed that with even higher framerates the responsiveness is increased , which makes sense since the DPI of the mouse has increased greatly over the years as well .
I dont know the ratio of mouse dpi / framerate for a good experience but its obvious that there must be one .
/G</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As briefly mentioned in the article linked, it's not only about if the picture is percieved as being smooth or not.
When playing FPS games the mouse's responsiveness is directly linked to the FPS.
A good example of this is the V-SYNC option available in many games, even though the game runs very smooth with V-SYNC on, the controls are all but smooth, and you end up with a very unresponsive and "rigid" camera.
At least that's how it is for me.
I have discussed this issue with quite a lot of people and some say they don't notice anything while others say they do.
I have always noticed, and it does not matter what kind of hardware I use (it happens with all hardware and all games).
I think some people have the ABILITY to notice these kind of things, while others don't (I might be wrong...)


The nightmare scenario is 1) 30 FPS and the responsiveness of the mouse that comes with it, secondly the visual experience which is also greatly reduced.
With 60 FPS (at least) it feels good, and I have noticed that with even higher framerates the responsiveness is increased, which makes sense since the DPI of the mouse has increased greatly over the years as well.
I dont know the ratio of mouse dpi / framerate for a good experience but its obvious that there must be one.
/G</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672424</id>
	<title>The 30fps myth</title>
	<author>asdf7890</author>
	<datestamp>1262804640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 30fps myth is simply an over simplification. The eye+brain starts to naturally perceive movement at around 10fps, usually a little lower. Motion usually starts to appear smooth somewhere between 15 and 25fps though it depends on many factors other than just the framerate (smoothness of the frame rate, relative change velocities of objects (or parts thereof) in the image, absolute colour and tone, colour and tone contrasts within the image, the existence or not of dropped frames and other inconsistencies,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...).</p><p>People often take this (the "15 to 25fps" bit, ignoring the "depending on..." complications) as meaning there is no need to go above 30fps, and in many cases there probably is no need, but in a number of conditions a higher framerate can affect the perception of movement quite significantly especially for fast moving objects/scenes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 30fps myth is simply an over simplification .
The eye + brain starts to naturally perceive movement at around 10fps , usually a little lower .
Motion usually starts to appear smooth somewhere between 15 and 25fps though it depends on many factors other than just the framerate ( smoothness of the frame rate , relative change velocities of objects ( or parts thereof ) in the image , absolute colour and tone , colour and tone contrasts within the image , the existence or not of dropped frames and other inconsistencies , ... ) .People often take this ( the " 15 to 25fps " bit , ignoring the " depending on... " complications ) as meaning there is no need to go above 30fps , and in many cases there probably is no need , but in a number of conditions a higher framerate can affect the perception of movement quite significantly especially for fast moving objects/scenes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 30fps myth is simply an over simplification.
The eye+brain starts to naturally perceive movement at around 10fps, usually a little lower.
Motion usually starts to appear smooth somewhere between 15 and 25fps though it depends on many factors other than just the framerate (smoothness of the frame rate, relative change velocities of objects (or parts thereof) in the image, absolute colour and tone, colour and tone contrasts within the image, the existence or not of dropped frames and other inconsistencies, ...).People often take this (the "15 to 25fps" bit, ignoring the "depending on..." complications) as meaning there is no need to go above 30fps, and in many cases there probably is no need, but in a number of conditions a higher framerate can affect the perception of movement quite significantly especially for fast moving objects/scenes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30676036</id>
	<title>Re:The human eye can dectect 30</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1262777520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A child's brain isn't fully developed and can't be properly compared as you have. And visual stimulus can effect your emotion centers and cause automatic reactions without even reaching your consciousness. An example of this is surprise, it sets fear into motion before your forebrain determines that you aren't in danger. <br> <br>And for the final comment. I'm sure your subconscious knows it is a cat... The eyes send a message to the occipital lobe (visual processing), which sends it to the right temporal lobe (image recognition), at which point it goes to the amygdala/hypothalamus (emotion center) which triggers the 'oh fuck I'm going to get hit in the face with a cat' response.<br> <br>Disclaimer: I'm learning neurology out of curiosity, nearly everything I've said could be wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A child 's brain is n't fully developed and ca n't be properly compared as you have .
And visual stimulus can effect your emotion centers and cause automatic reactions without even reaching your consciousness .
An example of this is surprise , it sets fear into motion before your forebrain determines that you are n't in danger .
And for the final comment .
I 'm sure your subconscious knows it is a cat... The eyes send a message to the occipital lobe ( visual processing ) , which sends it to the right temporal lobe ( image recognition ) , at which point it goes to the amygdala/hypothalamus ( emotion center ) which triggers the 'oh fuck I 'm going to get hit in the face with a cat ' response .
Disclaimer : I 'm learning neurology out of curiosity , nearly everything I 've said could be wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A child's brain isn't fully developed and can't be properly compared as you have.
And visual stimulus can effect your emotion centers and cause automatic reactions without even reaching your consciousness.
An example of this is surprise, it sets fear into motion before your forebrain determines that you aren't in danger.
And for the final comment.
I'm sure your subconscious knows it is a cat... The eyes send a message to the occipital lobe (visual processing), which sends it to the right temporal lobe (image recognition), at which point it goes to the amygdala/hypothalamus (emotion center) which triggers the 'oh fuck I'm going to get hit in the face with a cat' response.
Disclaimer: I'm learning neurology out of curiosity, nearly everything I've said could be wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674806</id>
	<title>Re:Any animator knows...</title>
	<author>master\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1262772180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was trained to detect 60 vs 30 FPS on the Amiga: the games that took advantage of the Amiga's hardware were silky smooth, meaning 60 FPS, and the games that were simple ST ports were jerky, meaning 30 FPS or lower.</p><p>I loved the Amiga game Drivin' Force (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrJDgYxgyNM) simply for this: absolutely stunningly smooth 60 FPS visuals. It looked a little bit like Sega's Powerdrift.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was trained to detect 60 vs 30 FPS on the Amiga : the games that took advantage of the Amiga 's hardware were silky smooth , meaning 60 FPS , and the games that were simple ST ports were jerky , meaning 30 FPS or lower.I loved the Amiga game Drivin ' Force ( http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = RrJDgYxgyNM ) simply for this : absolutely stunningly smooth 60 FPS visuals .
It looked a little bit like Sega 's Powerdrift .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was trained to detect 60 vs 30 FPS on the Amiga: the games that took advantage of the Amiga's hardware were silky smooth, meaning 60 FPS, and the games that were simple ST ports were jerky, meaning 30 FPS or lower.I loved the Amiga game Drivin' Force (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrJDgYxgyNM) simply for this: absolutely stunningly smooth 60 FPS visuals.
It looked a little bit like Sega's Powerdrift.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30679148</id>
	<title>Re:Same with audio...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262800380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only those who do not really understand the Nyquist Theorum say it is always enough.</p><p>Of course sampling above 44.1 kHz records more nuances; what matters is whether those nuances <em>improve</em> the listening experience or not. And that depends on many factors: the sound being recorded, the recording equipment, the playback equipment, and the ear and attention of the listener.</p><p>In practice, though, 44.1 kHz is usually "good enough."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only those who do not really understand the Nyquist Theorum say it is always enough.Of course sampling above 44.1 kHz records more nuances ; what matters is whether those nuances improve the listening experience or not .
And that depends on many factors : the sound being recorded , the recording equipment , the playback equipment , and the ear and attention of the listener.In practice , though , 44.1 kHz is usually " good enough .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only those who do not really understand the Nyquist Theorum say it is always enough.Of course sampling above 44.1 kHz records more nuances; what matters is whether those nuances improve the listening experience or not.
And that depends on many factors: the sound being recorded, the recording equipment, the playback equipment, and the ear and attention of the listener.In practice, though, 44.1 kHz is usually "good enough.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672434</id>
	<title>Re:Any animator knows...</title>
	<author>jeffmeden</author>
	<datestamp>1262804640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> You can occaisonally dip down to 24 and be alright (24 is supposedly the speed that most Movie theatres play at) - but when you get around 20 or so its really does take away from the experience.</p></div><p>If by 'supposedly' you mean 'definitely' and if by 'most movie theaters' you mean 'all theaters and even all motion picture production processes in recent years', then yes.  The difference is lost on most people, but the reason 24fps is acceptable in movies is that the frame you see isn't what happened at that instant in time when it's displayed, it's everything that happened in the last 1/24th of a second, since it's recorded on film that exposed for that 24th of a second to derive the image.  When a computer does it, it only cares about what is happening at that exact 24th of a second; so the difference between a series of exact frames of motion and a series of frames that include the blur of what happens between frames is HUGE.</p><p>However, this nuance is lost on pretty much everyone who fires up a computer game, notes the FPS indicator, and goes "OMG I CAN TOTALLY TELL ITS ONLY 30FPSZZZZ!!!!  HOW INFERIOR!!!".  Whine about framerates all you want, but they are only a small part of the experience.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can occaisonally dip down to 24 and be alright ( 24 is supposedly the speed that most Movie theatres play at ) - but when you get around 20 or so its really does take away from the experience.If by 'supposedly ' you mean 'definitely ' and if by 'most movie theaters ' you mean 'all theaters and even all motion picture production processes in recent years ' , then yes .
The difference is lost on most people , but the reason 24fps is acceptable in movies is that the frame you see is n't what happened at that instant in time when it 's displayed , it 's everything that happened in the last 1/24th of a second , since it 's recorded on film that exposed for that 24th of a second to derive the image .
When a computer does it , it only cares about what is happening at that exact 24th of a second ; so the difference between a series of exact frames of motion and a series of frames that include the blur of what happens between frames is HUGE.However , this nuance is lost on pretty much everyone who fires up a computer game , notes the FPS indicator , and goes " OMG I CAN TOTALLY TELL ITS ONLY 30FPSZZZZ ! ! ! !
HOW INFERIOR ! ! ! " .
Whine about framerates all you want , but they are only a small part of the experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> You can occaisonally dip down to 24 and be alright (24 is supposedly the speed that most Movie theatres play at) - but when you get around 20 or so its really does take away from the experience.If by 'supposedly' you mean 'definitely' and if by 'most movie theaters' you mean 'all theaters and even all motion picture production processes in recent years', then yes.
The difference is lost on most people, but the reason 24fps is acceptable in movies is that the frame you see isn't what happened at that instant in time when it's displayed, it's everything that happened in the last 1/24th of a second, since it's recorded on film that exposed for that 24th of a second to derive the image.
When a computer does it, it only cares about what is happening at that exact 24th of a second; so the difference between a series of exact frames of motion and a series of frames that include the blur of what happens between frames is HUGE.However, this nuance is lost on pretty much everyone who fires up a computer game, notes the FPS indicator, and goes "OMG I CAN TOTALLY TELL ITS ONLY 30FPSZZZZ!!!!
HOW INFERIOR!!!".
Whine about framerates all you want, but they are only a small part of the experience.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675798</id>
	<title>Re:120fps vs 60fps is like night and day</title>
	<author>logicassasin</author>
	<datestamp>1262776440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"For a high speed game like Quake even 60fps is totally unplayable"</p><p>that's crazy talk.</p><p>The original Quake was VERY playable at less than 30fps. I know I was a menace in Quake and ESPECIALLY Quakeworld while running a Cyrix 200MX w/32MB of RAM with Win95b.</p><p>Quake 2 was good at 30 and typically good under 30. At it's release, I didn't have hardware that would run it at 30 (intel i740 and Permedia2, AMD K6-2 300MHz), but had no problem playing it well.</p><p>Quake 3 was the first time I could actually say that, while 30 was playable, 60 or more would have been better.</p><p>Quake 4 is also good at 60.</p><p>The only reason I see to specifically target a sustained 60fps is while some areas of the game may be less graphically intense (resulting in higher frame rates), others, especially in the heat of battle, can tax the hell out of a video card and processor. If a machine running a graphically intense game can maintain 60fps even under the most extreme conditions, the game will be quite playable when being played "normally".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" For a high speed game like Quake even 60fps is totally unplayable " that 's crazy talk.The original Quake was VERY playable at less than 30fps .
I know I was a menace in Quake and ESPECIALLY Quakeworld while running a Cyrix 200MX w/32MB of RAM with Win95b.Quake 2 was good at 30 and typically good under 30 .
At it 's release , I did n't have hardware that would run it at 30 ( intel i740 and Permedia2 , AMD K6-2 300MHz ) , but had no problem playing it well.Quake 3 was the first time I could actually say that , while 30 was playable , 60 or more would have been better.Quake 4 is also good at 60.The only reason I see to specifically target a sustained 60fps is while some areas of the game may be less graphically intense ( resulting in higher frame rates ) , others , especially in the heat of battle , can tax the hell out of a video card and processor .
If a machine running a graphically intense game can maintain 60fps even under the most extreme conditions , the game will be quite playable when being played " normally " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"For a high speed game like Quake even 60fps is totally unplayable"that's crazy talk.The original Quake was VERY playable at less than 30fps.
I know I was a menace in Quake and ESPECIALLY Quakeworld while running a Cyrix 200MX w/32MB of RAM with Win95b.Quake 2 was good at 30 and typically good under 30.
At it's release, I didn't have hardware that would run it at 30 (intel i740 and Permedia2, AMD K6-2 300MHz), but had no problem playing it well.Quake 3 was the first time I could actually say that, while 30 was playable, 60 or more would have been better.Quake 4 is also good at 60.The only reason I see to specifically target a sustained 60fps is while some areas of the game may be less graphically intense (resulting in higher frame rates), others, especially in the heat of battle, can tax the hell out of a video card and processor.
If a machine running a graphically intense game can maintain 60fps even under the most extreme conditions, the game will be quite playable when being played "normally".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673268</id>
	<title>Re:Motion blur and bloom effects</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262808180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blur occurs when the light reflected at a given instant is low.   Much like a camera in low light.   Notice that those LED tail lights leave lots of individual dots in your vision when you move your head while watching them...   they register as individual points of light, rather than a blur due to their high intensity and short duty cycle.    The case of a monitor displayed image is similar to the LED tail light... its a high intensity image registering on the retina...   the residual image will be crisp even as the next one draws...   it fails to create a realistic motion blur at almost any framerate -- thus the motionblur needs to be simulated in software...   blurring the actual drawn image.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blur occurs when the light reflected at a given instant is low .
Much like a camera in low light .
Notice that those LED tail lights leave lots of individual dots in your vision when you move your head while watching them... they register as individual points of light , rather than a blur due to their high intensity and short duty cycle .
The case of a monitor displayed image is similar to the LED tail light... its a high intensity image registering on the retina... the residual image will be crisp even as the next one draws... it fails to create a realistic motion blur at almost any framerate -- thus the motionblur needs to be simulated in software... blurring the actual drawn image .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blur occurs when the light reflected at a given instant is low.
Much like a camera in low light.
Notice that those LED tail lights leave lots of individual dots in your vision when you move your head while watching them...   they register as individual points of light, rather than a blur due to their high intensity and short duty cycle.
The case of a monitor displayed image is similar to the LED tail light... its a high intensity image registering on the retina...   the residual image will be crisp even as the next one draws...   it fails to create a realistic motion blur at almost any framerate -- thus the motionblur needs to be simulated in software...   blurring the actual drawn image.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30690724</id>
	<title>Not common experience or knowledge?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262883420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a bit concerned here - about the wagon wheel effect. Some articles talking about "people also report experiencing it in real life" like this wasn't widely known before as a real-life experience. Really?</p><p>I've noticed it since I was a little kid, think 5 and below! I always wondered when someone would give me a diameter-to-rpm ratio for a) always appears moving forward b) stands still c) moves backwards. Figured that since it was obvious everyone was seeing it, someone would've worked out the details. I see mention of frequencies, etc. but didn't realise it quite likely differs from person-to-person.</p><p>I don't think my visual acuity is any higher than the next person's.</p><p>Are we next going to say not every sees the little circles that keep 'falling down', at least when they're looking at a plain surface? (because of the micro-organisms in our eyes and the eyewash from blinking). Yeah, that I know not everyone notices.</p><p>What about the whitenoise (like tv screen on a non-transmitting channel when looking at a night sky? or when closing your eyes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a bit concerned here - about the wagon wheel effect .
Some articles talking about " people also report experiencing it in real life " like this was n't widely known before as a real-life experience .
Really ? I 've noticed it since I was a little kid , think 5 and below !
I always wondered when someone would give me a diameter-to-rpm ratio for a ) always appears moving forward b ) stands still c ) moves backwards .
Figured that since it was obvious everyone was seeing it , someone would 've worked out the details .
I see mention of frequencies , etc .
but did n't realise it quite likely differs from person-to-person.I do n't think my visual acuity is any higher than the next person 's.Are we next going to say not every sees the little circles that keep 'falling down ' , at least when they 're looking at a plain surface ?
( because of the micro-organisms in our eyes and the eyewash from blinking ) .
Yeah , that I know not everyone notices.What about the whitenoise ( like tv screen on a non-transmitting channel when looking at a night sky ?
or when closing your eyes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a bit concerned here - about the wagon wheel effect.
Some articles talking about "people also report experiencing it in real life" like this wasn't widely known before as a real-life experience.
Really?I've noticed it since I was a little kid, think 5 and below!
I always wondered when someone would give me a diameter-to-rpm ratio for a) always appears moving forward b) stands still c) moves backwards.
Figured that since it was obvious everyone was seeing it, someone would've worked out the details.
I see mention of frequencies, etc.
but didn't realise it quite likely differs from person-to-person.I don't think my visual acuity is any higher than the next person's.Are we next going to say not every sees the little circles that keep 'falling down', at least when they're looking at a plain surface?
(because of the micro-organisms in our eyes and the eyewash from blinking).
Yeah, that I know not everyone notices.What about the whitenoise (like tv screen on a non-transmitting channel when looking at a night sky?
or when closing your eyes?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30679056</id>
	<title>Death of 120Hz gaming</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262799480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone who has been playing quake3 knows the pain of 85Hz. LCD is so common now that the suckers have degenerated to speculate the need of 30Hz! Hell, I fall sleep between frames on 30Hz. There are few 120Hz capable LCD models around now, I can only hope that the need for fast framerates to be used with shutter stereoglasses saves the day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who has been playing quake3 knows the pain of 85Hz .
LCD is so common now that the suckers have degenerated to speculate the need of 30Hz !
