[MassRegJones]

name speaks for itself here is the link

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=lnZxxr7kUFQ

This post has been edited by MassRegJones: 25 August 2010 - 08:46 PM

[Gtracer]

Being dead serious here.

Y u do this

[Teban]

We put a Creed inside an Oven for about 5 minutes to get it somewhere around 40 C. It shot fine. Actually gained a tiny bit of velocity ;p

[IhasAcellular]

........Why the fuck would you bake a creed?

I love Vanguard, but if they start doing pointless, stupid shit like Dye does I may have to fly down there just to slap you Teban

[TK-421]

And that flicker is normal, it's what happens when you record screens with a camera. It's actually what the computer screen does, if I remember correctly, and your eye can't detect it, but the camera can. Try watching videos where they film the old CRT computer monitors, those flicker a lot.

And the first thing I would've done, is grab the Creed with gloves.

[Latsabb]

TK-421, on 02 September 2010 - 01:12 AM, said:

And that flicker is normal, it's what happens when you record screens with a camera. It's actually what the computer screen does, if I remember correctly, and your eye can't detect it, but the camera can. Try watching videos where they film the old CRT computer monitors, those flicker a lot.

And the first thing I would've done, is grab the Creed with gloves.

They only flicker if the camera is not synced correctly. Assuming that the screen is going at 60 hertz, and it producing 60 frames per second, and the camera is recording at 30 frames per second, it is 100% possible for the camera to be synced to the screen's refresh rate. However, if the camera is not in sync, several of the frames that it captures will be when the screen is displaying nothing at all. So, you get that flickering because the camera has taken frames when the screen is not displaying any frames. Your eye does not notice, because the brain only processes about 30 frames per second.

[IhasAcellular]

wouldnt it be possible for your brain to not be synced as well then?

[Latsabb]

IhasAcellular, on 02 September 2010 - 01:35 AM, said:

wouldnt it be possible for your brain to not be synced as well then?

Our optics do not work in frames per second, because the images our eyes display to our brain are streaming, not a series of pictures flipping at high speed. But it is true that some people are more sensitive than others, and can distinguish frames at 30 frames per second, which is why most televisions and screens are refreshed 50-60 times a second, while still only producing 27-30 frames. It just refreshes the same images when a new frame is not available, and at that speed, your brain wont pick it up.

[TK-421]

Latsabb, on 02 September 2010 - 01:38 AM, said:

IhasAcellular, on 02 September 2010 - 01:35 AM, said:

wouldnt it be possible for your brain to not be synced as well then?

Our optics do not work in frames per second, because the images our eyes display to our brain are streaming, not a series of pictures flipping at high speed. But it is true that some people are more sensitive than others, and can distinguish frames at 30 frames per second, which is why most televisions and screens are refreshed 50-60 times a second, while still only producing 27-30 frames. It just refreshes the same images when a new frame is not available, and at that speed, your brain wont pick it up.

Actually our eyes do display pictures flipping at a high speed, that's all that video is, a series of pictures flipped at a high rate of speed to trick our brains into thinking it's movement. Haven't you ever seen a strip of film for a projector?

[Latsabb]

TK-421, on 02 September 2010 - 02:36 AM, said:

Actually our eyes do display pictures flipping at a high speed, that's all that video is, a series of pictures flipped at a high rate of speed to trick our brains into thinking it's movement. Haven't you ever seen a strip of film for a projector?

You completely misunderstood my post. My point is that your eyes do not capture frames, and send that frame to the brain. Although it might be LOOKING at frames, the data being supplied to your brain is in real time, so your brain will not be out of sync with the screen.

[IhasAcellular]

so...I should not be able to see the difference between 50fps, and 90fps which I can easily do while playing css? (or at least I think I can, maby its all in my head)


Damn....maby I really am hacking!

lol.

This post has been edited by IhasAcellular: 02 September 2010 - 03:01 AM

[Latsabb]

IhasAcellular, on 02 September 2010 - 03:00 AM, said:

so...I should not be able to see the difference between 50fps, and 90fps which I can easily do while playing css? (or at least I think I can, maby its all in my head)


Damn....maby I really am hacking!

lol.

Like I said, some people are more sensitive than others. But you are confused here. The difference you might be seeing is the smoothness. Games that do not use motion blur appear to be less smooth at slower frame rates because all the frames produced are static. Pause a movie, and you will see any movement is shown with a blur. That allows things to appear more fluid at lower frame rates. However, the difference between 50 and 90 should not be noticeable at all. The US has power that operates at 60 hertz, and therefor the screens refresh 60 times per second. Even if your card is supplying 100 frames per second, the screen's images simple will not update more than 60 times a second. In Europe, it is 50 hertz, and therefor a refresh of 50 a second. Some screens and software allow you to modify the hertz of your screen, but no real results come from that, as the brain simply will not process it.

And that is why a movie at 27 frames per second looks fluid, but a video game (without motion blur) at 27 a second looks a bit choppy.

[Teban]

IhasAcellular, on 02 September 2010 - 01:02 AM, said:

........Why the fuck would you bake a creed?

I love Vanguard, but if they start doing pointless, stupid shit like Dye does I may have to fly down there just to slap you Teban

We were testing a lube, not doing pointless, stupid shit