Finalyzing my computer build - need advice.

[DarknessofFT]

it really doesn't. I'm not explaining this a 3rd time. Just read.

The human visual system does not see in terms of frames; it works with a continuous flow of light information. A related question is, “how many frames per second are needed for an observer to not see artifacts?” However, this question also does not have a single straight-forward answer. If the image switches between black and white each frame, the image appears to flicker at frame rates slower than 30 FPS (interlaced). In other words, the flicker fusion point, where the eyes see gray instead of flickering tends to be around 60 FPS (inconsistent). However, fast moving objects may require higher frame rates to avoid judder (non-smooth, linear motion) artifacts — and the retinal fusion point can vary in different people, as in different lighting conditions. The flicker-fusion point can only be applied to digital images of absolute values, such as black and white. Where as a more analogous representation can run at lower frame rates, and still be perceived by a viewer. For example, motion blurring in digital games allows the frame rate to be lowered, while the human perception of motion remains unaffected. This would be the equivalent of introducing shades of gray into the black–white flicker.

Although human vision has no “frame rate”, it may be possible to investigate the consequences of changes in frame rate for human observers. The most famous example may be the wagon-wheel effect, a form of aliasing in the time domain; in which a spinning wheel suddenly appears to change direction when its speed approaches the frame rate of the image capture/reproduction system.
Different capture/playback systems may operate at the same frame rate, and still give a different level of "realism" or artifacts attributed to frame rate. One reason for this may be the temporal characteristics of the camera and display device.
Judder is a real problem in this day where 46 and 52-inch (1,300 mm) television sets have become the norm. The amount an object moves between frames physically on screen is now of such a magnitude that objects and backgrounds can no longer be classed as "clear". Letters cannot be read and looking at vertical objects like trees and lamp posts while the camera is panning sideways have even been known to cause headaches. The actual amount of motion blur needed to make 24 frames per second smooth eliminates every remnant of detail from the frames. Where adding the right amount of motion blur eliminates the uncomfortable side effects, it is more than often simply not done. It requires extra processing to turn the extra frames of a 120 FPS source (which is the current recording "standard") into adequate motion blur for a 24 FPS target. It would also potentially remove the detail and clarity of background advertising. Today, devices are up to the task of displaying 60 frames per second, using them all on the source media is very much possible. For example, the amount of data that can be stored on Blu-ray and the processing power to decode it is more than adequate. Though the extra frames when not filtered correctly, can produce a somewhat video-esque quality to the whole, the improvement to motion heavy sequences is undeniable. Televisions these days often have an option to do some kind of frame interpolation (what would be a frame between 2 real frames gets calculated to some degree), where for frames that are almost identical this can give some manner of improvement in judder, it comes nowhere close to a source having a higher number of frames, it is merely a trick to compensate for sources not having a high enough FPS rate. This interpolation creates artifacts on screen that are clearly noticeable also.

[Cyanotical]

I said the Human eye SEES NO DIFFERENCE, not it can only see up to...the human eye does NOT SEE IN FRAMES PER SECOND. I said that multiple times, if you're going to quote me, learn to read dude. If you play a video at 60 fps and a video at 120 fps, your eyes will not see a difference.

if you're gonna play a video on a 120hz, make sure it was recorded at 120fps first, then compare it to a 60fps and a 30 fps video, then reread what you said

[glo]

Ok... No where in your copy/pasted wikipedia article do I see this mystical 60fps perception limit.

Stop derailing this person's thread please.

[Anakso]

Just to interupt this random FPS debate thats happened...I'm tallying up the price using the site for the store I'll be buying it all from, and I noticed that Western digital green 2TB is cheaper than a western digital black 1TB, and theres also blue, whats the difference in the colors?

Also with a friends help I've decided to downgrade the Asus p8z68-V pro to an Asus p9p67-M Pro, the only difference we could find between the 2 was the Z68 has bluetooth and an on board graphics card, and of course is $100 more expensive.

[mbrodie0]

yeah it's all been great of you to hijack a thread of a guy looking for help for buying parts for his first self built computer..

btw, i have a sony bravia motionflow pro 200hz LED TV, does that make me awesome or something...

[Djinni]

Green is the "Eco" drive, it typically has a spin speed of 5200-5400rpm and a seek time of 8.9ms >
Blue is the "consumer" drive it typically has a spin speed of 7200RPM and a seek time of <8.9ms
Black is the "Gamer" drive it typically has a spin speed of 7200RPM and a seek time of <4.2ms

After that you get drives like the VelociRaptor which spins at 10,000rpm and has a seek time of <4.2ms

Most people ignore the Blue unless they're on a very tight budget and use the "Green" for Storage (Music, Movies etc..) and the "Black" for the main drive (OS+Apps etc...)

There are some other differences like Data Transfer rates from Buffer to Host etc... but I'm not sure off the top of my head exactly what those are.


I think also the Black drives tend to come with a 5 year manufacturer warranty whereas the Blue and Green tend to be 3Year. Although I'm unsure if that applies outside the UK. (Being a Manufacturer Warranty it should do)