- last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT
Posted by: staticx576
Would you please actually do research on any of the subjects you post about? First of all low framerate is not lag, it's just that, a low framerate. Lag would be that frames are already there and it takes a second to display to the monitor, where as low framerate is the frames need to be rendered first.
Next you claim that humans can see roughly 15-20 frames per second to which I know that is not true at all, to this day there is not been a concrete number on this subject and the ranges go up 200+ FPS, but there will never be a number simply because the human eye does NOT see in FPS, rather it is a continuous stream of light information.
"Lag would be that frames are already there and it takes a second to display to the monitor, where as low framerate is the frames need to be rendered first." - And what, my friend would take the moniter "a second" to display an already received signal?
The GPU renders the images, converts the digital image into an analog format, and then sends this signal to the moniter, which displays the images (for all practical purposes) in realtime.
Last I checked, Low framerates and lag are one and the same (unless you are referring to connection-based lag). It is absurd to think otherwise. Because in such a case, a remedy to lag would be to replace your moniter.
And yes, I do my research. It so happens in this case that my primary (and only) source on that particular question was inaccurate. Yes, there has been no final answer on this subject, but the human eye can perceive higher than 200 FPS. That is absolutely correct, my bad.