Hell , I fall sleep between frames on 30Hz .
There are few 120Hz capable LCD models around now , I can only hope that the need for fast framerates to be used with shutter stereoglasses saves the day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who has been playing quake3 knows the pain of 85Hz.
LCD is so common now that the suckers have degenerated to speculate the need of 30Hz!
Hell, I fall sleep between frames on 30Hz.
There are few 120Hz capable LCD models around now, I can only hope that the need for fast framerates to be used with shutter stereoglasses saves the day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674024</id>
	<title>Re:Any animator knows...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262768520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yes!</p><p>the basic reason you can see the difference is because you are tracking something with your eye (following the circle over the screen).</p><p>If you keep your eyes focused at a fixed position on the screen, 24fps is more than enough.<br>As soon as you start tracking things, the difference between 30fps and 60fps is enormous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yes ! the basic reason you can see the difference is because you are tracking something with your eye ( following the circle over the screen ) .If you keep your eyes focused at a fixed position on the screen , 24fps is more than enough.As soon as you start tracking things , the difference between 30fps and 60fps is enormous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes!the basic reason you can see the difference is because you are tracking something with your eye (following the circle over the screen).If you keep your eyes focused at a fixed position on the screen, 24fps is more than enough.As soon as you start tracking things, the difference between 30fps and 60fps is enormous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675784</id>
	<title>Re:Lots of evidence for higher frame rates</title>
	<author>smellsofbikes</author>
	<datestamp>1262776320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>For the record (as an ex-LED-backlight hardware designer) the LED's are waaay too bright to run full-out, both visually and from a power usage and heat generation standpoint, and the only good way to dim an LED is by cycling it on and off rapidly to approximate the desired brightness.  The reason I say 'the only good way' is because LED's are constant-current devices and all the drivers I'm familiar with are all designed around that, so you can't just go varying the voltage to try and dim them: the drivers aren't really voltage devices.<p>
With THAT said, I have absolutely zero idea why any sane LED driver dimmer would be anywhere near frequencies that any human could see.  LED's can turn on and off in nanoseconds, so a reasonable dim signal should be in the kilohertz range, at least, not the 100hz range.  It's *possible* to put a 100hz dim signal on an LED driver, but it seems really dumb to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the record ( as an ex-LED-backlight hardware designer ) the LED 's are waaay too bright to run full-out , both visually and from a power usage and heat generation standpoint , and the only good way to dim an LED is by cycling it on and off rapidly to approximate the desired brightness .
The reason I say 'the only good way ' is because LED 's are constant-current devices and all the drivers I 'm familiar with are all designed around that , so you ca n't just go varying the voltage to try and dim them : the drivers are n't really voltage devices .
With THAT said , I have absolutely zero idea why any sane LED driver dimmer would be anywhere near frequencies that any human could see .
LED 's can turn on and off in nanoseconds , so a reasonable dim signal should be in the kilohertz range , at least , not the 100hz range .
It 's * possible * to put a 100hz dim signal on an LED driver , but it seems really dumb to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the record (as an ex-LED-backlight hardware designer) the LED's are waaay too bright to run full-out, both visually and from a power usage and heat generation standpoint, and the only good way to dim an LED is by cycling it on and off rapidly to approximate the desired brightness.
The reason I say 'the only good way' is because LED's are constant-current devices and all the drivers I'm familiar with are all designed around that, so you can't just go varying the voltage to try and dim them: the drivers aren't really voltage devices.
With THAT said, I have absolutely zero idea why any sane LED driver dimmer would be anywhere near frequencies that any human could see.
LED's can turn on and off in nanoseconds, so a reasonable dim signal should be in the kilohertz range, at least, not the 100hz range.
It's *possible* to put a 100hz dim signal on an LED driver, but it seems really dumb to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673412</id>
	<title>Games does have to be realistic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262808780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with modern computer games is that they are trying to be too realistic. Being distinct from realtity is the true value of ant game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with modern computer games is that they are trying to be too realistic .
Being distinct from realtity is the true value of ant game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with modern computer games is that they are trying to be too realistic.
Being distinct from realtity is the true value of ant game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070</id>
	<title>Any animator knows...</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1262803260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can tell the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS.</p><p>The way I tested this was I made a 2 second video in flash, a circle moving from the left side of the screen to the right side. 60 frames. Run it at 30 FPS.</p><p>Then I made a second 2 second video, same exact positions. 12 Frames. Ran it at 60 FPS. Asked me, and all of my surrounding classmates, which was about 24 students IIRC.</p><p>100\% of us noticed a visible difference in the smoothness. Whether our eyes were making out each individual frame perfectly or blurring some together to create a smoother effect, it was irrelevant since there WAS a noticable difference. I was going to slowly bump the 30 and 60 FPS up higher and higher to see at what point the difference is not distinguishable, but I got lazy (High school student at the time.)</p><p>The point I think most gamers would agree on is that more frames per second are <i>nice</i> - but that 30 frames per second are <b>Necessary</b>. You can occaisonally dip down to 24 and be alright (24 is supposedly the speed that most Movie theatres play at) - but when you get around 20 or so its really does take away from the experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can tell the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS.The way I tested this was I made a 2 second video in flash , a circle moving from the left side of the screen to the right side .
60 frames .
Run it at 30 FPS.Then I made a second 2 second video , same exact positions .
12 Frames .
Ran it at 60 FPS .
Asked me , and all of my surrounding classmates , which was about 24 students IIRC.100 \ % of us noticed a visible difference in the smoothness .
Whether our eyes were making out each individual frame perfectly or blurring some together to create a smoother effect , it was irrelevant since there WAS a noticable difference .
I was going to slowly bump the 30 and 60 FPS up higher and higher to see at what point the difference is not distinguishable , but I got lazy ( High school student at the time .
) The point I think most gamers would agree on is that more frames per second are nice - but that 30 frames per second are Necessary .
You can occaisonally dip down to 24 and be alright ( 24 is supposedly the speed that most Movie theatres play at ) - but when you get around 20 or so its really does take away from the experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can tell the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS.The way I tested this was I made a 2 second video in flash, a circle moving from the left side of the screen to the right side.
60 frames.
Run it at 30 FPS.Then I made a second 2 second video, same exact positions.
12 Frames.
Ran it at 60 FPS.
Asked me, and all of my surrounding classmates, which was about 24 students IIRC.100\% of us noticed a visible difference in the smoothness.
Whether our eyes were making out each individual frame perfectly or blurring some together to create a smoother effect, it was irrelevant since there WAS a noticable difference.
I was going to slowly bump the 30 and 60 FPS up higher and higher to see at what point the difference is not distinguishable, but I got lazy (High school student at the time.
)The point I think most gamers would agree on is that more frames per second are nice - but that 30 frames per second are Necessary.
You can occaisonally dip down to 24 and be alright (24 is supposedly the speed that most Movie theatres play at) - but when you get around 20 or so its really does take away from the experience.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672468</id>
	<title>Re:The human eye can dectect 30</title>
	<author>EvilBudMan</author>
	<datestamp>1262804820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would say it stops a 120fps but I haven't been able to run tests past that point so far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say it stops a 120fps but I have n't been able to run tests past that point so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say it stops a 120fps but I haven't been able to run tests past that point so far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673000</id>
	<title>Showscan</title>
	<author>davidjohnburrowes</author>
	<datestamp>1262807040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>fwiw, the reports I read of folks that watched showscan movies ( <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan</a> [wikipedia.org] ) 20+ years ago overwhelmingly said that the higher framerate gave the films an level of realism that they'd never seen in films before.</htmltext>
<tokenext>fwiw , the reports I read of folks that watched showscan movies ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan [ wikipedia.org ] ) 20 + years ago overwhelmingly said that the higher framerate gave the films an level of realism that they 'd never seen in films before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fwiw, the reports I read of folks that watched showscan movies ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan [wikipedia.org] ) 20+ years ago overwhelmingly said that the higher framerate gave the films an level of realism that they'd never seen in films before.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672366</id>
	<title>Re:Counter-Strike...</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1262804400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. Most players would notice a difference in a few miliseconds of network Latency more than a dozen frames per second, but its undeniable that extra Frames per second give you a distinct advantage.</p><p>If I see you and you see me, and you're running at twice my frames per second, You will have a smoother "turn and shoot" motion than me, which means you'll either notice your reticule over my head a slight bit faster than me, or you won't make the mistake of over or under compensating your aim since your motion was that much more sensative/responsive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Most players would notice a difference in a few miliseconds of network Latency more than a dozen frames per second , but its undeniable that extra Frames per second give you a distinct advantage.If I see you and you see me , and you 're running at twice my frames per second , You will have a smoother " turn and shoot " motion than me , which means you 'll either notice your reticule over my head a slight bit faster than me , or you wo n't make the mistake of over or under compensating your aim since your motion was that much more sensative/responsive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Most players would notice a difference in a few miliseconds of network Latency more than a dozen frames per second, but its undeniable that extra Frames per second give you a distinct advantage.If I see you and you see me, and you're running at twice my frames per second, You will have a smoother "turn and shoot" motion than me, which means you'll either notice your reticule over my head a slight bit faster than me, or you won't make the mistake of over or under compensating your aim since your motion was that much more sensative/responsive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30677054</id>
	<title>Re:Motion blur and bloom effects</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1262783400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because part of it is that the object reflecting light in real life actually passed through the area you see a blur in (and so reflected light from those points). That has to be at least approximated in a realistic frame based animation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because part of it is that the object reflecting light in real life actually passed through the area you see a blur in ( and so reflected light from those points ) .
That has to be at least approximated in a realistic frame based animation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because part of it is that the object reflecting light in real life actually passed through the area you see a blur in (and so reflected light from those points).
That has to be at least approximated in a realistic frame based animation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672376</id>
	<title>Re:The human eye can dectect 30</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262804460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the article and most people fail to note is that your TV is only displaying 30 fps.  So any game running at more than 30 fps is dropping frames.</p><p>This has nothing to do with what the eye can detect, it is just the TV standard.  You are either running 60 half frames (interlaced) or 30 full frames in progressive.</p><p>Only PCs actually allow you to have real 60fps.  So anytime you hear a console gamer talking about playing a game at a silky smooth 60fps, you have to realize that they have no idea what they are talking about, just like the article writer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the article and most people fail to note is that your TV is only displaying 30 fps .
So any game running at more than 30 fps is dropping frames.This has nothing to do with what the eye can detect , it is just the TV standard .
You are either running 60 half frames ( interlaced ) or 30 full frames in progressive.Only PCs actually allow you to have real 60fps .
So anytime you hear a console gamer talking about playing a game at a silky smooth 60fps , you have to realize that they have no idea what they are talking about , just like the article writer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the article and most people fail to note is that your TV is only displaying 30 fps.
So any game running at more than 30 fps is dropping frames.This has nothing to do with what the eye can detect, it is just the TV standard.
You are either running 60 half frames (interlaced) or 30 full frames in progressive.Only PCs actually allow you to have real 60fps.
So anytime you hear a console gamer talking about playing a game at a silky smooth 60fps, you have to realize that they have no idea what they are talking about, just like the article writer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672408</id>
	<title>Re:The human eye can dectect 30</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262804580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The human mind is evolutionary designed to make instant assumptions. Cat in mid air facing us = DANGER. No "Is it dead<br>&gt; and being thrown at us?" No "Is it a picture?" As such, video games can quite easily take advantage of this evolutionary<br>&gt;  assumptions and trick the MIND, if not the brain. into thinking something is real.</p><p>Sort of. Its actually less "Cat in mid air" and more "This sets off a trigger based on something that happened before and hurt me".</p><p>Most adults, if you chuck a rock at their face, will toss up their arms to block, or move their head/body to dodge. This is completely learned. Do the same trick with a young child who has never played "catch" before, and your rock is going to bean him right off his skull.</p><p>From my own experience, my first motorcycle accident, I was on the ground so fast, I had to think afterwards about what happened. First two spills actually.</p><p>The one after those.... whole different story. The adrenalin hit as soon as I felt the bike start to turn sideways, by the time the bike was fully 90 degrees to my momentum vector, and the wheels were sliding out from under me, I was already calmly kicking my legs backwards and positioning myself for the impact. I hit the ground and slid 150 feet while watching my bike spark and slide away. I thought "shit I am in traffic" jumped to my feet and ran to the bike, picked it up and pushed it into a parking lot.</p><p>All I am saying is, its more complicated than that. The memory of such things and whole "flight or fight" response is an evolving and learning response. Its more than just visual, it encompasses all the senses. I doubt "cat facing us in mid air" is going to trigger much beyond anything in mid air moving towards us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The human mind is evolutionary designed to make instant assumptions .
Cat in mid air facing us = DANGER .
No " Is it dead &gt; and being thrown at us ?
" No " Is it a picture ?
" As such , video games can quite easily take advantage of this evolutionary &gt; assumptions and trick the MIND , if not the brain .
into thinking something is real.Sort of .
Its actually less " Cat in mid air " and more " This sets off a trigger based on something that happened before and hurt me " .Most adults , if you chuck a rock at their face , will toss up their arms to block , or move their head/body to dodge .
This is completely learned .
Do the same trick with a young child who has never played " catch " before , and your rock is going to bean him right off his skull.From my own experience , my first motorcycle accident , I was on the ground so fast , I had to think afterwards about what happened .
First two spills actually.The one after those.... whole different story .
The adrenalin hit as soon as I felt the bike start to turn sideways , by the time the bike was fully 90 degrees to my momentum vector , and the wheels were sliding out from under me , I was already calmly kicking my legs backwards and positioning myself for the impact .
I hit the ground and slid 150 feet while watching my bike spark and slide away .
I thought " shit I am in traffic " jumped to my feet and ran to the bike , picked it up and pushed it into a parking lot.All I am saying is , its more complicated than that .
The memory of such things and whole " flight or fight " response is an evolving and learning response .
Its more than just visual , it encompasses all the senses .
I doubt " cat facing us in mid air " is going to trigger much beyond anything in mid air moving towards us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The human mind is evolutionary designed to make instant assumptions.
Cat in mid air facing us = DANGER.
No "Is it dead&gt; and being thrown at us?
" No "Is it a picture?
" As such, video games can quite easily take advantage of this evolutionary&gt;  assumptions and trick the MIND, if not the brain.
into thinking something is real.Sort of.
Its actually less "Cat in mid air" and more "This sets off a trigger based on something that happened before and hurt me".Most adults, if you chuck a rock at their face, will toss up their arms to block, or move their head/body to dodge.
This is completely learned.
Do the same trick with a young child who has never played "catch" before, and your rock is going to bean him right off his skull.From my own experience, my first motorcycle accident, I was on the ground so fast, I had to think afterwards about what happened.
First two spills actually.The one after those.... whole different story.
The adrenalin hit as soon as I felt the bike start to turn sideways, by the time the bike was fully 90 degrees to my momentum vector, and the wheels were sliding out from under me, I was already calmly kicking my legs backwards and positioning myself for the impact.
I hit the ground and slid 150 feet while watching my bike spark and slide away.
I thought "shit I am in traffic" jumped to my feet and ran to the bike, picked it up and pushed it into a parking lot.All I am saying is, its more complicated than that.
The memory of such things and whole "flight or fight" response is an evolving and learning response.
Its more than just visual, it encompasses all the senses.
I doubt "cat facing us in mid air" is going to trigger much beyond anything in mid air moving towards us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672738</id>
	<title>Re:Any animator knows...</title>
	<author>Aladrin</author>
	<datestamp>1262805900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the lower limit matters based on the person.  My eyes are apparently a bit wonky and my lower limit is 15 fps, which would drive most people insane in a video game.  Below that and it drives me insane.  As for telling the different between 30 and 60...  I can do it...  Barely.  Compare 60fps and anything higher and it's absolutely pointless for me to try.  However, I've met people who can definitely tell the different between 100fps and 60 fps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the lower limit matters based on the person .
My eyes are apparently a bit wonky and my lower limit is 15 fps , which would drive most people insane in a video game .
Below that and it drives me insane .
As for telling the different between 30 and 60... I can do it... Barely. Compare 60fps and anything higher and it 's absolutely pointless for me to try .
However , I 've met people who can definitely tell the different between 100fps and 60 fps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the lower limit matters based on the person.
My eyes are apparently a bit wonky and my lower limit is 15 fps, which would drive most people insane in a video game.
Below that and it drives me insane.
As for telling the different between 30 and 60...  I can do it...  Barely.  Compare 60fps and anything higher and it's absolutely pointless for me to try.
However, I've met people who can definitely tell the different between 100fps and 60 fps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672180</id>
	<title>Re:Counter-Strike...</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1262803680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i wonder how much that had to do with the engine design. As in having the render engine and the game logic joined at the hip so that higher fps meant more repeats of the game logic pr second.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i wonder how much that had to do with the engine design .
As in having the render engine and the game logic joined at the hip so that higher fps meant more repeats of the game logic pr second .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i wonder how much that had to do with the engine design.
As in having the render engine and the game logic joined at the hip so that higher fps meant more repeats of the game logic pr second.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675998</id>
	<title>Re:Lots of evidence for higher frame rates</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262777340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you, thank you, thank you!</p><p>I've been wondering why soap operas looked 'more real' than prime time dramas in the 80s and 90s for like, well...  since the 80s and 90s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you , thank you , thank you ! I 've been wondering why soap operas looked 'more real ' than prime time dramas in the 80s and 90s for like , well... since the 80s and 90s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you, thank you, thank you!I've been wondering why soap operas looked 'more real' than prime time dramas in the 80s and 90s for like, well...  since the 80s and 90s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672620</id>
	<title>Re:The human eye can dectect 30</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262805540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's like getting gold plated controls on your car's dashboard.  Yes it is a real increase in quality,</p></div><p>Not the best analogy. A gold dashboard might increase the <em>value</em> but the quality would stay the same. I'd say it's more like having a car with better accelleration/speed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like getting gold plated controls on your car 's dashboard .
Yes it is a real increase in quality,Not the best analogy .
A gold dashboard might increase the value but the quality would stay the same .
I 'd say it 's more like having a car with better accelleration/speed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like getting gold plated controls on your car's dashboard.
Yes it is a real increase in quality,Not the best analogy.
A gold dashboard might increase the value but the quality would stay the same.
