Damn, and my mates thought I was good for spotting the single frame where E Honda appears in the fast and the furious
Those pilots are on another level.-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
How many FPS can you actually see?
- Thread starter Bickaxe
- Start date
Damn, and my mates thought I was good for spotting the single frame where E Honda appears in the fast and the furious
Those pilots are on another level.
Zero
We Humans don't see in Frame per second unless we have Robot Camera eyes.
+1. human vision is analogue, not digital.
Some good points here:
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
They ran a test on combat pilots where they had an image of something different on a 320 fps video. Most of the pilots picked out what the image was, so it is conceivably possible for the human eyes to see more than 320 fps.
My memory is bad, so I will dig out the info.
Edit: Didn't take long
http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
It was 220 not 320.
Yep that's right. It's a matter of changes in light.
When I was in the Royal Danish AirForce we had similar test situations but that was more regarding aircraft recognition and being able to register and identity the silhouette of an aircraft within a fraction of a second.
On Discovery long time ago I recall them saying that the human eyes is so delicate that if it was possible (not possible due to the curvature of the earth), then in pitch black darkness your eye would be able to register a match being stroke 80km away !
Just to chip in,
Films are shot at 24 frame to not be like real life, its a art choice for film, so there is no real link to games in that sense. As someone pointed out our eyes don't see in FPS, maybe the best way to think of it, you perceive what's in front of you because you brain decodes it for you and tells you what it is just at very high speeds.. The 48 frame version of the hobbit looked great in some scene's but in others the 24 frame version was better from the art side of the film. Not all films would look better if shot in a higher frame rate.
With regard to the pilots, I'm not sure its about FPS its about reaction time/brain training, they see the smallest amount of information in this case a plane silhouette at 1/220th speed, which remember they have looked at a million times before in training, then their brain like a puzzle puts it together for them after the fact, how quickly is down to brain training. I would also guess they did not make out any detail of the plane just the basic shape and got the answer from that.. i.e was the plane damaged i doubt they noticed, things you would pick up the longer you looked at it.
I could go on for ages as a number of point raised are right & wrong at the same time however the basic point is, perception of change is the key to this concept & person (a) will always see it different to person (b), so when someone says they are happy at 30fps no one can say they are wrong as you will never see what they see...
Films are shot at 24 frame to not be like real life, its a art choice for film, so there is no real link to games in that sense. As someone pointed out our eyes don't see in FPS, maybe the best way to think of it, you perceive what's in front of you because you brain decodes it for you and tells you what it is just at very high speeds.. The 48 frame version of the hobbit looked great in some scene's but in others the 24 frame version was better from the art side of the film. Not all films would look better if shot in a higher frame rate.
With regard to the pilots, I'm not sure its about FPS its about reaction time/brain training, they see the smallest amount of information in this case a plane silhouette at 1/220th speed, which remember they have looked at a million times before in training, then their brain like a puzzle puts it together for them after the fact, how quickly is down to brain training. I would also guess they did not make out any detail of the plane just the basic shape and got the answer from that.. i.e was the plane damaged i doubt they noticed, things you would pick up the longer you looked at it.
I could go on for ages as a number of point raised are right & wrong at the same time however the basic point is, perception of change is the key to this concept & person (a) will always see it different to person (b), so when someone says they are happy at 30fps no one can say they are wrong as you will never see what they see...
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 191
I do hope the people who are saying that 60 fps is the best they see and that they can't see the difference at 120 are actually on a 120 Hz monitor.The amount of people that unlock vsync on a 60 hz monitor then look at fraps and see 100+ frames being shown and come to the conclusion that it looks the same are actually quite a significant proportion.Its a bit like the people in you tube comments goin on about frame rate and image quality on a highly compressed 30 fps video and saying that 120 fps vs 60 fps is the same.......and there still watching this 30 fps Video on a 60 Hz screen just to rub it in .
.It's not the same picture they've watched a million times ! It's about recognizing the shape and from of the object they've trained for a million times regardless of how the angle of the silhouette is shown.
They perceive the light which is "transformed" to a picture by the brain - and the brain them starts going through an extensive "memory bank" to recognize the shape/form.
