I wish this forum didn’t have such a severe limitation on flagging posts.
3 Likes
At this point I just have to assume you’re trolling, but if somehow you’re not, you really need to go see an eye doctor ASAP.
1 Like
My eyes are perfectly fine. Did you read the research on the topic?
They very clearly are not
Yes, and you grossly misunderstood it.
1 Like
my eyes are great
Chopin is talking about the brain acquiring visual information which it can process and on which it can act. He’s not saying that we can’t notice a difference between 20 Hz and 60 Hz footage. “Just because you can see the difference, it doesn’t mean you can be better in the game ,” he says. “After 24 Hz you won’t get better, but you may have some phenomenological experience that is different.” There’s a difference, therefore, between effectiveness and experience.
https://www.pcgamer.com/how-many-frames-per-second-can-the-human-eye-really-see/
I’m inclined to bet you don’t have the average perception.
A client once setup his 75Hz monitor as 60Hz and that was already noticeable enough to me.
2 Likes
Some classic console games were revolutionary because they moved from 30fps to 60fps because I think, maybe, 60fps will seem smoother. But maybe OP doesn’t need 300fps, I don’t think.
1 Like
It kinda depends upon what you’re looking at (source: my background is neuroscience, and we actually did the FPS vision test for our capstone!)
In short, for most things, the human eye stops making appreciable distinctions around 45-50 FPS. For example, if you show a video of someone taking a relaxing walk with their dog, generally people can’t tell much difference beyond ~50 FPS (obviously depends on the person). While technically it can “see” higher framerates, your brain is adequately capable of interpolation that it fills in the gaps, meaning you don’t notice any difference.
Exceptions arise when you start seeing things that are A) unexpected, or B) fast-moving. The reason why, in short, is because what your eye sees and what your brain interpolates aren’t the same, so it kicks back to your eyes’ input. The “no further distinction” for fast motion depends heavily on what you’re looking at and how fast it’s moving, but it the highest we could push anyone’s eye to detect a framerate difference was around 120 FPS for motion. If I had to guess, for something really fast, it could probably go higher, but we’d need something larger than a monitor to observe that.
For unexpected stimuli, however, it’s much higher, and the human eye can detect single frames up to around 500 FPS… though it’s worth mentioning that is for a single color frame that blinks while staring at alternate color frames (basically, flashing a fully green frame and inserting a single red frame… we actually learned one of our lab members was mildly colorblind as he stopped noticing a difference around a whopping 10 frames per second lol). For a scene with actual stuff, without having actually tested that scenario, I’m gonna say it’s considerably lower, but it becomes more difficult to tell because you also begin factoring in ancillary processes like attention & information filtering which are much harder to measure.
2 Likes
That has literally nothing to do with the perception of motion.
That quote is just unbelievably wrong.
1 Like
Adrien Chopin is a post-doc researcher in cognitive sciences.
You think you know more than him? Lol
Feels isn’t scientific.
Also pcmags aren’t scientific too for example one says it takes 13ms for the brain to process and image and concluded the eye works at 75fps…
That isn’t how stuff works for example a pc can take 10ms to process an image but it doesn’t mean you get a frame rate of 100 fps.
As for what is scientific people can see a flash in 1/220 second
The nerve in the eye can transfer data upto 1000 times a second
The difference between 120 and 240 fps can been seen easily by the common person via ufo test.
There are many blind tests on YouTube showing people can react faster even with 360hz monitors.
Either way my point saying an eye ball has a fps of 30 or 75 or 90 is saying it only takes in data 30 or 75 or 90 times a second which isn’t the case and is proven. Not only this the eye is a sensor not and sensors don’t work in fps.
Now yes there a limit to the number of times the brain can take data from the eye. That’s 300 to 1000 times a second the limit of the nerve that is connected to the eye so if you wanted to give the eye ball a fps it’s 300 to 1000. It still wouldn’t be correct because that’s not how sensors work.
Now yes there is more to it than that there is a limit to how much data the brain can process and if I could answer that I’d probably be close to winning a noble prize.
As for what’s can be measured and that is the a human is able to see a flash that exsists for less than 1/200 of a second. A person can easily see the difference between 120 240 fps on certain tests and people reactions can improve going from 240 to 360 fps.
With all this you don’t see me going the eye works at 300fps because it’s dumb and not how the human body works.
In the terms of monitors all the way up to 360hz can have an effect but the effects are diminished as you go higher.
2 Likes
Basic experience tells me he’s very obviously wrong if he thinks performance will not improve over 24hz.
I’m sorry but sometimes experts in a field do get things wrong. This is an obvious case with excessive amounts of documented evidence showing otherwise.
1 Like
I bet your sources are probably YouTube videos from laymen who aren’t researchers in the field
So, how many FPS can the human eye see?
You may wonder what happens if you’re watching something with a really high FPS rate. Are you actually seeing all those frames that flash by? After all, your eye doesn’t move as fast as 30 images per second
The short answer is that you may not be able to consciously register those frames, but your eyes and brain may be aware of them.
For example, take the 60-frames-per-second rate that many have accepted as the uppermost limit.
Some research suggests that your brain might actually be able to identify images that you see for a much shorter period of time than experts thought.
For example, the authors of a 2014 study out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that the brain can process an image that your eye sees for only 13 milliseconds — a very rapid processing speed.
That’s especially rapid when compared with the accepted 100 milliseconds that appears in earlier studies. Thirteen milliseconds translate into about 75 frames per second.
My sources are every person who’s played on a high refresh rate display and seen their performance go up. There is a rather abundant amount of evidence online of people who report this.
The studies you link are likely basing the results off off scenarios where framerate does not matter as much. Yes, my performance in pong will not improve much if at all over 30fps. But performance in other games that includes fast motion, like Overwatch, absolutely will. It’s a matter of having the proper domain for your testing to draw the correct conclusion. Lab scenarios do not always reflect the real world.
1 Like
Yeah I haven’t.
Upgraded from 75hz to 144 Hz and didn’t notice any improvement in performance
It’s literally based off studies of the brain
You might want to actually do some research
Remember our human brains are old computers and can only process the visual signal at around 13 ms anything faster is not used.
1 Like
You’re seriously unbelievable 
1 Like
Can’t refute the arguments and the research so resorts to non sequitur lol
Human eyes don’t see in frames. Just because you can’t perceive a difference in a game while you’re taking shots doesn’t mean you can’t see more than 75. I just explained above why motion blur is a thing in real life that you can only turn off in games.
(Fixed grammatical errors.)
2 Likes
No i just think you’re trolling. Like you seriously said “30hz is perfectly smooth” with a straight face.
2 Likes