I'd say it's more like having a car with better accelleration/speed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30676410</id>
	<title>Re:Any animator knows...</title>
	<author>ucblockhead</author>
	<datestamp>1262779620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've seen 120 fps video running on a 60 fps TV and a 120 fps next to it and the difference was very noticeable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen 120 fps video running on a 60 fps TV and a 120 fps next to it and the difference was very noticeable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen 120 fps video running on a 60 fps TV and a 120 fps next to it and the difference was very noticeable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672122</id>
	<title>Re:Where it matters most.</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1262803440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That isn't always the case, I recall a game in the past where gravity had less effect on players that had faster hardware. Or something like that. Anyway, the logic was mixed in with the rendering, so frame rate had an impact on what the player could do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is n't always the case , I recall a game in the past where gravity had less effect on players that had faster hardware .
Or something like that .
Anyway , the logic was mixed in with the rendering , so frame rate had an impact on what the player could do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That isn't always the case, I recall a game in the past where gravity had less effect on players that had faster hardware.
Or something like that.
Anyway, the logic was mixed in with the rendering, so frame rate had an impact on what the player could do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672874</id>
	<title>Controller lag is the biggest problem</title>
	<author>Artifex33</author>
	<datestamp>1262806560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real problem with low framerate is controller lag. I had a copy of Unreal Tournament 3 for my PS3, which had the amazing distinction of allowing you to use a compatible keyboard and mouse combo instead of the regular sixaxis controller. As a die-hard FPS gamer who had been resisting an expensive PC upgrade, this was welcome.</p><p>Unreal Tournament 3 for the PS3 is pegged at 30 FPS. The result when used with a kb+mouse was horrible controller lag. It was as if the view angle attached to the mouse was on rubber band that would stretch during a quick mouse move and then snap back into position.</p><p>When I tried the sixaxis, the controller lag wasn't noticable at all. My best guess at this was because the joystick-controlled view had a finite acceleration, rather than from any hardware lag. The keyboard, mouse and the sixaxis were all bluetooth connected. Using the same mouse on a PC game playing Quakelive showed no signs of lag. The sixaxis just isn't capable of the whiplash movements that a mouse is, so it couldn't show the same responsiveness issue.</p><p>The kb+mouse combo was still an advantage, but for a PC gamer, it was crippling to adjust to the laggy feel.</p><p>I'll have to try out some of the PC games that end up in the sub-30 FPS range to see if I can reproduce the same feel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem with low framerate is controller lag .
I had a copy of Unreal Tournament 3 for my PS3 , which had the amazing distinction of allowing you to use a compatible keyboard and mouse combo instead of the regular sixaxis controller .
As a die-hard FPS gamer who had been resisting an expensive PC upgrade , this was welcome.Unreal Tournament 3 for the PS3 is pegged at 30 FPS .
The result when used with a kb + mouse was horrible controller lag .
It was as if the view angle attached to the mouse was on rubber band that would stretch during a quick mouse move and then snap back into position.When I tried the sixaxis , the controller lag was n't noticable at all .
My best guess at this was because the joystick-controlled view had a finite acceleration , rather than from any hardware lag .
The keyboard , mouse and the sixaxis were all bluetooth connected .
Using the same mouse on a PC game playing Quakelive showed no signs of lag .
The sixaxis just is n't capable of the whiplash movements that a mouse is , so it could n't show the same responsiveness issue.The kb + mouse combo was still an advantage , but for a PC gamer , it was crippling to adjust to the laggy feel.I 'll have to try out some of the PC games that end up in the sub-30 FPS range to see if I can reproduce the same feel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem with low framerate is controller lag.
I had a copy of Unreal Tournament 3 for my PS3, which had the amazing distinction of allowing you to use a compatible keyboard and mouse combo instead of the regular sixaxis controller.
As a die-hard FPS gamer who had been resisting an expensive PC upgrade, this was welcome.Unreal Tournament 3 for the PS3 is pegged at 30 FPS.
The result when used with a kb+mouse was horrible controller lag.
It was as if the view angle attached to the mouse was on rubber band that would stretch during a quick mouse move and then snap back into position.When I tried the sixaxis, the controller lag wasn't noticable at all.
My best guess at this was because the joystick-controlled view had a finite acceleration, rather than from any hardware lag.
The keyboard, mouse and the sixaxis were all bluetooth connected.
Using the same mouse on a PC game playing Quakelive showed no signs of lag.
The sixaxis just isn't capable of the whiplash movements that a mouse is, so it couldn't show the same responsiveness issue.The kb+mouse combo was still an advantage, but for a PC gamer, it was crippling to adjust to the laggy feel.I'll have to try out some of the PC games that end up in the sub-30 FPS range to see if I can reproduce the same feel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675468</id>
	<title>Re:Same with audio...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262775120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But those many people apparently need to be hit with the clue stick called the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But those many people apparently need to be hit with the clue stick called the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But those many people apparently need to be hit with the clue stick called the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672860</id>
	<title>Re:120fps vs 60fps is like night and day</title>
	<author>fprintf</author>
	<datestamp>1262806500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To support your point about acceptable frame rates varying by game, there are those that think an acceptable frame rate in flight simulator is 18 FPS, and that it can dip as low as 10 FPS in highly "populated" areas like cities and areas with lots of scenery. The difference is that there is no need to react instantly in flight simulator.</p><p>I have a crappy computer so I have learned to adjust. I can only dream of 60 - 240 FPS as I play the "buy the 2nd or 3rd generation behind" hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To support your point about acceptable frame rates varying by game , there are those that think an acceptable frame rate in flight simulator is 18 FPS , and that it can dip as low as 10 FPS in highly " populated " areas like cities and areas with lots of scenery .
The difference is that there is no need to react instantly in flight simulator.I have a crappy computer so I have learned to adjust .
I can only dream of 60 - 240 FPS as I play the " buy the 2nd or 3rd generation behind " hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To support your point about acceptable frame rates varying by game, there are those that think an acceptable frame rate in flight simulator is 18 FPS, and that it can dip as low as 10 FPS in highly "populated" areas like cities and areas with lots of scenery.
The difference is that there is no need to react instantly in flight simulator.I have a crappy computer so I have learned to adjust.
I can only dream of 60 - 240 FPS as I play the "buy the 2nd or 3rd generation behind" hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672190</id>
	<title>Re:Counter-Strike...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262803680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+1 I'm no phile (I'm the kind of person who listens to 96kbps and never bothered with powerstrip) but i would notice if the game wasn't running near 100FPS!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 I 'm no phile ( I 'm the kind of person who listens to 96kbps and never bothered with powerstrip ) but i would notice if the game was n't running near 100FPS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 I'm no phile (I'm the kind of person who listens to 96kbps and never bothered with powerstrip) but i would notice if the game wasn't running near 100FPS!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674592</id>
	<title>Re:Absolutely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262770800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the record, if you have an HD display that claims it is running at 120 Hz or more, that's a post-processing trick.  There are exactly two models of LCD displays out there that can do true 120 Hz.  See: Samsung 2233RZ and Viewsonic VX2265WM.  I own the Viewsonic and am very pleased with it as a CRT replacement<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the record , if you have an HD display that claims it is running at 120 Hz or more , that 's a post-processing trick .
There are exactly two models of LCD displays out there that can do true 120 Hz .
See : Samsung 2233RZ and Viewsonic VX2265WM .
I own the Viewsonic and am very pleased with it as a CRT replacement : ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the record, if you have an HD display that claims it is running at 120 Hz or more, that's a post-processing trick.
There are exactly two models of LCD displays out there that can do true 120 Hz.
See: Samsung 2233RZ and Viewsonic VX2265WM.
I own the Viewsonic and am very pleased with it as a CRT replacement :).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672318</id>
	<title>Re:Where it matters most.</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1262804160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't understand the games he's talking about.</p><p>For something like Street Fighter at EFO, they take extra steps to make sure that the framerate is consistant across all play-times, times when the players are just standing there, and times when players are attempting to break blocks for their Hypercombofinishes.</p><p>Like many flash games - there is code that is actually executed ON THE FRAME. It is done as the frame is being rendered. When you get intensive moments that have people putting alot of input, lots of stuff to draw on screen, and whatever else, there is always that chance that latency will show up, slowing the frame-rates, which ultimately changes the rest of play - because now you would usually let go of your block at a precise moment, but because the game is slightly slower, your opponents initial attack is still flinging at you, forcing you to hold your block a bit longer.</p><p>Consistancy is what they are getting at. It needs to remain at the same FPS at all times for games where code is executed on rendering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't understand the games he 's talking about.For something like Street Fighter at EFO , they take extra steps to make sure that the framerate is consistant across all play-times , times when the players are just standing there , and times when players are attempting to break blocks for their Hypercombofinishes.Like many flash games - there is code that is actually executed ON THE FRAME .
It is done as the frame is being rendered .
When you get intensive moments that have people putting alot of input , lots of stuff to draw on screen , and whatever else , there is always that chance that latency will show up , slowing the frame-rates , which ultimately changes the rest of play - because now you would usually let go of your block at a precise moment , but because the game is slightly slower , your opponents initial attack is still flinging at you , forcing you to hold your block a bit longer.Consistancy is what they are getting at .
It needs to remain at the same FPS at all times for games where code is executed on rendering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't understand the games he's talking about.For something like Street Fighter at EFO, they take extra steps to make sure that the framerate is consistant across all play-times, times when the players are just standing there, and times when players are attempting to break blocks for their Hypercombofinishes.Like many flash games - there is code that is actually executed ON THE FRAME.
It is done as the frame is being rendered.
When you get intensive moments that have people putting alot of input, lots of stuff to draw on screen, and whatever else, there is always that chance that latency will show up, slowing the frame-rates, which ultimately changes the rest of play - because now you would usually let go of your block at a precise moment, but because the game is slightly slower, your opponents initial attack is still flinging at you, forcing you to hold your block a bit longer.Consistancy is what they are getting at.
It needs to remain at the same FPS at all times for games where code is executed on rendering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672132</id>
	<title>Re:Motion blur and bloom effects</title>
	<author>Shin-LaC</author>
	<datestamp>1262803500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your eyes introduce blur due to the reaction time of the light-sensitive cells in the retina. Fortunately, the image processing area in your brain treats blur introduced by the eyes and blur built into the frame more or less the same, so you can use blur to give the impression of smooth motion with a lower frame rate than would otherwise be necessary. This is used to good effect in cinema, where the camera's exposure time naturally introduces blur that is quite similar to the one introduced by your eye.<br>
<br>
In the case of video games, however, it is not so clear that rendering effctive artificial motion blur saves much processing time compared to simply rendering more frames. Then again, there is a limit to how fast your monitor can update its image, so rendering more frames is no longer an option past that point.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your eyes introduce blur due to the reaction time of the light-sensitive cells in the retina .
Fortunately , the image processing area in your brain treats blur introduced by the eyes and blur built into the frame more or less the same , so you can use blur to give the impression of smooth motion with a lower frame rate than would otherwise be necessary .
This is used to good effect in cinema , where the camera 's exposure time naturally introduces blur that is quite similar to the one introduced by your eye .
In the case of video games , however , it is not so clear that rendering effctive artificial motion blur saves much processing time compared to simply rendering more frames .
Then again , there is a limit to how fast your monitor can update its image , so rendering more frames is no longer an option past that point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your eyes introduce blur due to the reaction time of the light-sensitive cells in the retina.
Fortunately, the image processing area in your brain treats blur introduced by the eyes and blur built into the frame more or less the same, so you can use blur to give the impression of smooth motion with a lower frame rate than would otherwise be necessary.
This is used to good effect in cinema, where the camera's exposure time naturally introduces blur that is quite similar to the one introduced by your eye.
In the case of video games, however, it is not so clear that rendering effctive artificial motion blur saves much processing time compared to simply rendering more frames.
Then again, there is a limit to how fast your monitor can update its image, so rendering more frames is no longer an option past that point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675822</id>
	<title>Refresh rate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262776500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't the actual perceived image bound by the display refresh rate? If your refresh rate if 80 Hz (say) then all the display is capable of is changing the image 80 times per second. So with a 160 Hz frame rate, you are dropping every second frame. (?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't the actual perceived image bound by the display refresh rate ?
If your refresh rate if 80 Hz ( say ) then all the display is capable of is changing the image 80 times per second .
So with a 160 Hz frame rate , you are dropping every second frame .
( ? )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't the actual perceived image bound by the display refresh rate?
If your refresh rate if 80 Hz (say) then all the display is capable of is changing the image 80 times per second.
So with a 160 Hz frame rate, you are dropping every second frame.
(?)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674856</id>
	<title>LiveTV vs Movies</title>
	<author>Loopy</author>
	<datestamp>1262772360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many of you can tell the difference between live TV (e.g.: your local news) and movies? I can. It's rather obvious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many of you can tell the difference between live TV ( e.g .
: your local news ) and movies ?
I can .
It 's rather obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many of you can tell the difference between live TV (e.g.
: your local news) and movies?
I can.
It's rather obvious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671964</id>
	<title>Re:Where it matters most.</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1262802900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It will work just as well at 25fps, 60fps, even 42.77654fps.  Maybe you'll have trouble below 24fps but the main importance is consistency.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It will work just as well at 25fps , 60fps , even 42.77654fps .
Maybe you 'll have trouble below 24fps but the main importance is consistency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will work just as well at 25fps, 60fps, even 42.77654fps.
Maybe you'll have trouble below 24fps but the main importance is consistency.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671906</id>
	<title>Where it matters most.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262802660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In fighting games you need 30FPS period.<br>
There are books for Tekken and the like that have frame data for every move.<br>
Input any lag into the equation and what might be safe of block, might not, costing you the game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In fighting games you need 30FPS period .
There are books for Tekken and the like that have frame data for every move .
Input any lag into the equation and what might be safe of block , might not , costing you the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fighting games you need 30FPS period.
There are books for Tekken and the like that have frame data for every move.
Input any lag into the equation and what might be safe of block, might not, costing you the game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672678</id>
	<title>Re:Any animator knows...</title>
	<author>skylerweaver</author>
	<datestamp>1262805720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would be an interesting experiment to make a webpage that presents you two equivalent flash movies with varying frame rates (as you described).
<br> <br>
Have the two movies in a random order with a random frame rate (say, 12, 15, 24, 30, 45, 60, etc)
<br> <br>
Then have the user merely select which looks "better/smoother."
<br> <br>
It would be interesting (as you point out) to see at what frame rate there is no longer a clear winner.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be an interesting experiment to make a webpage that presents you two equivalent flash movies with varying frame rates ( as you described ) .
Have the two movies in a random order with a random frame rate ( say , 12 , 15 , 24 , 30 , 45 , 60 , etc ) Then have the user merely select which looks " better/smoother .
" It would be interesting ( as you point out ) to see at what frame rate there is no longer a clear winner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be an interesting experiment to make a webpage that presents you two equivalent flash movies with varying frame rates (as you described).
Have the two movies in a random order with a random frame rate (say, 12, 15, 24, 30, 45, 60, etc)
 
Then have the user merely select which looks "better/smoother.
"
 
It would be interesting (as you point out) to see at what frame rate there is no longer a clear winner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673052</id>
	<title>Crysis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262807220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and here I thought investing in hardware to run Crysis at 60 fps was a waste of money...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and here I thought investing in hardware to run Crysis at 60 fps was a waste of money.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and here I thought investing in hardware to run Crysis at 60 fps was a waste of money...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672018</id>
	<title>Re:Where it matters most.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262803020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think what you're getting at is that consistancy matters more than maximum frame rate.  For different reasons than the one you state, I'd rather play a game at a constant 20 hz than at 30 (or even 60) hz most of the time but dropping down to 15 during the most intense moments.  It's the large changes in framerate that are noticable, your brain can fill in the missing pieces if the framerate is constant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think what you 're getting at is that consistancy matters more than maximum frame rate .
For different reasons than the one you state , I 'd rather play a game at a constant 20 hz than at 30 ( or even 60 ) hz most of the time but dropping down to 15 during the most intense moments .
It 's the large changes in framerate that are noticable , your brain can fill in the missing pieces if the framerate is constant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think what you're getting at is that consistancy matters more than maximum frame rate.
For different reasons than the one you state, I'd rather play a game at a constant 20 hz than at 30 (or even 60) hz most of the time but dropping down to 15 during the most intense moments.
It's the large changes in framerate that are noticable, your brain can fill in the missing pieces if the framerate is constant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672514</id>
	<title>Re:Where it matters most.</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1262805000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know for a fact that Quake 3 did that (125fps is ideal for trickjumping mods like Defragged).  The previous Quakes no doubt did it too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know for a fact that Quake 3 did that ( 125fps is ideal for trickjumping mods like Defragged ) .
The previous Quakes no doubt did it too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know for a fact that Quake 3 did that (125fps is ideal for trickjumping mods like Defragged).
The previous Quakes no doubt did it too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672990</id>
	<title>shutter speed isn't fixed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262807040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The shutter speed is independent of the framerate. Film cameras don't have a fixed 1/24th second shutter speed, just like a video camera doesn't have a fixed 1/30th (or 1/60th) second shutter speed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The shutter speed is independent of the framerate .
Film cameras do n't have a fixed 1/24th second shutter speed , just like a video camera does n't have a fixed 1/30th ( or 1/60th ) second shutter speed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The shutter speed is independent of the framerate.
Film cameras don't have a fixed 1/24th second shutter speed, just like a video camera doesn't have a fixed 1/30th (or 1/60th) second shutter speed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30676216</id>
	<title>Re:Same with audio...</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1262778420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>erm you are talking about something 1470x faster so the comparison is a bit unfair.<br> <br>Studies show that everyone can see way above 60fps. Sample rates above 44.1kHz can only slightly change spatial awareness in highly trained ears, on good equipment, in a sound proofed room, sometimes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>erm you are talking about something 1470x faster so the comparison is a bit unfair .
Studies show that everyone can see way above 60fps .
Sample rates above 44.1kHz can only slightly change spatial awareness in highly trained ears , on good equipment , in a sound proofed room , sometimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>erm you are talking about something 1470x faster so the comparison is a bit unfair.
Studies show that everyone can see way above 60fps.
