My friend is convinced 30fps is all the human eye can see. Is he a moron?

[duckdodgersuk]

"What if 30fps is all the human eye can see, but the brain is overclocked?"

 

[arcon33]

Bless him he's a console gamer in denial, probably thinks there's no difference between 900p and 4k as well

 

[Midlife Crisis]

Xbox owner is he?

 

[Relentless81]

Obvious console owner which isn't a problem in itself, only when they come out with magic like this to justify console ownership does it become a problem

 

[james.miller]

Hi, so I'm talking about why I prefer gta5 on the pc for the fluid 60fps and my friend is telling me 30fps is all anyone can detect and that it is the limit of human eyesight and motion detection?

I for sure can tell the difference massively and want to know how others feel.

You can see the difference so why are you asking us ? you already know the answer.

 

[Dicehunter]

Myelinated nerves can fire between 300 to 1000 times per second in the human body and transmit information at 200 miles per hour. What matters here is how frequently these nerves can fire (or "send messages").

The nerves in your eye are not exempt from this limit. Your eyes can physiologically transmit data that quickly and your eyes/brain working together can interpret up to 1000 frames per second but the end result after your brain has finished processing is roughly about 150-250 frames per second.

And here's info from the United States Air Force albeit slightly older than the info above:

"The USAF, in testing their pilots for visual response time, used a simple test to see if the pilots could distinguish small changes in light. In their experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. Pilots were consistently able to "see" the afterimage as well as identify the aircraft. This simple and specific situation not only proves the ability to perceive 1 image within 1/220 of a second, but the ability to interpret higher FPS."

So the end result is that we can actually see way way beyond 60, So tell your friend he needs a little education on the subject

 

[jupiter_man]

He should have gone to Specsavers!

 

[bemaniac]

You can see the difference so why are you asking us ? you already know the answer.

Why thank you. To humiliate him because he never takes a word I say.

 

[Rroff]

in tests with fighter pilots, they were able to identify pictures of enemy fighters down to 3.33ms (300fps), even the normal human range is 200-250fps

in other tests, they've found that the eye vibrates at around 80hz in order to expose more cones and rods to light and create a kind of super resolution - extracting more information from a scene by making maximum use of fewer receptors that you would otherwise need, so even just for a scene to look realistic it should be at least this frame rate

24fps is the absolute minimum to be perceived as movement, and even then movies rely on massive amounts of motion blur to hide that

Wonder if its related but in blind testing (lol in this context) curiously 80Hz is about the point that a lot of people's ability to notice the difference between higher refresh rate monitors starts to taper off. (i.e. a lot of people will be able to tell the difference between a 60Hz and a 80+Hz panel but a lot less could tell you if they were comparing a 60Hz panel against a say 85Hz panel or a 60Hz panel against a 120Hz panel).

There is more to it than just what the eye can see though - the rate at which a game updates tends to also have implications for how responsive it "feels" which goes beyond just the direct visual update.

 

[andybird123]

yeah, screen refresh rates also tend to be related to response times with the quicker the response the less blur it has, so a high refresh monitor will look clearer with less blur regardless of whether that affects perceived smoothness of motion

 

[Jarrastafari]

He's not a moron, just misinformed.

 

[bledd]

I was gutted going from playing CS on a 100hz (100fps) CRT to a TFT (limited to 60 fps)

 

[Orangey]

Really tired of this debate now.

30 -> 60 a difference should be readily apparent to anyone.

60 -> 120 the difference will be most noticeable when you drop back to 60 after a while. So I'm convinced after playing at 240 for a long time and dropping back to 120, you would notice it clearly too.

Didn't we settle this in the quake days? Doesn't help that greedy companies are trying to keep the lie alive to make consoles seem less rubbish. Ubisoft even paid Fudzilla to run an article on it! Diabolical.

 

[BluesFanUK]

There is a difference, you can tell on videos from 30f/s to 60f/s, it essentially looks like it's in faster motion, though you'll find a good number of people like to exaggerate how much difference there is, mainly gamers.

Take that video someone posted earlier of Project CARS in this thread. At 30fps you don't get judder like that. Whoever made it did it with a clear agenda.

 

[craig_t]

You can see the difference so why are you asking us ? you already know the answer.

I can't tell any difference between the two in that video?

 

[Mr Evil]

I come across the limits sometimes when making PWM LED controllers - anything less than 100Hz is quite obvious. Anything less than 200Hz is visible if you look the LED in your peripheral vision while it is moving. Well-known LED manufacturer Cree has a white paper that references an experiment from 1908 that suggests that flicker up to 500Hz can be seen.

But consider this! If you wanted to faithfully reproduce an image of an LED flickering at 500Hz, the sampling theorem says that you would need a frame rate no less than twice that - at least 1000Hz. Thus we have a long way to go before we can say that we don't need any more frames per second.

 

[TonyTurbo78]

These are the same console retards that think 900p upscaled is no different than 1080p and doesn't even know about resolutions higher than 1080p.

 

[Mart1ns]

Unfortunately he is yes haha. There is a lot less tearing on 144hz, so the image is smoother and easier to see. I don't know the exact science, but after i bought a 144hz monitor to play CSGO (high level competitive), I find playing on 60hz impossible, even just using the mouse on the desktop is insanely bad when you compare the two

 

[JL94x4]

He's a moron.

 

[Twirlywoos]

These are the same console retards that think 900p upscaled is no different than 1080p and doesn't even know about resolutions higher than 1080p.

900p upscaled to 1080p onto a 100" projector looks glorious

Maybe you need your eyes checking