Human eye and FPS (frames per second)

[Big D.]

He designed a split screen program that lets you sample 2 different FPS rates. Pretty neat for proving to ppl that you can tell the difference >30fps.

http://www.tweakguides.com/files/FPSCompare_v05_beta.zip

Oh thank Science! I always look for this program whenever this debate starts every few months. I keep forgetting what it's called or where to find it.

Everyone please get this 11kb application from here:
http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_5.html

It's the simplest and best way to see for yourself that eyes definitely need more fps in games without motion blur. Another way to test that is to play an FPS game at 30 fps and move your mouse in a circular fashion...Your view will seem jumpy as hell if you don't have 60 fps or more so your eyes definitely notice it.

 

[Benny]

Although this changed upon the introduction of IC based television sets... I guess it costs too much to change around what's already in place huh...

But yeah, you're definitely right... 240fps might be pushing it, but it's quite acceptable to feel over 100, and even 200 "frames" a second. Understanding the information in these frames, however, I don't think is possible.

yup, it's the same with flicker, we can't point to a single flash of light, but that doesn't keep us from getting a headache ^^;

 

[vogar34]

If you take the feel of the game out of the equation everyone will notice frames a little differently because their eyes are different. Some people can't notice even one frame per second..........because they are blind!!!!!!

 

[larkin]

120hz TVs are definetly a different experience. It's mostly only apparent though when the camera angle is fixed. If there's a lot of action in a scene, strangely you don't notice the 120hz as much. I watched a split screen samsung with half 120hz turned on. It was really cool except it's a hack of sorts, it's not 120hz it's 60hz with interpolation between frames. You can notice the hack because they showed a golf shot and there was an image of the ball in the air and two ghost balls in front and behind it, so that's an example of the DSP hack failing with certain content. Not sure why they can't get LCDs to natively refresh.. faster. VESA standards estimated 72 fps to be the average perciveable non flicker rate

 

[Hazaro]

120hz TVs are definetly a different experience. It's mostly only apparent though when the camera angle is fixed. If there's a lot of action in a scene, strangely you don't notice the 120hz as much. I watched a split screen samsung with half 120hz turned on. It was really cool except it's a hack of sorts, it's not 120hz it's 60hz with interpolation between frames. You can notice the hack because they showed a golf shot and there was an image of the ball in the air and two ghost balls in front and behind it, so that's an example of the DSP hack failing with certain content. Not sure why they can't get LCDs to natively refresh.. faster. VESA standards estimated 72 fps to be the average perciveable non flicker rate

And you know...

You can use that 3D port to get 60fps 3D

 

[Linked]

lol, this makes me think about when i dreamed that Life was run on ATI HD 6870/ 500gb gddr9 ram and an intel core2 "ocho" QO10,770 @ 8.40Ghz

 

[kuyaglen]

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

 

[bbf]

Going back to Arcygenical's post, When watching DVD's on my computer, I can notice the slowing/stuttering when the camera is moving quickly, whereas in a theatre I cannot. It's gotten to the point where if I watch movies, I have to do it at night .

The jerkiness of movement is most probably because your DVD software on your computer doesn't do 3:2 pull down properly, not the "smoothness" of 24fps film.

First by Crysis firing animations, and then running my desktop at 60Hz makes my eyes hurt.

I'm spoiled on 85Hz

You're confusing REFRESH RATES on Computer Monitor CRT's with phosphors that need refreshing faster than 60Hz with minimum frame rates for PERCEPTION OF FLUID MOTION.

Those are two different things, related, but not what we're talking about in this thread.

Current LCD monitors response rates are nearing the microsecond barrier, much better than millisecond, and equating to even more FPS

Current LCD's only have 1-2 ms reaction times and that's with crappy colour TN displays, which in my books is still at least 1000-2000 times more than 1 microsecond.

 

[Arcygenical]

lol, this makes me think about when i dreamed that Life was run on ATI HD 6870/ 500gb gddr9 ram and an intel core2 "ocho" QO10,770 @ 8.40Ghz

Stop hitting the pipe my friend, everyone knows that life uses an nVidia 15000GTX SSC edition, and an intel ZOMG decacore.

Goddamn, this is like, common knowledge.

 

[Hazaro]

You're confusing REFRESH RATES on Computer Monitor CRT's with phosphors that need refreshing faster than 60Hz with minimum frame rates for PERCEPTION OF FLUID MOTION.

Those are two different things, related, but not what we're talking about in this thread.

When the fps hits the refresh rate (85Hz) it's 85fps. e.g. When I had Crysis on medium and got 85fps I remember that the shooting animations were draw more fluidly that they were at 60 or 45.

I mean to say both, but mixed them together.

 

[Koko56]

Stop hitting the pipe my friend, everyone knows that life uses an nVidia 15000GTX SSC edition, and an intel ZOMG decacore.

Goddamn, this is like, common knowledge.

Fanboy!

 

[junglicious]

If your monitor has a refresh rate of 60hz, doesn't that mean it can only display 60fps? Also when people say they want over 60fps like 80-100fps is so that when the fps drop in the game it would still be at around 60fps. From what I read, most people can't tell the difference of <60fps. Any one with hard evidence?

 

[wrangler]

If your monitor has a refresh rate of 60hz, doesn't that mean it can only display 60fps? Also when people say they want over 60fps like 80-100fps is so that when the fps drop in the game it would still be at around 60fps. From what I read, most people can't tell the difference of <60fps. Any one with hard evidence?

This entire thread was started with hard proof that people CAN tell the difference up to 200fps. Did you read the link? Air Force study?

Refresh rate and fps have nothing to do with each other unless vsync is turned on.

 

[junglicious]

This entire thread was started with hard proof that people CAN tell the difference up to 200fps. Did you read the link? Air Force study?

Refresh rate and fps have nothing to do with each other unless vsync is turned on.

Ok, so this is true because you read what someone wrote on the net. He might or might not be 100% right. We are still talking pc monitor viewing right, and not real world? I would like to know where he got his references/sources from, surely he did not come up with this all by himself? Also are there any other studies or article related to that article to back it up? I am not trying to argue what the eye can or can not see. I just want some facts to back up what I read. My original reply where questions and were not meant to state any facts.

btw, who here can tell the difference between 100fps (if even possible) to 200fps on a computer monitor?

 

[MrGuvernment]

Stop hitting the pipe my friend, everyone knows that life uses an nVidia 15000GTX SSC edition, and an intel ZOMG decacore.

Goddamn, this is like, common knowledge.

and flux capacitors!!

 

[MrGuvernment]

If your monitor has a refresh rate of 60hz, doesn't that mean it can only display 60fps? .......

.

Yes it does, anything more then 60FPS it drops the frames, why, because your monitor cant display more then the set refresh rate, why LCD it is suggested to use Vsync, or you get tearing, the monitor trying to display mre FPS then it is capable of.