Sample rates above 44.1kHz can only slightly change spatial awareness in highly trained ears, on good equipment, in a sound proofed room, sometimes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671970</id>
	<title>Re:Motion blur and bloom effects</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262802900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just a guess, but perhaps because the frame rate isn't high enough for your eye to generate the blur? That is to say, if the scene were real, the frame rate would be well-nigh infinite, and your eye, capable of only a certain frame rate, would blur together all the frames. With discrete frames, you need to put in the blur the eye would generate from the frames in-between.</p><p>Or something like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just a guess , but perhaps because the frame rate is n't high enough for your eye to generate the blur ?
That is to say , if the scene were real , the frame rate would be well-nigh infinite , and your eye , capable of only a certain frame rate , would blur together all the frames .
With discrete frames , you need to put in the blur the eye would generate from the frames in-between.Or something like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just a guess, but perhaps because the frame rate isn't high enough for your eye to generate the blur?
That is to say, if the scene were real, the frame rate would be well-nigh infinite, and your eye, capable of only a certain frame rate, would blur together all the frames.
With discrete frames, you need to put in the blur the eye would generate from the frames in-between.Or something like that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30684712</id>
	<title>Re:I never understood why...</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1262889000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pardon my ignorance, but is 60hz really the same thing as 60 frames-per-second?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pardon my ignorance , but is 60hz really the same thing as 60 frames-per-second ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pardon my ignorance, but is 60hz really the same thing as 60 frames-per-second?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672788</id>
	<title>The conclusion may be right, but...</title>
	<author>Improv</author>
	<datestamp>1262806200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It may be true that high framerates are a good thing, but the linked article is rubbish - the author's arguments are really very stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It may be true that high framerates are a good thing , but the linked article is rubbish - the author 's arguments are really very stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may be true that high framerates are a good thing, but the linked article is rubbish - the author's arguments are really very stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671994</id>
	<title>Cached Version</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262802960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looks like it's Slashdotted already. Here's the cached page: <a href="http://74.125.47.132/search?hl=en&amp;q=cache\%3Awww.significant-bits.com\%2Fframerates-do-matter&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=&amp;aqi=" title="74.125.47.132">http://74.125.47.132/search?hl=en&amp;q=cache\%3Awww.significant-bits.com\%2Fframerates-do-matter&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=&amp;aqi=</a> [74.125.47.132]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like it 's Slashdotted already .
Here 's the cached page : http : //74.125.47.132/search ? hl = en&amp;q = cache \ % 3Awww.significant-bits.com \ % 2Fframerates-do-matter&amp;aq = f&amp;oq = &amp;aqi = [ 74.125.47.132 ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like it's Slashdotted already.
Here's the cached page: http://74.125.47.132/search?hl=en&amp;q=cache\%3Awww.significant-bits.com\%2Fframerates-do-matter&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=&amp;aqi= [74.125.47.132]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30698212</id>
	<title>Re:Outside Looking In</title>
	<author>Kattspya</author>
	<datestamp>1262980920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I remember that my entire field of vision used to shake due to chewing or fast shaking of the head when I was younger. Nowadays the most I can get is a slight jitter in the periphery of my FOV.
<br> <br>
I've always interpreted this as resulting from "practice" of my inbuilt "anti-shake system" rather than some sort of degradation of perception. So my question is how do you know if day to day jitter is a result of (too) good perception or a deficiency of the "anti-shake system" or are the two things the same?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember that my entire field of vision used to shake due to chewing or fast shaking of the head when I was younger .
Nowadays the most I can get is a slight jitter in the periphery of my FOV .
I 've always interpreted this as resulting from " practice " of my inbuilt " anti-shake system " rather than some sort of degradation of perception .
So my question is how do you know if day to day jitter is a result of ( too ) good perception or a deficiency of the " anti-shake system " or are the two things the same ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember that my entire field of vision used to shake due to chewing or fast shaking of the head when I was younger.
Nowadays the most I can get is a slight jitter in the periphery of my FOV.
I've always interpreted this as resulting from "practice" of my inbuilt "anti-shake system" rather than some sort of degradation of perception.
So my question is how do you know if day to day jitter is a result of (too) good perception or a deficiency of the "anti-shake system" or are the two things the same?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30686608</id>
	<title>Re:Same with audio...</title>
	<author>Backward Z</author>
	<datestamp>1262897640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was going to post this, but to expand on it, one should mention the roll off filter.</p><p>The idea behind the 44.1kHz number is the highest recorded frequency we're going to want to 20kHz, given that's typically considered the highest pitch (young) people can hear.  So you end up with an extra 2.05kHz over that which is used as a roll off for the lowpass filter that's applied before encoding.</p><p>The argument for higher sample rates is that you can give the roll off filter a more gentle slope (or eliminate it completely if you're working at &gt;~60kHz or whatever double the highest recorded frequency your physical gear/transducers can handle is).  The gentler slope creates much less harmonic distortion than the steep 2.05kHz slope.  Consider a 48Khz signal.  Now I have double the rolloff space--4kHz.  48kHz sounds better than 44.1kHz not because it's recording more high pitched frequencies and that's what we're hearing, but because the low pass filter that's applied to prevent Nyquist foldover distortion has a more gentle slope which in turn creates less harmonic distortion in the passband.</p><p>This is the kind of shit the fascinates me.  Get me started about noise-shaped dithering sometime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was going to post this , but to expand on it , one should mention the roll off filter.The idea behind the 44.1kHz number is the highest recorded frequency we 're going to want to 20kHz , given that 's typically considered the highest pitch ( young ) people can hear .
So you end up with an extra 2.05kHz over that which is used as a roll off for the lowpass filter that 's applied before encoding.The argument for higher sample rates is that you can give the roll off filter a more gentle slope ( or eliminate it completely if you 're working at &gt; ~ 60kHz or whatever double the highest recorded frequency your physical gear/transducers can handle is ) .
The gentler slope creates much less harmonic distortion than the steep 2.05kHz slope .
Consider a 48Khz signal .
Now I have double the rolloff space--4kHz .
48kHz sounds better than 44.1kHz not because it 's recording more high pitched frequencies and that 's what we 're hearing , but because the low pass filter that 's applied to prevent Nyquist foldover distortion has a more gentle slope which in turn creates less harmonic distortion in the passband.This is the kind of shit the fascinates me .
Get me started about noise-shaped dithering sometime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was going to post this, but to expand on it, one should mention the roll off filter.The idea behind the 44.1kHz number is the highest recorded frequency we're going to want to 20kHz, given that's typically considered the highest pitch (young) people can hear.
So you end up with an extra 2.05kHz over that which is used as a roll off for the lowpass filter that's applied before encoding.The argument for higher sample rates is that you can give the roll off filter a more gentle slope (or eliminate it completely if you're working at &gt;~60kHz or whatever double the highest recorded frequency your physical gear/transducers can handle is).
The gentler slope creates much less harmonic distortion than the steep 2.05kHz slope.
Consider a 48Khz signal.
Now I have double the rolloff space--4kHz.
48kHz sounds better than 44.1kHz not because it's recording more high pitched frequencies and that's what we're hearing, but because the low pass filter that's applied to prevent Nyquist foldover distortion has a more gentle slope which in turn creates less harmonic distortion in the passband.This is the kind of shit the fascinates me.
Get me started about noise-shaped dithering sometime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674826</id>
	<title>Re:Same with audio...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262772300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with this is that 20kHz realy IS a limit of hearing.<br>Many studies have been conducted and the ones that are properly double blinded invariably say humans can't hear beyond about 20kHz.</p><p>There is a different issue tho, mainly plauging low and mid range products.<br>The thing is that for a certain sample frequency you need a filter (a socalled reconstruction filter) with correct behaviour for that particular samplerate.<br>Most products that can switch samplerates have only one filter and it will be optimal for only one samplerate.<br>Specificly, when the filter is designed for a higher samplerate it will sound worse at a lower samplerate.<br>Many people doing comparisons are unaware of this fact.</p><p>Another important factor is that filter design for a 44.1kHz (or thereabout) is nessesarily more constrained.<br>If one chooses a higher samplerate then it becomes easier to make a filter that will cleanly let through sound up to 20kHz.<br>The original idea of using higher samplerates is to ease the strain on filter design, and NOT to reproduce sound above 20kHz.</p><p>So it's all about the quality of the filter and not particulary about humans hearing above 20kHz!</p><p>However, things are completely different with vision and i can testify that my old CRT only gives a completely steady picture at or above 100Hz.<br>My guess is that this is close to the perceptual limit of human vision.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with this is that 20kHz realy IS a limit of hearing.Many studies have been conducted and the ones that are properly double blinded invariably say humans ca n't hear beyond about 20kHz.There is a different issue tho , mainly plauging low and mid range products.The thing is that for a certain sample frequency you need a filter ( a socalled reconstruction filter ) with correct behaviour for that particular samplerate.Most products that can switch samplerates have only one filter and it will be optimal for only one samplerate.Specificly , when the filter is designed for a higher samplerate it will sound worse at a lower samplerate.Many people doing comparisons are unaware of this fact.Another important factor is that filter design for a 44.1kHz ( or thereabout ) is nessesarily more constrained.If one chooses a higher samplerate then it becomes easier to make a filter that will cleanly let through sound up to 20kHz.The original idea of using higher samplerates is to ease the strain on filter design , and NOT to reproduce sound above 20kHz.So it 's all about the quality of the filter and not particulary about humans hearing above 20kHz ! However , things are completely different with vision and i can testify that my old CRT only gives a completely steady picture at or above 100Hz.My guess is that this is close to the perceptual limit of human vision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with this is that 20kHz realy IS a limit of hearing.Many studies have been conducted and the ones that are properly double blinded invariably say humans can't hear beyond about 20kHz.There is a different issue tho, mainly plauging low and mid range products.The thing is that for a certain sample frequency you need a filter (a socalled reconstruction filter) with correct behaviour for that particular samplerate.Most products that can switch samplerates have only one filter and it will be optimal for only one samplerate.Specificly, when the filter is designed for a higher samplerate it will sound worse at a lower samplerate.Many people doing comparisons are unaware of this fact.Another important factor is that filter design for a 44.1kHz (or thereabout) is nessesarily more constrained.If one chooses a higher samplerate then it becomes easier to make a filter that will cleanly let through sound up to 20kHz.The original idea of using higher samplerates is to ease the strain on filter design, and NOT to reproduce sound above 20kHz.So it's all about the quality of the filter and not particulary about humans hearing above 20kHz!However, things are completely different with vision and i can testify that my old CRT only gives a completely steady picture at or above 100Hz.My guess is that this is close to the perceptual limit of human vision.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672520</id>
	<title>Re:Any animator knows...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262805000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can tell the difference between a rock-steady 60 fps and a rock-steady 30 fps. It feels better. But it is also true that what matters most is that the frame rate doesn't vary.<br>For some reason the brain doesn't like frame drops. You will get a better "feeling" of motion with a movie at 24 fps than with a  game that usually goes at 60fps but has some frame<br>drops in complex areas that make it go to 30 fps. You feel it awkward, even if the framerate doesn't drop below the 24 fps of the movie.</p><p>I've noticed that quite a lot while playing games... I won't be able to tell you if a given game is running at 30fps or 20fps if the frame rate doesn't change. However, I would notice a<br>framerate drop from 60 to 30 then back to 60. Of course, if you put the game running at 30fps besides the same one running at 20fps the former will "feel" better to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can tell the difference between a rock-steady 60 fps and a rock-steady 30 fps .
It feels better .
But it is also true that what matters most is that the frame rate does n't vary.For some reason the brain does n't like frame drops .
You will get a better " feeling " of motion with a movie at 24 fps than with a game that usually goes at 60fps but has some framedrops in complex areas that make it go to 30 fps .
You feel it awkward , even if the framerate does n't drop below the 24 fps of the movie.I 've noticed that quite a lot while playing games... I wo n't be able to tell you if a given game is running at 30fps or 20fps if the frame rate does n't change .
However , I would notice aframerate drop from 60 to 30 then back to 60 .
Of course , if you put the game running at 30fps besides the same one running at 20fps the former will " feel " better to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can tell the difference between a rock-steady 60 fps and a rock-steady 30 fps.
It feels better.
But it is also true that what matters most is that the frame rate doesn't vary.For some reason the brain doesn't like frame drops.
You will get a better "feeling" of motion with a movie at 24 fps than with a  game that usually goes at 60fps but has some framedrops in complex areas that make it go to 30 fps.
You feel it awkward, even if the framerate doesn't drop below the 24 fps of the movie.I've noticed that quite a lot while playing games... I won't be able to tell you if a given game is running at 30fps or 20fps if the frame rate doesn't change.
However, I would notice aframerate drop from 60 to 30 then back to 60.
Of course, if you put the game running at 30fps besides the same one running at 20fps the former will "feel" better to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673172</id>
	<title>Re:Any animator knows...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262807820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Movies are completely different from computer games because... (drumroll)...</p><p>THE NEXT SEVERAL FRAMES ARE ALWAYS KNOWN WELL IN ADVANCE.</p><p>24 FPS where you blend between each frame and the next because there's no interactivity? OK<br>24 FPS where you can't blend because you don't look ahead? Ugh.<br>24 FPS where you blend by imposing an input delay of 1/24th of a second? People *feel* that delay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Movies are completely different from computer games because... ( drumroll ) ...THE NEXT SEVERAL FRAMES ARE ALWAYS KNOWN WELL IN ADVANCE.24 FPS where you blend between each frame and the next because there 's no interactivity ?
OK24 FPS where you ca n't blend because you do n't look ahead ?
Ugh.24 FPS where you blend by imposing an input delay of 1/24th of a second ?
People * feel * that delay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Movies are completely different from computer games because... (drumroll)...THE NEXT SEVERAL FRAMES ARE ALWAYS KNOWN WELL IN ADVANCE.24 FPS where you blend between each frame and the next because there's no interactivity?
OK24 FPS where you can't blend because you don't look ahead?
Ugh.24 FPS where you blend by imposing an input delay of 1/24th of a second?
People *feel* that delay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672648</id>
	<title>Re:The human eye can dectect 30</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262805660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I read an article a while ago that explained exactly what framerate you can see.</p><p>13 FPS.</p><p>Per distinguishable object.</p><p>Asynchronously.</p><p>There's also a secondary brainwave running at 7 Hz that determines light sensitivity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I read an article a while ago that explained exactly what framerate you can see.13 FPS.Per distinguishable object.Asynchronously.There 's also a secondary brainwave running at 7 Hz that determines light sensitivity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I read an article a while ago that explained exactly what framerate you can see.13 FPS.Per distinguishable object.Asynchronously.There's also a secondary brainwave running at 7 Hz that determines light sensitivity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674344</id>
	<title>Re:Same with audio...</title>
	<author>SD-Arcadia</author>
	<datestamp>1262769780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>..and yet no one can ABX it. unless you have Monster Cables (TM) ofcourse<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>..and yet no one can ABX it .
unless you have Monster Cables ( TM ) ofcourse ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..and yet no one can ABX it.
unless you have Monster Cables (TM) ofcourse ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672568</id>
	<title>Same with audio...</title>
	<author>QuietLagoon</author>
	<datestamp>1262805240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everyone says a "framerate" (i.e., sample frequency) of 44.1kHz is all that is needed.    Yet many people hear better imaging, depth and transparency at higher sample rates.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone says a " framerate " ( i.e. , sample frequency ) of 44.1kHz is all that is needed .
Yet many people hear better imaging , depth and transparency at higher sample rates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone says a "framerate" (i.e., sample frequency) of 44.1kHz is all that is needed.
Yet many people hear better imaging, depth and transparency at higher sample rates.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673432</id>
	<title>Outside Looking In</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1262808840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a neuroscientist that covers sensation and perception and its bidirectional interaction with cognition, particularly attention. I've got comments and questions and very few answers after reading this. I'm seeing a lot of things stated as facts that I've never heard of before. Some of them make sense, and some don't. Some of them are correct, some not, and many more than the others combined I have no experience in and can't say. Those seem to be well supported, or at least well known, particularly among those who've obviously done their homework. I can find references to these among the publications (like ACM) that are most applicable to the field in question, but I can find precious little in my customary pubs and books. That's not to say the stuff in the technically oriented pubs is wrong, just that some may not be covered much (ie. 'not of interest') in my field. My field is very cautious about experimental evidence, but I suspect in gaming's perception area there are common knowledge kids of things that came from hear say (we have many of those in rocketry too). It might do well for both fields to compare works.</p><p>What catches my eye at first is this "myth". As stated it's overly simplistic. Which humans' eye? Some have different reaction times. Those who could probably detect 30 fps discontinuity are those who see the TV screen jiggle and waver when they chew something crunchy while watching (you know who you are, here's a place to own up to it). What part of the visual field, central or peripheral?  They operate differently. Jittering or blurring of objects attended to or not? Betcha it happens more to those not attended to, but that's not noticed for the same reason (hypnosis can bring that out right nicely). And how is it frame rates matter when the visual system evolved as a constant flow analog system? If a phenomenon that shouldn't make a difference does, and that frame rate is strictly due to technical considerations, how do we know that a variable frame rate might not give even better results? Since the visual system does not have full-field frames that refresh, why should artificial presentations? Why not present faster moving objects at a high change rate, slower moving at a slower rate, more or less a timing equivalent to some video compression techniques? Some of this makes good sense from my perspective, some appears goofy but may not be, and some clearly is whack according to well supported experimental evidence from my side, not sure about yours.</p><p>Here's an interesting one, apparent motion from blurring, occurring at the retina, ostensibly due to 'reaction time' of light receptor cells (rods and cones). I can see how this might occur. But if it's a time lag that causes blurring, everything should be blurred, because the layers of cells of different types in the retina between the receptors and those firing down the optic nerve operate strictly by slow potentials -- there's not a 'firing' neuron among them. Or, if their processing, though slow, accounts for motion and compensates, preventing adding to the blurring, how can that be used to increase apparent motion?</p><p>A last point which I'm fairly certain isn't covered in gaming and graphics presentation because very few know much about it and we don't understand it well: 10\% of the optic nerve is feed-forward, top down control or tuning of the retina and its processing. Motion perception can be primed, can suffer from habituation, and has variance in efficacy according to several factors. What cognitive factors have an influence on this, and how can that be used to improve motion perception and/or produce motion perception that's as adequate as what's being used now but requiring less external computational effort because internal computation is being stimulated.</p><p>It's probable that both fields have things of interest and use to the other, including things the other isn't aware of. I've said much the same following another article on a different subject. From this one I can see it's probable there's a few peoples' careers worth o</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a neuroscientist that covers sensation and perception and its bidirectional interaction with cognition , particularly attention .
I 've got comments and questions and very few answers after reading this .
I 'm seeing a lot of things stated as facts that I 've never heard of before .
Some of them make sense , and some do n't .
Some of them are correct , some not , and many more than the others combined I have no experience in and ca n't say .
Those seem to be well supported , or at least well known , particularly among those who 've obviously done their homework .
I can find references to these among the publications ( like ACM ) that are most applicable to the field in question , but I can find precious little in my customary pubs and books .
That 's not to say the stuff in the technically oriented pubs is wrong , just that some may not be covered much ( ie .
'not of interest ' ) in my field .
My field is very cautious about experimental evidence , but I suspect in gaming 's perception area there are common knowledge kids of things that came from hear say ( we have many of those in rocketry too ) .
It might do well for both fields to compare works.What catches my eye at first is this " myth " .
As stated it 's overly simplistic .
Which humans ' eye ?
Some have different reaction times .
Those who could probably detect 30 fps discontinuity are those who see the TV screen jiggle and waver when they chew something crunchy while watching ( you know who you are , here 's a place to own up to it ) .
What part of the visual field , central or peripheral ?
They operate differently .
Jittering or blurring of objects attended to or not ?
Betcha it happens more to those not attended to , but that 's not noticed for the same reason ( hypnosis can bring that out right nicely ) .
And how is it frame rates matter when the visual system evolved as a constant flow analog system ?
If a phenomenon that should n't make a difference does , and that frame rate is strictly due to technical considerations , how do we know that a variable frame rate might not give even better results ?
Since the visual system does not have full-field frames that refresh , why should artificial presentations ?
Why not present faster moving objects at a high change rate , slower moving at a slower rate , more or less a timing equivalent to some video compression techniques ?
Some of this makes good sense from my perspective , some appears goofy but may not be , and some clearly is whack according to well supported experimental evidence from my side , not sure about yours.Here 's an interesting one , apparent motion from blurring , occurring at the retina , ostensibly due to 'reaction time ' of light receptor cells ( rods and cones ) .
I can see how this might occur .
But if it 's a time lag that causes blurring , everything should be blurred , because the layers of cells of different types in the retina between the receptors and those firing down the optic nerve operate strictly by slow potentials -- there 's not a 'firing ' neuron among them .
Or , if their processing , though slow , accounts for motion and compensates , preventing adding to the blurring , how can that be used to increase apparent motion ? A last point which I 'm fairly certain is n't covered in gaming and graphics presentation because very few know much about it and we do n't understand it well : 10 \ % of the optic nerve is feed-forward , top down control or tuning of the retina and its processing .
Motion perception can be primed , can suffer from habituation , and has variance in efficacy according to several factors .
What cognitive factors have an influence on this , and how can that be used to improve motion perception and/or produce motion perception that 's as adequate as what 's being used now but requiring less external computational effort because internal computation is being stimulated.It 's probable that both fields have things of interest and use to the other , including things the other is n't aware of .
I 've said much the same following another article on a different subject .
From this one I can see it 's probable there 's a few peoples ' careers worth o</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a neuroscientist that covers sensation and perception and its bidirectional interaction with cognition, particularly attention.
I've got comments and questions and very few answers after reading this.
I'm seeing a lot of things stated as facts that I've never heard of before.
Some of them make sense, and some don't.
Some of them are correct, some not, and many more than the others combined I have no experience in and can't say.
Those seem to be well supported, or at least well known, particularly among those who've obviously done their homework.
I can find references to these among the publications (like ACM) that are most applicable to the field in question, but I can find precious little in my customary pubs and books.
That's not to say the stuff in the technically oriented pubs is wrong, just that some may not be covered much (ie.
'not of interest') in my field.
My field is very cautious about experimental evidence, but I suspect in gaming's perception area there are common knowledge kids of things that came from hear say (we have many of those in rocketry too).
It might do well for both fields to compare works.What catches my eye at first is this "myth".
As stated it's overly simplistic.
Which humans' eye?
Some have different reaction times.
Those who could probably detect 30 fps discontinuity are those who see the TV screen jiggle and waver when they chew something crunchy while watching (you know who you are, here's a place to own up to it).
What part of the visual field, central or peripheral?
They operate differently.
Jittering or blurring of objects attended to or not?
Betcha it happens more to those not attended to, but that's not noticed for the same reason (hypnosis can bring that out right nicely).
And how is it frame rates matter when the visual system evolved as a constant flow analog system?
If a phenomenon that shouldn't make a difference does, and that frame rate is strictly due to technical considerations, how do we know that a variable frame rate might not give even better results?
Since the visual system does not have full-field frames that refresh, why should artificial presentations?
Why not present faster moving objects at a high change rate, slower moving at a slower rate, more or less a timing equivalent to some video compression techniques?
Some of this makes good sense from my perspective, some appears goofy but may not be, and some clearly is whack according to well supported experimental evidence from my side, not sure about yours.Here's an interesting one, apparent motion from blurring, occurring at the retina, ostensibly due to 'reaction time' of light receptor cells (rods and cones).
I can see how this might occur.
But if it's a time lag that causes blurring, everything should be blurred, because the layers of cells of different types in the retina between the receptors and those firing down the optic nerve operate strictly by slow potentials -- there's not a 'firing' neuron among them.
Or, if their processing, though slow, accounts for motion and compensates, preventing adding to the blurring, how can that be used to increase apparent motion?A last point which I'm fairly certain isn't covered in gaming and graphics presentation because very few know much about it and we don't understand it well: 10\% of the optic nerve is feed-forward, top down control or tuning of the retina and its processing.
Motion perception can be primed, can suffer from habituation, and has variance in efficacy according to several factors.
What cognitive factors have an influence on this, and how can that be used to improve motion perception and/or produce motion perception that's as adequate as what's being used now but requiring less external computational effort because internal computation is being stimulated.It's probable that both fields have things of interest and use to the other, including things the other isn't aware of.
I've said much the same following another article on a different subject.
From this one I can see it's probable there's a few peoples' careers worth o</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674604</id>
	<title>Re:Any animator knows...</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1262770920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think the film motion blur entirely compensates for the low frame rate.  IMHO, high-speed action sequences often look stuttery.  there must be some unsampled time-slot while the shutter is closed and the film is advancing (or in digital, when the CCD is being read).</p><p>Also, CG films must artificially create the motion blur.  I am not convinced that they actually bother to do this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think the film motion blur entirely compensates for the low frame rate .
IMHO , high-speed action sequences often look stuttery .
there must be some unsampled time-slot while the shutter is closed and the film is advancing ( or in digital , when the CCD is being read ) .Also , CG films must artificially create the motion blur .
I am not convinced that they actually bother to do this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think the film motion blur entirely compensates for the low frame rate.
IMHO, high-speed action sequences often look stuttery.
there must be some unsampled time-slot while the shutter is closed and the film is advancing (or in digital, when the CCD is being read).Also, CG films must artificially create the motion blur.
I am not convinced that they actually bother to do this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30677050</id>
	<title>Infinity Ward understands the need for 60fps</title>
	<author>Asterra</author>
	<datestamp>1262783400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article is no news at all to the likes of Infinity Ward.  The difference here is that Insomnia are now chiefly PS3 developers, and as the PS3 is famously difficult to develop for, even after you have a tried and solid engine going on it (it's often said that it takes twice as long and costs twice as much money to get a game completed on PS3 as it does for 360), the decision to switch to 30fps is almost certainly STRICTLY thanks to the difficulties associated with PS3 development.</p><p>Insomnia choose poorly.  To make money, they should have gone multiplatform.  Instead they decided to cut back on the quality of their products.  It's a choice that smacks of motives they must regard as stronger than profit, and I have to trust they're content with the consequences of their decision.  It also puts to rest the famous myth, now three years old, that the PS3 will eventually real some sort of unlocked potential.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article is no news at all to the likes of Infinity Ward .
The difference here is that Insomnia are now chiefly PS3 developers , and as the PS3 is famously difficult to develop for , even after you have a tried and solid engine going on it ( it 's often said that it takes twice as long and costs twice as much money to get a game completed on PS3 as it does for 360 ) , the decision to switch to 30fps is almost certainly STRICTLY thanks to the difficulties associated with PS3 development.Insomnia choose poorly .
To make money , they should have gone multiplatform .
Instead they decided to cut back on the quality of their products .
It 's a choice that smacks of motives they must regard as stronger than profit , and I have to trust they 're content with the consequences of their decision .
It also puts to rest the famous myth , now three years old , that the PS3 will eventually real some sort of unlocked potential .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article is no news at all to the likes of Infinity Ward.
The difference here is that Insomnia are now chiefly PS3 developers, and as the PS3 is famously difficult to develop for, even after you have a tried and solid engine going on it (it's often said that it takes twice as long and costs twice as much money to get a game completed on PS3 as it does for 360), the decision to switch to 30fps is almost certainly STRICTLY thanks to the difficulties associated with PS3 development.Insomnia choose poorly.
To make money, they should have gone multiplatform.
Instead they decided to cut back on the quality of their products.
It's a choice that smacks of motives they must regard as stronger than profit, and I have to trust they're content with the consequences of their decision.
It also puts to rest the famous myth, now three years old, that the PS3 will eventually real some sort of unlocked potential.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674910</id>
	<title>Re:120fps vs 60fps is like night and day</title>
	<author>Nick Ives</author>
	<datestamp>1262772540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stroke your epeen much? People used to play Quake just fine at 30fps, and still do. The main reason why Quake feels snappier at higher framerates is because a higher framerate allows you to run a bit quicker and jump a bit higher. That's why speedruns are done looking at the ground!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stroke your epeen much ?
People used to play Quake just fine at 30fps , and still do .
The main reason why Quake feels snappier at higher framerates is because a higher framerate allows you to run a bit quicker and jump a bit higher .
That 's why speedruns are done looking at the ground !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stroke your epeen much?
People used to play Quake just fine at 30fps, and still do.
The main reason why Quake feels snappier at higher framerates is because a higher framerate allows you to run a bit quicker and jump a bit higher.
That's why speedruns are done looking at the ground!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673600</id>
	<title>Not all notice the difference</title>
	<author>encebollado</author>
	<datestamp>1262809680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My parents have a 60 Hz LCD TV that has adjustable levels of motion smoothing.  I can tell when the motion blurring is turned on because some parts of the movies just don't look "right".  But, most of my family can't tell the difference - they just don't see anything change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My parents have a 60 Hz LCD TV that has adjustable levels of motion smoothing .
I can tell when the motion blurring is turned on because some parts of the movies just do n't look " right " .
But , most of my family ca n't tell the difference - they just do n't see anything change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My parents have a 60 Hz LCD TV that has adjustable levels of motion smoothing.
I can tell when the motion blurring is turned on because some parts of the movies just don't look "right".
But, most of my family can't tell the difference - they just don't see anything change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673680</id>
	<title>No shit?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262810160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back when we played in the Counterstrike league (before and around when 1.0 came out), a simple raise from 30 fps to 60 fps <em>dramatically</em> rose my kill/death ratio. &rdquo;nuff said.</p><p>The other thing that dramatically made me better (some years later): Going from a cheap wireless mouse to a good wireless mouse, to a great wired mouse (Razer Copperhead right now). (Also, if you still have mouse acceleration enabled, please go and disable it <em>right now</em>.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Online I always prefer 1. more frames 2. faster ping and 3. higher resolution, over better graphics. Only over 60 fps it stops making sense, because it does not change anything anymore. Same thing with a DPI above what my eyes can see. (Got 120\%, so that&rsquo;s pretty high.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back when we played in the Counterstrike league ( before and around when 1.0 came out ) , a simple raise from 30 fps to 60 fps dramatically rose my kill/death ratio .
   nuff said.The other thing that dramatically made me better ( some years later ) : Going from a cheap wireless mouse to a good wireless mouse , to a great wired mouse ( Razer Copperhead right now ) .
( Also , if you still have mouse acceleration enabled , please go and disable it right now .
: ) Online I always prefer 1. more frames 2. faster ping and 3. higher resolution , over better graphics .
Only over 60 fps it stops making sense , because it does not change anything anymore .
Same thing with a DPI above what my eyes can see .
( Got 120 \ % , so that    s pretty high .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back when we played in the Counterstrike league (before and around when 1.0 came out), a simple raise from 30 fps to 60 fps dramatically rose my kill/death ratio.
”nuff said.The other thing that dramatically made me better (some years later): Going from a cheap wireless mouse to a good wireless mouse, to a great wired mouse (Razer Copperhead right now).
(Also, if you still have mouse acceleration enabled, please go and disable it right now.
:)Online I always prefer 1. more frames 2. faster ping and 3. higher resolution, over better graphics.
Only over 60 fps it stops making sense, because it does not change anything anymore.
Same thing with a DPI above what my eyes can see.
(Got 120\%, so that’s pretty high.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30684670</id>
	<title>Re:Lots of evidence for higher frame rates</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1262888880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>For the record (as an ex-LED-backlight hardware designer) the LED's are waaay too bright to run full-out, both visually and from a power usage and heat generation standpoint, and the only good way to dim an LED is by cycling it on and off rapidly to approximate the desired brightness.</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't follow. Isn't an LED's brightness based on current, and the heat dissipation based on average power? Thus, you could run an LED at 20 mA continuously, or at 40 mA pulsed at 50\% duty cycle, and have the same average brightness and power. Of course the latter will probably <i>look</i> brighter to a human, since I understand perception to be based partly on the peak brightness. I think it's why LED tail lights run pulsed instead of continuous.

</p><p>There IS of course the other issue of the driver being much easier to make using a variable duty cycle rather than adjusting the drive current, I'll grant that. With variably duty cycle, you can use a saturated transistor, so it's either fully on or completely off, thus little dissipated power due to resistance. And generating the pulse drive waveform is trivial, and easy to adjust the duty cycle of.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the record ( as an ex-LED-backlight hardware designer ) the LED 's are waaay too bright to run full-out , both visually and from a power usage and heat generation standpoint , and the only good way to dim an LED is by cycling it on and off rapidly to approximate the desired brightness.I do n't follow .
Is n't an LED 's brightness based on current , and the heat dissipation based on average power ?
Thus , you could run an LED at 20 mA continuously , or at 40 mA pulsed at 50 \ % duty cycle , and have the same average brightness and power .
Of course the latter will probably look brighter to a human , since I understand perception to be based partly on the peak brightness .
I think it 's why LED tail lights run pulsed instead of continuous .
There IS of course the other issue of the driver being much easier to make using a variable duty cycle rather than adjusting the drive current , I 'll grant that .
With variably duty cycle , you can use a saturated transistor , so it 's either fully on or completely off , thus little dissipated power due to resistance .
And generating the pulse drive waveform is trivial , and easy to adjust the duty cycle of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the record (as an ex-LED-backlight hardware designer) the LED's are waaay too bright to run full-out, both visually and from a power usage and heat generation standpoint, and the only good way to dim an LED is by cycling it on and off rapidly to approximate the desired brightness.I don't follow.
Isn't an LED's brightness based on current, and the heat dissipation based on average power?
Thus, you could run an LED at 20 mA continuously, or at 40 mA pulsed at 50\% duty cycle, and have the same average brightness and power.
Of course the latter will probably look brighter to a human, since I understand perception to be based partly on the peak brightness.
I think it's why LED tail lights run pulsed instead of continuous.
There IS of course the other issue of the driver being much easier to make using a variable duty cycle rather than adjusting the drive current, I'll grant that.
With variably duty cycle, you can use a saturated transistor, so it's either fully on or completely off, thus little dissipated power due to resistance.
And generating the pulse drive waveform is trivial, and easy to adjust the duty cycle of.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671952</id>
	<title>LCDs = need even higher FPS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262802840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LCDs are hold-type displays which create motion blur when you follow a moving object on the screen. This can be avoided by modulating the backlight or by increasing the number of frames per second, if the LCD can keep up with the frame rate. Some high-end TVs already interpolate video frames four-fold, i.e. they create 3 interpolated frames for every actual frame delivered by the video source. This technique combined with backlight modulation creates very noticeably smoother motion. Unfortunately this technique is not suitable for interactive sources due to the unavoidable delay created by the interpolation. In conclusion: 60fps? Give me 120fps and we can start talking about finally replacing the CRT on my desktop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LCDs are hold-type displays which create motion blur when you follow a moving object on the screen .
This can be avoided by modulating the backlight or by increasing the number of frames per second , if the LCD can keep up with the frame rate .
Some high-end TVs already interpolate video frames four-fold , i.e .
they create 3 interpolated frames for every actual frame delivered by the video source .
This technique combined with backlight modulation creates very noticeably smoother motion .
Unfortunately this technique is not suitable for interactive sources due to the unavoidable delay created by the interpolation .
In conclusion : 60fps ?
Give me 120fps and we can start talking about finally replacing the CRT on my desktop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LCDs are hold-type displays which create motion blur when you follow a moving object on the screen.
This can be avoided by modulating the backlight or by increasing the number of frames per second, if the LCD can keep up with the frame rate.
Some high-end TVs already interpolate video frames four-fold, i.e.
they create 3 interpolated frames for every actual frame delivered by the video source.
This technique combined with backlight modulation creates very noticeably smoother motion.
Unfortunately this technique is not suitable for interactive sources due to the unavoidable delay created by the interpolation.
In conclusion: 60fps?
Give me 120fps and we can start talking about finally replacing the CRT on my desktop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673556</id>
	<title>I've always been able to see more than 60FPS</title>
	<author>Rooked\_One</author>
	<datestamp>1262809500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>saying "no one can see above 60FPS" is bunk...  you can't say that everyone is the same intelligence...<br> <br>I've always been able to tell a difference between 60FPS and around 75FPS is where I can't see a greater difference...<br> <br>

Not sure if that is because i've played video games since I was 10, or what... but i've always been able to tell the difference - except above around 75FPS.  I started noticing this over 10 years ago with GLQuake.</htmltext>
<tokenext>saying " no one can see above 60FPS " is bunk... you ca n't say that everyone is the same intelligence... I 've always been able to tell a difference between 60FPS and around 75FPS is where I ca n't see a greater difference.. . Not sure if that is because i 've played video games since I was 10 , or what... but i 've always been able to tell the difference - except above around 75FPS .
I started noticing this over 10 years ago with GLQuake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>saying "no one can see above 60FPS" is bunk...  you can't say that everyone is the same intelligence... I've always been able to tell a difference between 60FPS and around 75FPS is where I can't see a greater difference... 

Not sure if that is because i've played video games since I was 10, or what... but i've always been able to tell the difference - except above around 75FPS.
I started noticing this over 10 years ago with GLQuake.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672312</id>
	<title>Re:Where it matters most.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262804160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>A higher framerate is better -- your moves will be more responsive and render faster.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A higher framerate is better -- your moves will be more responsive and render faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A higher framerate is better -- your moves will be more responsive and render faster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30678092</id>
	<title>Change in frame rate matters</title>
	<author>indil</author>
	<datestamp>1262790660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been reading IGN.com a long time, and I've consistently heard from the people there who stare at games all day long that 30 vs. 60 frames per second doesn't matter because it's hardly noticeable; it's the change in frame rate as you play that's noticeable and looks bad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been reading IGN.com a long time , and I 've consistently heard from the people there who stare at games all day long that 30 vs. 60 frames per second does n't matter because it 's hardly noticeable ; it 's the change in frame rate as you play that 's noticeable and looks bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been reading IGN.com a long time, and I've consistently heard from the people there who stare at games all day long that 30 vs. 60 frames per second doesn't matter because it's hardly noticeable; it's the change in frame rate as you play that's noticeable and looks bad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673326</id>
	<title>Re:The human eye can dectect 30</title>
	<author>suso</author>
	<datestamp>1262808480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think these types of myths come about when marketing people have lunch with people who write articles in science magazines or whatever. I remember back in the 90s reading some article that was not talking about computer graphics, but stated that the human eye can perceive only a little over 16 million colors.  Gee, isn't that conveniently close to 24-bit colorspace.  The whole 30fps thing probably comes from NTSC specs.</p><p>Recently, I did see a car wheel do the wagon wheel effect with my own eyes and thought for a second that I was seeing things, but it was at night and I think this has something to do with the 60hz light sources or maybe the vibration of my own car. And no it didn't have spinners on it. The wagon wheel effect article on wikipedia says that indeed this can be seen in real life under certain conditions.  But of course it doesn't mean that your eyes can only see at a limited frame rate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think these types of myths come about when marketing people have lunch with people who write articles in science magazines or whatever .
I remember back in the 90s reading some article that was not talking about computer graphics , but stated that the human eye can perceive only a little over 16 million colors .
Gee , is n't that conveniently close to 24-bit colorspace .
The whole 30fps thing probably comes from NTSC specs.Recently , I did see a car wheel do the wagon wheel effect with my own eyes and thought for a second that I was seeing things , but it was at night and I think this has something to do with the 60hz light sources or maybe the vibration of my own car .
And no it did n't have spinners on it .
The wagon wheel effect article on wikipedia says that indeed this can be seen in real life under certain conditions .
But of course it does n't mean that your eyes can only see at a limited frame rate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think these types of myths come about when marketing people have lunch with people who write articles in science magazines or whatever.
I remember back in the 90s reading some article that was not talking about computer graphics, but stated that the human eye can perceive only a little over 16 million colors.
Gee, isn't that conveniently close to 24-bit colorspace.
The whole 30fps thing probably comes from NTSC specs.Recently, I did see a car wheel do the wagon wheel effect with my own eyes and thought for a second that I was seeing things, but it was at night and I think this has something to do with the 60hz light sources or maybe the vibration of my own car.
And no it didn't have spinners on it.
The wagon wheel effect article on wikipedia says that indeed this can be seen in real life under certain conditions.
But of course it doesn't mean that your eyes can only see at a limited frame rate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673690</id>
	<title>smove?</title>
	<author>hduff</author>
	<datestamp>1262810160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This granularity helped to smove out movement, including Mario's beloved jump.</p></div><p>A new techincamation term? Nice to see former President Bush got a gig as a copywriter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This granularity helped to smove out movement , including Mario 's beloved jump.A new techincamation term ?
Nice to see former President Bush got a gig as a copywriter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This granularity helped to smove out movement, including Mario's beloved jump.A new techincamation term?
Nice to see former President Bush got a gig as a copywriter.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30676278</id>
	<title>Re:Lots of evidence for higher frame rates</title>
	<author>pz</author>
	<datestamp>1262778720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right --- LEDs are controlled by current, not voltage (unless you really are a glutton for punishment and want to design the hard way).  I haven't looked at backlight driver circuits that are available, and while PWM is an easy way out, there's no inherent reason designs must be that way, or at least couldn't include some filtering.  And, as you point out, there's really no reason at all to not be driving the PWM at 4x the frame rate for a 60 Hz update (or 8x for that matter).  There is good reason, however, to synchronize the frame updates and the backlighting, if the backlighting must be a strobe design.</p><p>Same goes for the idiot designers who make LED brake light systems for modern cars refresh at 60 Hz (or lower!).  No reason that can't be cycling at 1000 Hz to avoid flashing trails.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right --- LEDs are controlled by current , not voltage ( unless you really are a glutton for punishment and want to design the hard way ) .
I have n't looked at backlight driver circuits that are available , and while PWM is an easy way out , there 's no inherent reason designs must be that way , or at least could n't include some filtering .
And , as you point out , there 's really no reason at all to not be driving the PWM at 4x the frame rate for a 60 Hz update ( or 8x for that matter ) .
There is good reason , however , to synchronize the frame updates and the backlighting , if the backlighting must be a strobe design.Same goes for the idiot designers who make LED brake light systems for modern cars refresh at 60 Hz ( or lower ! ) .
No reason that ca n't be cycling at 1000 Hz to avoid flashing trails .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right --- LEDs are controlled by current, not voltage (unless you really are a glutton for punishment and want to design the hard way).
I haven't looked at backlight driver circuits that are available, and while PWM is an easy way out, there's no inherent reason designs must be that way, or at least couldn't include some filtering.
And, as you point out, there's really no reason at all to not be driving the PWM at 4x the frame rate for a 60 Hz update (or 8x for that matter).
There is good reason, however, to synchronize the frame updates and the backlighting, if the backlighting must be a strobe design.Same goes for the idiot designers who make LED brake light systems for modern cars refresh at 60 Hz (or lower!).
No reason that can't be cycling at 1000 Hz to avoid flashing trails.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671962</id>
	<title>Counter-Strike...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262802900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I myself used to play Counter-Strike (classic), and I can tell you both FPS and Ping made a HUGE difference in that game to the point that my score would increase as I connected to servers closer to home and used OpenGL instead of DirectX (since OpenGL almost doubled the FPS at the time).</p><p>Now, I wasn't an expert but I did play a whole lot. I think you ask most serious players and they would agree the impact of both...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I myself used to play Counter-Strike ( classic ) , and I can tell you both FPS and Ping made a HUGE difference in that game to the point that my score would increase as I connected to servers closer to home and used OpenGL instead of DirectX ( since OpenGL almost doubled the FPS at the time ) .Now , I was n't an expert but I did play a whole lot .
I think you ask most serious players and they would agree the impact of both.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I myself used to play Counter-Strike (classic), and I can tell you both FPS and Ping made a HUGE difference in that game to the point that my score would increase as I connected to servers closer to home and used OpenGL instead of DirectX (since OpenGL almost doubled the FPS at the time).Now, I wasn't an expert but I did play a whole lot.
I think you ask most serious players and they would agree the impact of both...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673928</id>
	<title>Re:The human eye can dectect 30</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262811360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That&rsquo;s a very bad comparison, since the effects of 60 fps vs 30 fps for me literally means the difference between winning matches and losing matches. Or a crazy increase in kill/death ratio.</p><p>Even worse with the 18 fps I have in GTA IV. It&rsquo;s virtually unplayable, because if there is action, it gets even worse.</p><p>Above 60 fps there no point in increasing it anymore. I tested this 120 fps (with 120 Hz): No changes in feeling and game stats. So I spend that on higher resolution, better enemy movement prediction, useful sound effects (hearing what type of room someone is in), and what&rsquo;s left on graphics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That    s a very bad comparison , since the effects of 60 fps vs 30 fps for me literally means the difference between winning matches and losing matches .
Or a crazy increase in kill/death ratio.Even worse with the 18 fps I have in GTA IV .
It    s virtually unplayable , because if there is action , it gets even worse.Above 60 fps there no point in increasing it anymore .
I tested this 120 fps ( with 120 Hz ) : No changes in feeling and game stats .
So I spend that on higher resolution , better enemy movement prediction , useful sound effects ( hearing what type of room someone is in ) , and what    s left on graphics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That’s a very bad comparison, since the effects of 60 fps vs 30 fps for me literally means the difference between winning matches and losing matches.
Or a crazy increase in kill/death ratio.Even worse with the 18 fps I have in GTA IV.
It’s virtually unplayable, because if there is action, it gets even worse.Above 60 fps there no point in increasing it anymore.
I tested this 120 fps (with 120 Hz): No changes in feeling and game stats.
So I spend that on higher resolution, better enemy movement prediction, useful sound effects (hearing what type of room someone is in), and what’s left on graphics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30679904</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry, you lost me</title>
	<author>TheThiefMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1262896560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>UE3 uses a 30fps <i>cap</i> on consoles. Quite a <i>lot</i> of games use UE3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>UE3 uses a 30fps cap on consoles .
Quite a lot of games use UE3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>UE3 uses a 30fps cap on consoles.
Quite a lot of games use UE3.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674002</id>
	<title>Motion Sickness?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262768460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TimeSplitters 2 was the first 60fps game i ever played - it gave me motion sickness, something that had never happened before in over 15 years of playing video games. I'd say that was pretty important.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TimeSplitters 2 was the first 60fps game i ever played - it gave me motion sickness , something that had never happened before in over 15 years of playing video games .
I 'd say that was pretty important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TimeSplitters 2 was the first 60fps game i ever played - it gave me motion sickness, something that had never happened before in over 15 years of playing video games.
I'd say that was pretty important.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672244</id>
	<title>Re:Any animator knows...</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1262803920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time Splitters was the first game I played which was locked at 60fps: it was quite a remarkable transition, even from games which were locked at 30fps, never mind games that fluctuated (I'll take 30fps and locked over 30-60fps any day). Gran Turismo had a "Hi-Spec" mode which doubled the resolution and framerate too, albeit at an obvious graphical cost, and it looked like The Future.</p><p>On the subject of movie theatres, 24fps was chosen because it's pretty much as low as you can go before people notice problems. Roger Ebert and various others have been arguing for a doubling of movie framerates for years to no avail. Studios don't want to pay the film and (these days) CGI cost of double the frames (which is why they went with the lowest possible framerate to begin with).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time Splitters was the first game I played which was locked at 60fps : it was quite a remarkable transition , even from games which were locked at 30fps , never mind games that fluctuated ( I 'll take 30fps and locked over 30-60fps any day ) .
Gran Turismo had a " Hi-Spec " mode which doubled the resolution and framerate too , albeit at an obvious graphical cost , and it looked like The Future.On the subject of movie theatres , 24fps was chosen because it 's pretty much as low as you can go before people notice problems .
Roger Ebert and various others have been arguing for a doubling of movie framerates for years to no avail .
Studios do n't want to pay the film and ( these days ) CGI cost of double the frames ( which is why they went with the lowest possible framerate to begin with ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time Splitters was the first game I played which was locked at 60fps: it was quite a remarkable transition, even from games which were locked at 30fps, never mind games that fluctuated (I'll take 30fps and locked over 30-60fps any day).
Gran Turismo had a "Hi-Spec" mode which doubled the resolution and framerate too, albeit at an obvious graphical cost, and it looked like The Future.On the subject of movie theatres, 24fps was chosen because it's pretty much as low as you can go before people notice problems.
Roger Ebert and various others have been arguing for a doubling of movie framerates for years to no avail.
Studios don't want to pay the film and (these days) CGI cost of double the frames (which is why they went with the lowest possible framerate to begin with).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30676284</id>
	<title>Re:The human eye can dectect 30</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262778780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>incorrect.</p><p>it improves quality, and your eye isn't one then off. cones and rods far 15 times a seconde, but not akll at the same times, so your brain is always getting information. Information you can react to without thinking. Like catching a ball the you didn't realize was thrown at you.</p><p>In fact, what you rationally think about may ahve already happened and only AFTER you think about it does the brain tell you what order it happened.  You might ahve never ever realized that ball was thrown, had you not reflexively caught it. Many decisions you think you made consiencely have already been made byu your subbconsious. Many tests have shown this, and it'd pretty well known.</p><p>So the more infor4mation streamed at you the better. Just watch a 60Hz lcd playing next to a 240 Hz durinf a sports event.</p><p>Maybe it would be better to say the more information come at you, the more information you have for your brain to make a decision.</p><p>You should try to find some experimental stuff where they are showing movies at 90fps, or tv at over 500fps. Pretty amazing stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>incorrect.it improves quality , and your eye is n't one then off .
cones and rods far 15 times a seconde , but not akll at the same times , so your brain is always getting information .
Information you can react to without thinking .
Like catching a ball the you did n't realize was thrown at you.In fact , what you rationally think about may ahve already happened and only AFTER you think about it does the brain tell you what order it happened .
You might ahve never ever realized that ball was thrown , had you not reflexively caught it .
Many decisions you think you made consiencely have already been made byu your subbconsious .
Many tests have shown this , and it 'd pretty well known.So the more infor4mation streamed at you the better .
Just watch a 60Hz lcd playing next to a 240 Hz durinf a sports event.Maybe it would be better to say the more information come at you , the more information you have for your brain to make a decision.You should try to find some experimental stuff where they are showing movies at 90fps , or tv at over 500fps .
Pretty amazing stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>incorrect.it improves quality, and your eye isn't one then off.
cones and rods far 15 times a seconde, but not akll at the same times, so your brain is always getting information.
Information you can react to without thinking.
Like catching a ball the you didn't realize was thrown at you.In fact, what you rationally think about may ahve already happened and only AFTER you think about it does the brain tell you what order it happened.
You might ahve never ever realized that ball was thrown, had you not reflexively caught it.
Many decisions you think you made consiencely have already been made byu your subbconsious.
Many tests have shown this, and it'd pretty well known.So the more infor4mation streamed at you the better.
Just watch a 60Hz lcd playing next to a 240 Hz durinf a sports event.Maybe it would be better to say the more information come at you, the more information you have for your brain to make a decision.You should try to find some experimental stuff where they are showing movies at 90fps, or tv at over 500fps.
Pretty amazing stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30679522</id>
	<title>Re:Motion blur and bloom effects</title>
	<author>Vastad</author>
	<datestamp>1262804820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Either we keep tracking it (in which case the unfocused foreground and background areas alter) or we don't, and it goes out of focus. We mentally render this as blurring. Directors in 2D movies use depth-of-field to do a quick transition between two speaking characters and ensure the right one has prominence, by keeping the speaker in focus and then quickly shifting focus in/out to bring the other to prominence when the dialogue turns.</p><p>The real sin, and unalterable problem currently, for 3D technology is that everything renders in-focus. Motion blurs work to some degree, but a large-scale image with "background" objects sharply in focus gives us headaches. We follow the other visual cues, try to "focus" to distance, try to "refocus" for the fuzziness it causes, and then wobble back and forth till we have sore, tired eye muscles.</p></div><p>This explains an annoying game engine "feature" in Dragon Age: Origins. During in-game engine scripted cutscenes, they would do that character-centric depth-of-field technique of 2D directors by having the character in perfect focus and the background fuzzed out.</p><p>Problem is it was done in the cheapest clumsiest way possible. It was like a pseudo-green screen effect except done with a lame alpha layer that was roughly the outline of the character speaking. Everything else looked like it had frosted glass in front of it. <br>But the alpha shadow wasn't perfect, particularly around the hair. You could see like a clear "window" through the "frosted glass" behind the character, revealing a perfectly rendered background. Furthermore, the transition from focus to blur was sudden, not gradual, further highlighting the alpha shadows presence. It totally destroys all cinematographic merit in all the cutscenes.</p><p>The irony is that when you leave the cutscene and go back into exploration mode, the blur disappears and you have perfect focal clarity in the game world at all distances. Probably one of the most stupid game design decisions I have ever encountered.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Either we keep tracking it ( in which case the unfocused foreground and background areas alter ) or we do n't , and it goes out of focus .
We mentally render this as blurring .
Directors in 2D movies use depth-of-field to do a quick transition between two speaking characters and ensure the right one has prominence , by keeping the speaker in focus and then quickly shifting focus in/out to bring the other to prominence when the dialogue turns.The real sin , and unalterable problem currently , for 3D technology is that everything renders in-focus .
Motion blurs work to some degree , but a large-scale image with " background " objects sharply in focus gives us headaches .
We follow the other visual cues , try to " focus " to distance , try to " refocus " for the fuzziness it causes , and then wobble back and forth till we have sore , tired eye muscles.This explains an annoying game engine " feature " in Dragon Age : Origins .
During in-game engine scripted cutscenes , they would do that character-centric depth-of-field technique of 2D directors by having the character in perfect focus and the background fuzzed out.Problem is it was done in the cheapest clumsiest way possible .
It was like a pseudo-green screen effect except done with a lame alpha layer that was roughly the outline of the character speaking .
Everything else looked like it had frosted glass in front of it .
But the alpha shadow was n't perfect , particularly around the hair .
You could see like a clear " window " through the " frosted glass " behind the character , revealing a perfectly rendered background .
Furthermore , the transition from focus to blur was sudden , not gradual , further highlighting the alpha shadows presence .
It totally destroys all cinematographic merit in all the cutscenes.The irony is that when you leave the cutscene and go back into exploration mode , the blur disappears and you have perfect focal clarity in the game world at all distances .
Probably one of the most stupid game design decisions I have ever encountered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either we keep tracking it (in which case the unfocused foreground and background areas alter) or we don't, and it goes out of focus.
We mentally render this as blurring.
Directors in 2D movies use depth-of-field to do a quick transition between two speaking characters and ensure the right one has prominence, by keeping the speaker in focus and then quickly shifting focus in/out to bring the other to prominence when the dialogue turns.The real sin, and unalterable problem currently, for 3D technology is that everything renders in-focus.
Motion blurs work to some degree, but a large-scale image with "background" objects sharply in focus gives us headaches.
We follow the other visual cues, try to "focus" to distance, try to "refocus" for the fuzziness it causes, and then wobble back and forth till we have sore, tired eye muscles.This explains an annoying game engine "feature" in Dragon Age: Origins.
During in-game engine scripted cutscenes, they would do that character-centric depth-of-field technique of 2D directors by having the character in perfect focus and the background fuzzed out.Problem is it was done in the cheapest clumsiest way possible.
It was like a pseudo-green screen effect except done with a lame alpha layer that was roughly the outline of the character speaking.
Everything else looked like it had frosted glass in front of it.
But the alpha shadow wasn't perfect, particularly around the hair.
You could see like a clear "window" through the "frosted glass" behind the character, revealing a perfectly rendered background.
Furthermore, the transition from focus to blur was sudden, not gradual, further highlighting the alpha shadows presence.
It totally destroys all cinematographic merit in all the cutscenes.The irony is that when you leave the cutscene and go back into exploration mode, the blur disappears and you have perfect focal clarity in the game world at all distances.
Probably one of the most stupid game design decisions I have ever encountered.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672446</id>
	<title>I never understood why...</title>
	<author>JustNiz</author>
	<datestamp>1262804700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nearly everyone these days uses LCD monitors that have a pathetic maximum of 60hz display at HD resolutions (I think because of DVI spec/bandwidth limitations, Whatever moron invented DVI needs to be shot because of that).<br>I still have an analog CRT monitor that supports much higher frame rates at HD resolutions which gives a very noticeable edge when playing twitch-games like Unreal Tournament.<br>I never understood why people claim framerates above 60hz are better when their monitor is only capable of displaying 60hz at the resolution they play at. The only difference that framerates above 60hz (i.e. vsync turned off) is obvious tearing. You're still getting an actual 60hz framerate because the monitor, regardless of what the PC is doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nearly everyone these days uses LCD monitors that have a pathetic maximum of 60hz display at HD resolutions ( I think because of DVI spec/bandwidth limitations , Whatever moron invented DVI needs to be shot because of that ) .I still have an analog CRT monitor that supports much higher frame rates at HD resolutions which gives a very noticeable edge when playing twitch-games like Unreal Tournament.I never understood why people claim framerates above 60hz are better when their monitor is only capable of displaying 60hz at the resolution they play at .
The only difference that framerates above 60hz ( i.e .
vsync turned off ) is obvious tearing .
You 're still getting an actual 60hz framerate because the monitor , regardless of what the PC is doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nearly everyone these days uses LCD monitors that have a pathetic maximum of 60hz display at HD resolutions (I think because of DVI spec/bandwidth limitations, Whatever moron invented DVI needs to be shot because of that).I still have an analog CRT monitor that supports much higher frame rates at HD resolutions which gives a very noticeable edge when playing twitch-games like Unreal Tournament.I never understood why people claim framerates above 60hz are better when their monitor is only capable of displaying 60hz at the resolution they play at.
The only difference that framerates above 60hz (i.e.
vsync turned off) is obvious tearing.
You're still getting an actual 60hz framerate because the monitor, regardless of what the PC is doing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673608</id>
	<title>Re:Any animator knows...</title>
	<author>Odin\_Tiger</author>
	<datestamp>1262809740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it also depends quite a lot on the type of game or what's going on in the game at the time the frame rate dips*.  If quick, precise reactions / controls are important, a dip in fps is just horrible.  For e.g. adventure games (even with free movement instead of in 'steps' like in Myst), or RTS's where you may need to act quickly, but not terribly precisely due to the map being made up of a grid, or an MMO like WoW or Eve where again speed is necessary, but not really precision because you lock onto and switch targets by clicking anywhere on them, and then all actions thereafter are automatically applied to the target, dipping down to 24 - 30 won't hurt gameplay.  It might be annoying to me, but it's not going to really hurt me.<br>OTOH, with games like First Person Shooters or Platformers with difficult 'jumping / timing puzzles' or enemies that have to be attacked in a special way to be defeated, a sudden dip in frame rate will make the game noticeably more difficult.<br> <br>*This is another important thing that others have alluded to - suddenly dropping from 60 to 30 fps in the middle of a game is <i>BAD</i>, especially since it's likely that the reason the frame rate dipped is because the game just got a lot more difficult / complicated.  <i>However</i>, running consistently at 30 fps on the exact same game might be playable (if still somewhat annoying).  Noticeably bad fps is not nearly as frustrating as generally good fps with a few points of noticeably bad fps mixed in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it also depends quite a lot on the type of game or what 's going on in the game at the time the frame rate dips * .
If quick , precise reactions / controls are important , a dip in fps is just horrible .
For e.g .
adventure games ( even with free movement instead of in 'steps ' like in Myst ) , or RTS 's where you may need to act quickly , but not terribly precisely due to the map being made up of a grid , or an MMO like WoW or Eve where again speed is necessary , but not really precision because you lock onto and switch targets by clicking anywhere on them , and then all actions thereafter are automatically applied to the target , dipping down to 24 - 30 wo n't hurt gameplay .
It might be annoying to me , but it 's not going to really hurt me.OTOH , with games like First Person Shooters or Platformers with difficult 'jumping / timing puzzles ' or enemies that have to be attacked in a special way to be defeated , a sudden dip in frame rate will make the game noticeably more difficult .
* This is another important thing that others have alluded to - suddenly dropping from 60 to 30 fps in the middle of a game is BAD , especially since it 's likely that the reason the frame rate dipped is because the game just got a lot more difficult / complicated .
However , running consistently at 30 fps on the exact same game might be playable ( if still somewhat annoying ) .
Noticeably bad fps is not nearly as frustrating as generally good fps with a few points of noticeably bad fps mixed in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it also depends quite a lot on the type of game or what's going on in the game at the time the frame rate dips*.
If quick, precise reactions / controls are important, a dip in fps is just horrible.
For e.g.
adventure games (even with free movement instead of in 'steps' like in Myst), or RTS's where you may need to act quickly, but not terribly precisely due to the map being made up of a grid, or an MMO like WoW or Eve where again speed is necessary, but not really precision because you lock onto and switch targets by clicking anywhere on them, and then all actions thereafter are automatically applied to the target, dipping down to 24 - 30 won't hurt gameplay.
It might be annoying to me, but it's not going to really hurt me.OTOH, with games like First Person Shooters or Platformers with difficult 'jumping / timing puzzles' or enemies that have to be attacked in a special way to be defeated, a sudden dip in frame rate will make the game noticeably more difficult.
*This is another important thing that others have alluded to - suddenly dropping from 60 to 30 fps in the middle of a game is BAD, especially since it's likely that the reason the frame rate dipped is because the game just got a lot more difficult / complicated.
However, running consistently at 30 fps on the exact same game might be playable (if still somewhat annoying).
Noticeably bad fps is not nearly as frustrating as generally good fps with a few points of noticeably bad fps mixed in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673354</id>
	<title>'High" Framerates only matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262808600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IF the display can actually display them (most display 60fps). I agree with TFA in that it compares 30fps to 60fps, a lot of people don't consider 60fps to be a 'high' framerate.<br>I constantly hear arguments that some people want 120 fps or higher, on their LCD monitor that can only display 60 fps, which is not reasonable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IF the display can actually display them ( most display 60fps ) .
I agree with TFA in that it compares 30fps to 60fps , a lot of people do n't consider 60fps to be a 'high ' framerate.I constantly hear arguments that some people want 120 fps or higher , on their LCD monitor that can only display 60 fps , which is not reasonable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IF the display can actually display them (most display 60fps).
I agree with TFA in that it compares 30fps to 60fps, a lot of people don't consider 60fps to be a 'high' framerate.I constantly hear arguments that some people want 120 fps or higher, on their LCD monitor that can only display 60 fps, which is not reasonable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30680620</id>
	<title>a 30p / 60p example</title>
	<author>plonk420</author>
	<datestamp>1262864880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>source: Neuro's demo Masagin (apologies, it's not my best encode, but i had to work and wanted to get all the samples up ASAP)<br>
(for more wheezy computers)<br>
halfres 720p30: <a href="http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ZZT4OGLD" title="megaupload.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ZZT4OGLD</a> [megaupload.com] <br>
halfres 720p60: <a href="http://www.megaupload.com/?d=WHWJIXHZ" title="megaupload.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.megaupload.com/?d=WHWJIXHZ</a> [megaupload.com] <br>
(for manly computers that eat HD for breakfast (or just a $30 radeon 3000+ or geforce 8000+ and mpc hc))<br>
720p30: <a href="http://www.megaupload.com/?d=LSM31W74" title="megaupload.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.megaupload.com/?d=LSM31W74</a> [megaupload.com] <br>
720p60: <a href="http://www.megaupload.com/?d=9XC9NN7A" title="megaupload.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.megaupload.com/?d=9XC9NN7A</a> [megaupload.com] <br> <br>

parts that especially leap out at me as being noticeable (altho 90\% is noticeably not 60fps smooth to me)<br>
0:28-0:59<br>
1:26-1:29<br>
1:58-2:28</htmltext>
<tokenext>source : Neuro 's demo Masagin ( apologies , it 's not my best encode , but i had to work and wanted to get all the samples up ASAP ) ( for more wheezy computers ) halfres 720p30 : http : //www.megaupload.com/ ? d = ZZT4OGLD [ megaupload.com ] halfres 720p60 : http : //www.megaupload.com/ ? d = WHWJIXHZ [ megaupload.com ] ( for manly computers that eat HD for breakfast ( or just a $ 30 radeon 3000 + or geforce 8000 + and mpc hc ) ) 720p30 : http : //www.megaupload.com/ ? d = LSM31W74 [ megaupload.com ] 720p60 : http : //www.megaupload.com/ ? d = 9XC9NN7A [ megaupload.com ] parts that especially leap out at me as being noticeable ( altho 90 \ % is noticeably not 60fps smooth to me ) 0 : 28-0 : 59 1 : 26-1 : 29 1 : 58-2 : 28</tokentext>
<sentencetext>source: Neuro's demo Masagin (apologies, it's not my best encode, but i had to work and wanted to get all the samples up ASAP)
(for more wheezy computers)
halfres 720p30: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ZZT4OGLD [megaupload.com] 
halfres 720p60: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=WHWJIXHZ [megaupload.com] 
(for manly computers that eat HD for breakfast (or just a $30 radeon 3000+ or geforce 8000+ and mpc hc))
720p30: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=LSM31W74 [megaupload.com] 
720p60: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=9XC9NN7A [megaupload.com]  

parts that especially leap out at me as being noticeable (altho 90\% is noticeably not 60fps smooth to me)
0:28-0:59
1:26-1:29
1:58-2:28</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672478</id>
	<title>The difference in framerate</title>
	<author>DeskLazer</author>
	<datestamp>1262804880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html" title="boallen.com" rel="nofollow">15 FPS vs 30 FPS vs 60 FPS</a> [boallen.com].  This is a visual representation.  There are points made, however, that when you watch a movie, the image is "softened" and runs at a lower framerate [something like 24 or 25 FPS?] because your brain helps "fill in the gaps" or something of that sort.  Pretty interesting stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>15 FPS vs 30 FPS vs 60 FPS [ boallen.com ] .
This is a visual representation .
There are points made , however , that when you watch a movie , the image is " softened " and runs at a lower framerate [ something like 24 or 25 FPS ?
] because your brain helps " fill in the gaps " or something of that sort .
Pretty interesting stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>15 FPS vs 30 FPS vs 60 FPS [boallen.com].
This is a visual representation.
There are points made, however, that when you watch a movie, the image is "softened" and runs at a lower framerate [something like 24 or 25 FPS?
] because your brain helps "fill in the gaps" or something of that sort.
Pretty interesting stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30676130</id>
	<title>Re:Same with audio...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262778120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that in this case Nyquest theorm states that the original waveform is prefectly reproducable in the audible 20hz-20khz range. The difference you hear is an engineering problem, of how do you filter out the digital crap that results from DAC without affecting the audible range if there is very little room to work with.</p><p>Put a DVD-A on a DAC with an output stage designed for 44.1khz playback and you'll hear no difference. Run a 44.1khz signal through a DAC with little filtering on the output (say designed for 192khz) and what you hear is the result of artifacts of the DAC process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that in this case Nyquest theorm states that the original waveform is prefectly reproducable in the audible 20hz-20khz range .
The difference you hear is an engineering problem , of how do you filter out the digital crap that results from DAC without affecting the audible range if there is very little room to work with.Put a DVD-A on a DAC with an output stage designed for 44.1khz playback and you 'll hear no difference .
Run a 44.1khz signal through a DAC with little filtering on the output ( say designed for 192khz ) and what you hear is the result of artifacts of the DAC process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that in this case Nyquest theorm states that the original waveform is prefectly reproducable in the audible 20hz-20khz range.
The difference you hear is an engineering problem, of how do you filter out the digital crap that results from DAC without affecting the audible range if there is very little room to work with.Put a DVD-A on a DAC with an output stage designed for 44.1khz playback and you'll hear no difference.
Run a 44.1khz signal through a DAC with little filtering on the output (say designed for 192khz) and what you hear is the result of artifacts of the DAC process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673686</id>
	<title>Re:Any animator knows...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262810160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If by 'supposedly' you mean 'definitely' and if by 'most movie theaters' you mean 'all theaters and even all motion picture production processes in recent years', then yes.</p></div></blockquote><p>

This is not true.  Two theaters in my area (at least) have the ability to display other frame rates.  I can think of at least one incident where they did display at a much higher frame rate (the movie was filmed at a high FPS to capture the real world effect and it was not reduced in the theater).  One example would be IMAX HD which displays at an effective 48 FPS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If by 'supposedly ' you mean 'definitely ' and if by 'most movie theaters ' you mean 'all theaters and even all motion picture production processes in recent years ' , then yes .
This is not true .
Two theaters in my area ( at least ) have the ability to display other frame rates .
I can think of at least one incident where they did display at a much higher frame rate ( the movie was filmed at a high FPS to capture the real world effect and it was not reduced in the theater ) .
One example would be IMAX HD which displays at an effective 48 FPS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If by 'supposedly' you mean 'definitely' and if by 'most movie theaters' you mean 'all theaters and even all motion picture production processes in recent years', then yes.
This is not true.
Two theaters in my area (at least) have the ability to display other frame rates.
I can think of at least one incident where they did display at a much higher frame rate (the movie was filmed at a high FPS to capture the real world effect and it was not reduced in the theater).
One example would be IMAX HD which displays at an effective 48 FPS.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30680302</id>
	<title>Re:The human eye can dectect 30</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262860380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A TV has 60 samples per second. Especially in music videos and sports-broadcast. They use interlacing to send 60 fields per second, but where each field(half-frame) is from a different point in time. This is a trade-off between better motion and higher resolution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A TV has 60 samples per second .
Especially in music videos and sports-broadcast .
They use interlacing to send 60 fields per second , but where each field ( half-frame ) is from a different point in time .
This is a trade-off between better motion and higher resolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A TV has 60 samples per second.
Especially in music videos and sports-broadcast.
They use interlacing to send 60 fields per second, but where each field(half-frame) is from a different point in time.
This is a trade-off between better motion and higher resolution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673500</id>
	<title>Re:I never understood why...</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1262809200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>( Whatever moron invented DVI needs to be shot because of that.)</i></p><p>Perhaps you could promulgate a different standard?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( Whatever moron invented DVI needs to be shot because of that .
) Perhaps you could promulgate a different standard ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>( Whatever moron invented DVI needs to be shot because of that.
)Perhaps you could promulgate a different standard?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673112</id>
	<title>Re:The human eye can dectect 30</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1262807580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The human mind is evolutionary designed to make instant assumptions. Cat in mid air facing us = DANGER. No "Is it dead and being thrown at us?" No "Is it a picture?" As such, video games can quite easily take advantage of this evolutionary assumptions and trick the MIND, if not the brain. into thinking something is real.</p></div> </blockquote><p>It really bothers me when people reason the way you have regarding evolution.  I think you're making a huge assumption about what particular causes have lead the human brain to evolve to its present form.  Unless what you listed is the only plausible evolutionary pressure that could lead to the brain's current form, I think you're unjustified in asserting that your creation myth of the human brain's present form is in fact true.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The human mind is evolutionary designed to make instant assumptions .
Cat in mid air facing us = DANGER .
No " Is it dead and being thrown at us ?
" No " Is it a picture ?
" As such , video games can quite easily take advantage of this evolutionary assumptions and trick the MIND , if not the brain .
into thinking something is real .
It really bothers me when people reason the way you have regarding evolution .
I think you 're making a huge assumption about what particular causes have lead the human brain to evolve to its present form .
Unless what you listed is the only plausible evolutionary pressure that could lead to the brain 's current form , I think you 're unjustified in asserting that your creation myth of the human brain 's present form is in fact true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The human mind is evolutionary designed to make instant assumptions.
Cat in mid air facing us = DANGER.
No "Is it dead and being thrown at us?
" No "Is it a picture?
" As such, video games can quite easily take advantage of this evolutionary assumptions and trick the MIND, if not the brain.
into thinking something is real.
It really bothers me when people reason the way you have regarding evolution.
I think you're making a huge assumption about what particular causes have lead the human brain to evolve to its present form.
Unless what you listed is the only plausible evolutionary pressure that could lead to the brain's current form, I think you're unjustified in asserting that your creation myth of the human brain's present form is in fact true.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672862</id>
	<title>Any engineer knows...</title>
	<author>gillbates</author>
	<datestamp>1262806500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
That it isn't framerate which matters, but the color/luminosity delta.
</p><p>
Light impinging on the eye produces a chemical reaction; naturally, it takes some time for equilibrium to occur in the rods and cones.  The greater the light change, the faster the reaction occurs.  This means:
</p><ol> <li>Large changes in luminosity or color (the eye is actually more sensitive to luminosity) produce a sensory result faster than small changes.</li>
<li>Conversely, small changes in luminosity take longer for the eye to recognize.</li>
<li>The end result is that the effective "framerate" at which motion transitions from jittery to smooth is a function of the luminosity difference between the moving object and it's background.  For example, an Air Force study once found that pilots could identify an enemy plane flashed for a mere 1/220th of a second.  It's rather easy to do, when the background is a bright blue sky and a plane is a dark black object; the difference in luminosity is considerable.</li>
<li>From my own personal experience, I know that a mere 10 milliseconds is enough for my eyes to detect an LED flash.</li>
<li>While 30 fps might have appeared smooth on older CRT monitors with low contrast ratios, today's high contrast LCD/LED displays are much better at producing luminosity deltas than the models of 2 or 3 decades ago.  Thus, you actually need a faster framerate to produce smooth motion than you did 20 years ago.</li>
<li>While I cannot pick out individual frames at 60 Hz, I do notice the flicker and it is *REALLY* annoying when playing flight simulator games.  The irony is that while the terrain and plane are modeled to a photo-realistic resolution, the flickering framerate won't let me forget I'm sitting in front of a computer, rather than in the cockpit of a WWII era plane.</li>
</ol><p>
Smooth gameplay is not just about framerate, but a decent framerate (i.e. &gt; 60 Hz) is the essential foundation on which FPS and flight simulator games depend.  Though it's only my personal opinion, a game with a low, or jittery frame rate is much less playable than a visibly pixelated one.  The eye is very capable of approximating missing lines, completing shapes, etc... but much poorer at interpolating missing frames.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That it is n't framerate which matters , but the color/luminosity delta .
Light impinging on the eye produces a chemical reaction ; naturally , it takes some time for equilibrium to occur in the rods and cones .
The greater the light change , the faster the reaction occurs .
This means : Large changes in luminosity or color ( the eye is actually more sensitive to luminosity ) produce a sensory result faster than small changes .
Conversely , small changes in luminosity take longer for the eye to recognize .
The end result is that the effective " framerate " at which motion transitions from jittery to smooth is a function of the luminosity difference between the moving object and it 's background .
For example , an Air Force study once found that pilots could identify an enemy plane flashed for a mere 1/220th of a second .
It 's rather easy to do , when the background is a bright blue sky and a plane is a dark black object ; the difference in luminosity is considerable .
From my own personal experience , I know that a mere 10 milliseconds is enough for my eyes to detect an LED flash .
While 30 fps might have appeared smooth on older CRT monitors with low contrast ratios , today 's high contrast LCD/LED displays are much better at producing luminosity deltas than the models of 2 or 3 decades ago .
Thus , you actually need a faster framerate to produce smooth motion than you did 20 years ago .
While I can not pick out individual frames at 60 Hz , I do notice the flicker and it is * REALLY * annoying when playing flight simulator games .
The irony is that while the terrain and plane are modeled to a photo-realistic resolution , the flickering framerate wo n't let me forget I 'm sitting in front of a computer , rather than in the cockpit of a WWII era plane .
Smooth gameplay is not just about framerate , but a decent framerate ( i.e .
&gt; 60 Hz ) is the essential foundation on which FPS and flight simulator games depend .
Though it 's only my personal opinion , a game with a low , or jittery frame rate is much less playable than a visibly pixelated one .
The eye is very capable of approximating missing lines , completing shapes , etc... but much poorer at interpolating missing frames .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
That it isn't framerate which matters, but the color/luminosity delta.
Light impinging on the eye produces a chemical reaction; naturally, it takes some time for equilibrium to occur in the rods and cones.
The greater the light change, the faster the reaction occurs.
This means:
 Large changes in luminosity or color (the eye is actually more sensitive to luminosity) produce a sensory result faster than small changes.
Conversely, small changes in luminosity take longer for the eye to recognize.
The end result is that the effective "framerate" at which motion transitions from jittery to smooth is a function of the luminosity difference between the moving object and it's background.
For example, an Air Force study once found that pilots could identify an enemy plane flashed for a mere 1/220th of a second.
It's rather easy to do, when the background is a bright blue sky and a plane is a dark black object; the difference in luminosity is considerable.
From my own personal experience, I know that a mere 10 milliseconds is enough for my eyes to detect an LED flash.
While 30 fps might have appeared smooth on older CRT monitors with low contrast ratios, today's high contrast LCD/LED displays are much better at producing luminosity deltas than the models of 2 or 3 decades ago.
Thus, you actually need a faster framerate to produce smooth motion than you did 20 years ago.
While I cannot pick out individual frames at 60 Hz, I do notice the flicker and it is *REALLY* annoying when playing flight simulator games.
The irony is that while the terrain and plane are modeled to a photo-realistic resolution, the flickering framerate won't let me forget I'm sitting in front of a computer, rather than in the cockpit of a WWII era plane.
Smooth gameplay is not just about framerate, but a decent framerate (i.e.
&gt; 60 Hz) is the essential foundation on which FPS and flight simulator games depend.
Though it's only my personal opinion, a game with a low, or jittery frame rate is much less playable than a visibly pixelated one.
The eye is very capable of approximating missing lines, completing shapes, etc... but much poorer at interpolating missing frames.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674992</id>
	<title>Re:Any animator knows...</title>
	<author>pjt33</author>
	<datestamp>1262772900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If by 'supposedly' you mean 'definitely' and if by 'most movie theaters' you mean 'all theaters and even all motion picture production processes in recent years', then yes.</p></div><p>If by "all" you mean "all US". In Europe it's 25Hz.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If by 'supposedly ' you mean 'definitely ' and if by 'most movie theaters ' you mean 'all theaters and even all motion picture production processes in recent years ' , then yes.If by " all " you mean " all US " .
In Europe it 's 25Hz .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If by 'supposedly' you mean 'definitely' and if by 'most movie theaters' you mean 'all theaters and even all motion picture production processes in recent years', then yes.If by "all" you mean "all US".
In Europe it's 25Hz.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671942</id>
	<title>More important to have a robust webserver</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262802780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>./'d already...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>./ 'd already.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>./'d already...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672460</id>
	<title>Brightness</title>
	<author>ChrisMaple</author>
	<datestamp>1262804820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The brightness of the image and ambient lighting makes a difference. The more light that goes into your eye, the faster it responds. I run 1600x1200 @ 62 Hz interlaced, and sometimes I notice flicker. When that happens I close the shades, and the flicker goes away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The brightness of the image and ambient lighting makes a difference .
The more light that goes into your eye , the faster it responds .
I run 1600x1200 @ 62 Hz interlaced , and sometimes I notice flicker .
When that happens I close the shades , and the flicker goes away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The brightness of the image and ambient lighting makes a difference.
The more light that goes into your eye, the faster it responds.
I run 1600x1200 @ 62 Hz interlaced, and sometimes I notice flicker.
When that happens I close the shades, and the flicker goes away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30678024</id>
	<title>Re:Any animator knows...</title>
	<author>FredMenace</author>
	<datestamp>1262790060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It depends heavily on the type of game and the type of player. For a purely visual experience that looks nice, 30fps is often adequate if the game isn't super fast-paced. However, for a fast action game where you may need to react and aim very quickly (turning the whole player around in an instant), framerate makes a huge difference.</p><p>Among other things, if you slew your aim point (point of view) around very fast, even with a fairly high framerate, the view will jump between different points of view, rather than moving smoothly. This makes it difficult for the eye to track, making gameplay more difficult and contributing to headaches and nausea. (Input lag also contributes to these same problems.)</p><p>As for latency, from the time you move the mouse to look around or aim at something, it takes at least the length of one frame before you will see it on screen, and up to two frames - if the input is received just as a frame is starting to be rendered based on previous input, it will have to wait for that one to finish before it can even start rendering the next frame, which reflects that mouse movement. It could be even longer if things go through several stages of a "pipeline" of actions before showing up on screen - there could be an additional constant lag on top of the inverse of the framerate. (This is the input lag the article talked about.)</p><p>In addition, as pointed out in the article, framerates are often variable, by a factor of 2 or more. So a game that averages 30fps may hit 15-20fps at times (if not lower, though most commercial console games are tuned to avoid this, and many are tested to ensure they rarely drop below 30fps). At 20fps, each frame takes 1/20th of a second to render, or 50ms. So the delay after taking an action before it shows up on screen could be at least 50-100ms (or more, if there's some pipelining), which is starting to be noticeable when you're flicking the mouse around quickly.</p><p>If you are playing online against other players, all this is compounded not just by the network, but by the other computers involved. Many actions, including anything that another player did, will be delayed by your control latency (in this case the time from receiving the network information to displaying it on screen), plus the round-trip network latency between you and the server, plus the delay due to the server framerate (how frequently it updates the global state, which might also be only 20-30 times per second - assuming there is a dedicated game server in between, typical for the Quake and Unreal Tournament series of games for instance), plus about the same delay on the other player's end (from the time they give some input to when it is sent to their network connection) plus their network latency to the server.</p><p>So even if you only have a 10ms ping time, if you, your opponent, and the server are all running at only 20fps, the total delay before seeing another player's action could be several hundred ms, or over 10x your reported ping time! In this case most of the latency is due to the computers and related to framerate, and not due to the network at all. If all these framerates were 100fps instead of 20fps, then the latency would drop to something closer to 50ms.</p><p>So the article that says that most reviewers and casual players (who are generally trying to appreciate what the game has to offer visually, not to compete intensely against other players online) don't notice framerate much is probably true. But the competitive players out there definitely do notice, and will shed any and all graphical amenities if it helps them boost their framerate (= reduce their latency). To them, a slow framerate is like attaching lead weights to a tennis racket.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends heavily on the type of game and the type of player .
For a purely visual experience that looks nice , 30fps is often adequate if the game is n't super fast-paced .
However , for a fast action game where you may need to react and aim very quickly ( turning the whole player around in an instant ) , framerate makes a huge difference.Among other things , if you slew your aim point ( point of view ) around very fast , even with a fairly high framerate , the view will jump between different points of view , rather than moving smoothly .
This makes it difficult for the eye to track , making gameplay more difficult and contributing to headaches and nausea .
( Input lag also contributes to these same problems .
) As for latency , from the time you move the mouse to look around or aim at something , it takes at least the length of one frame before you will see it on screen , and up to two frames - if the input is received just as a frame is starting to be rendered based on previous input , it will have to wait for that one to finish before it can even start rendering the next frame , which reflects that mouse movement .
It could be even longer if things go through several stages of a " pipeline " of actions before showing up on screen - there could be an additional constant lag on top of the inverse of the framerate .
( This is the input lag the article talked about .
) In addition , as pointed out in the article , framerates are often variable , by a factor of 2 or more .
So a game that averages 30fps may hit 15-20fps at times ( if not lower , though most commercial console games are tuned to avoid this , and many are tested to ensure they rarely drop below 30fps ) .
At 20fps , each frame takes 1/20th of a second to render , or 50ms .
So the delay after taking an action before it shows up on screen could be at least 50-100ms ( or more , if there 's some pipelining ) , which is starting to be noticeable when you 're flicking the mouse around quickly.If you are playing online against other players , all this is compounded not just by the network , but by the other computers involved .
Many actions , including anything that another player did , will be delayed by your control latency ( in this case the time from receiving the network information to displaying it on screen ) , plus the round-trip network latency between you and the server , plus the delay due to the server framerate ( how frequently it updates the global state , which might also be only 20-30 times per second - assuming there is a dedicated game server in between , typical for the Quake and Unreal Tournament series of games for instance ) , plus about the same delay on the other player 's end ( from the time they give some input to when it is sent to their network connection ) plus their network latency to the server.So even if you only have a 10ms ping time , if you , your opponent , and the server are all running at only 20fps , the total delay before seeing another player 's action could be several hundred ms , or over 10x your reported ping time !
In this case most of the latency is due to the computers and related to framerate , and not due to the network at all .
If all these framerates were 100fps instead of 20fps , then the latency would drop to something closer to 50ms.So the article that says that most reviewers and casual players ( who are generally trying to appreciate what the game has to offer visually , not to compete intensely against other players online ) do n't notice framerate much is probably true .
But the competitive players out there definitely do notice , and will shed any and all graphical amenities if it helps them boost their framerate ( = reduce their latency ) .
To them , a slow framerate is like attaching lead weights to a tennis racket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends heavily on the type of game and the type of player.
For a purely visual experience that looks nice, 30fps is often adequate if the game isn't super fast-paced.
However, for a fast action game where you may need to react and aim very quickly (turning the whole player around in an instant), framerate makes a huge difference.Among other things, if you slew your aim point (point of view) around very fast, even with a fairly high framerate, the view will jump between different points of view, rather than moving smoothly.
This makes it difficult for the eye to track, making gameplay more difficult and contributing to headaches and nausea.
(Input lag also contributes to these same problems.
)As for latency, from the time you move the mouse to look around or aim at something, it takes at least the length of one frame before you will see it on screen, and up to two frames - if the input is received just as a frame is starting to be rendered based on previous input, it will have to wait for that one to finish before it can even start rendering the next frame, which reflects that mouse movement.
It could be even longer if things go through several stages of a "pipeline" of actions before showing up on screen - there could be an additional constant lag on top of the inverse of the framerate.
(This is the input lag the article talked about.
)In addition, as pointed out in the article, framerates are often variable, by a factor of 2 or more.
So a game that averages 30fps may hit 15-20fps at times (if not lower, though most commercial console games are tuned to avoid this, and many are tested to ensure they rarely drop below 30fps).
At 20fps, each frame takes 1/20th of a second to render, or 50ms.
So the delay after taking an action before it shows up on screen could be at least 50-100ms (or more, if there's some pipelining), which is starting to be noticeable when you're flicking the mouse around quickly.If you are playing online against other players, all this is compounded not just by the network, but by the other computers involved.
Many actions, including anything that another player did, will be delayed by your control latency (in this case the time from receiving the network information to displaying it on screen), plus the round-trip network latency between you and the server, plus the delay due to the server framerate (how frequently it updates the global state, which might also be only 20-30 times per second - assuming there is a dedicated game server in between, typical for the Quake and Unreal Tournament series of games for instance), plus about the same delay on the other player's end (from the time they give some input to when it is sent to their network connection) plus their network latency to the server.So even if you only have a 10ms ping time, if you, your opponent, and the server are all running at only 20fps, the total delay before seeing another player's action could be several hundred ms, or over 10x your reported ping time!
In this case most of the latency is due to the computers and related to framerate, and not due to the network at all.
If all these framerates were 100fps instead of 20fps, then the latency would drop to something closer to 50ms.So the article that says that most reviewers and casual players (who are generally trying to appreciate what the game has to offer visually, not to compete intensely against other players online) don't notice framerate much is probably true.
But the competitive players out there definitely do notice, and will shed any and all graphical amenities if it helps them boost their framerate (= reduce their latency).
To them, a slow framerate is like attaching lead weights to a tennis racket.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672962</id>
	<title>Re:The human eye can dectect 30</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262806860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Human eye and brain can tell 30, 60 and 70Hz apart.</p><p>But they don't make a difference. The cat will be processed at the natural ~15FPS, and the "feel" associated with 60Hz will be completely detached from information about incoming feline. You don't see 60 blinks per second. You just realize the display is somehow different than unchanging solid light, and your knowledge may make you recognize this kind of visual anomaly as 60Hz display. But there is no way you could tell it's 60hz blinking without being taught it. Just like you couldn't tell it's 500nm wave while seeing blue light and not knowing it corresponds to 500nm.</p><p>This isn't like gold-plated. It's like UV filter on the windscreen. You see the difference but you won't know what it means if you're not told.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Human eye and brain can tell 30 , 60 and 70Hz apart.But they do n't make a difference .
The cat will be processed at the natural ~ 15FPS , and the " feel " associated with 60Hz will be completely detached from information about incoming feline .
You do n't see 60 blinks per second .
You just realize the display is somehow different than unchanging solid light , and your knowledge may make you recognize this kind of visual anomaly as 60Hz display .
But there is no way you could tell it 's 60hz blinking without being taught it .
Just like you could n't tell it 's 500nm wave while seeing blue light and not knowing it corresponds to 500nm.This is n't like gold-plated .
It 's like UV filter on the windscreen .
You see the difference but you wo n't know what it means if you 're not told .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Human eye and brain can tell 30, 60 and 70Hz apart.But they don't make a difference.
The cat will be processed at the natural ~15FPS, and the "feel" associated with 60Hz will be completely detached from information about incoming feline.
You don't see 60 blinks per second.
You just realize the display is somehow different than unchanging solid light, and your knowledge may make you recognize this kind of visual anomaly as 60Hz display.
But there is no way you could tell it's 60hz blinking without being taught it.
Just like you couldn't tell it's 500nm wave while seeing blue light and not knowing it corresponds to 500nm.This isn't like gold-plated.
It's like UV filter on the windscreen.
You see the difference but you won't know what it means if you're not told.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30684468</id>
	<title>Re:120fps vs 60fps is like night and day</title>
	<author>metrix007</author>
	<datestamp>1262887980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What rubbish. I regularly play Quake on my laptop, which obviously isn't a CRT, and it looks anything but choppy, and just as good as a high priced CRT.</p><p>You people are as bad as the folk who buy gold plated audio cables.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What rubbish .
I regularly play Quake on my laptop , which obviously is n't a CRT , and it looks anything but choppy , and just as good as a high priced CRT.You people are as bad as the folk who buy gold plated audio cables .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What rubbish.
I regularly play Quake on my laptop, which obviously isn't a CRT, and it looks anything but choppy, and just as good as a high priced CRT.You people are as bad as the folk who buy gold plated audio cables.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672570</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30678024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30676410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30679612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30676216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30676866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30686608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30676950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30684340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30684712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30676284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30684734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30678200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30678486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30688200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30676036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30684670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30676130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30679148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30679904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30680420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30680302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30676976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30679522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30698212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30684526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30677054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30678322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30676432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30684468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30679920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30677488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30676278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1428226_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1428226.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1428226.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30678486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30679148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673586
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30686608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30676130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30678200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30676216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30684340
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1428226.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1428226.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672434
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30678024
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673760
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673900
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672990
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673528
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672848
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30676950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672738
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30676410
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30680420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1428226.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1428226.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672230
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672910
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672700
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672122
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672514
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672006
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1428226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1428226.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1428226.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30676976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672408
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30688200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30676036
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673784
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30676284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672376
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673750
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30680302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1428226.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30677054
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671970
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672596
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30678322
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675074
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30679522
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673268
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1428226.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672874
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1428226.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1428226.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1428226.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675784
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30684670
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30676278
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30679612
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30679920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30684526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30676866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1428226.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674856
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1428226.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1428226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1428226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1428226.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30675798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30684468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1428226.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1428226.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30684734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30679904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1428226.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30671982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1428226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30684712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1428226.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30672036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30674592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1428226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673958
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1428226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30698212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30677488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30676432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1428226.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1428226.30673108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