Also if we were to see and interpret and to react to every single picture/frame we perceive we would live in a slow motion world just like flies.
I do hope the people who are saying that 60 fps is the best they see and that they can't see the difference at 120 are actually on a 120 Hz monitor.The amount of people that unlock vsync on a 60 hz monitor then look at fraps and see 100+ frames being shown and come to the conclusion that it looks the same are actually quite a significant proportion.Its a bit like the people in you tube comments goin on about frame rate and image quality on a highly compressed 30 fps video and saying that 120 fps vs 60 fps is the same.......and there still watching this 30 fps Video on a 60 Hz screen just to rub it in
I think it really comes down to the fact if you can be bothered by it or not. No matter if you see the difference or not.
Last edited:
I do hope the people who are saying that 60 fps is the best they see and that they can't see the difference at 120 are actually on a 120 Hz monitor.The amount of people that unlock vsync on a 60 hz monitor then look at fraps and see 100+ frames being shown and come to the conclusion that it looks the same are actually quite a significant proportion.Its a bit like the people in you tube comments goin on about frame rate and image quality on a highly compressed 30 fps video and saying that 120 fps vs 60 fps is the same.......and there still watching this 30 fps Video on a 60 Hz screen just to rub it in
however FPS & Hz are two different things, so yet again its back to perception of change, you see it = great for you, but the next person along may not, this does not mean they get anything less from it, they just get what they perceive. There are also many many more factors going into your jump from i guess a 60Hz monitor to your current 120Hz.
To be honest OcUK could do a great pepsi challenge on this, i did think about asking them to set it up to give us real people data.
you take two systems (built the same), put them next to each other in the OcUk shop with the best 60Hz monitor on the market (option A) & the best 120Hz monitor (option B), they would need to enclose the monitor so you could only see the picture to stop people working out which is which, then say have them both looping the valley demo, then get people who pop in to vote which is better. If 120Hz is across the board better as you perceive it everyone would vote the same way, I'm not sure they would
I did not say they watched it a million times, i said they have looked at it a million times, in training i'm sure they read up and study what planes look like
i.e the shape of a euro fighter looks the same every time, it does matter which way up it is, it's still a euro fighter it does not turn into a Mig... when looked at upside down.
So in a different way you have said what i have said, glad we are on the same page
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 191
I think you miss my point, I'm saying you need a 120 Hz monitor to actually comment on 120 fps beings smooth.you'd be surprised at the amount of people who say they can't tell the difference between 60/120 but they're making the fundamental mistake of viewing the content on a screen that can't display greater than 60 discrete images a second or the other thing is the game they are running isn't actually running at 120 fps.
Now if people still can't see a difference,I'm not arguing that though i am non-plussed as to why
at least they are viewing the content on the correct medium.framerate counters only tell you what your GPU is producing,that doesn't mean that your display is showing you that amount which what catches some people out i fear.
They see the fraps count of 85 fps and assume that's what they are seeing and to them it looks the same as 60 fps which is why they make the assumption that going above 60 has no effect for them,but of course they are still only seeing 60 fps in both cases because of there monitor limit of 60 hz.
Now if people still can't see a difference,I'm not arguing that though i am non-plussed as to why
at least they are viewing the content on the correct medium.framerate counters only tell you what your GPU is producing,that doesn't mean that your display is showing you that amount which what catches some people out i fear.They see the fraps count of 85 fps and assume that's what they are seeing and to them it looks the same as 60 fps which is why they make the assumption that going above 60 has no effect for them,but of course they are still only seeing 60 fps in both cases because of there monitor limit of 60 hz.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 3,417
Your eyes train to see the extra frames......
The more time you spend looking at high framerates the more your eyes and brain get used to having that information at that speed. This results in your brain and eyes noticing lower frame rates more easily.
It's the same with resolution, many of us have experienced it first hand, Especially if your used to watching TV in HD, now that we've been used to it for a prolonged period of time our brains and eyes find SD footage uncomfortable to watch where as before we had HD it was perfectly acceptable.
The more time you spend looking at high framerates the more your eyes and brain get used to having that information at that speed. This results in your brain and eyes noticing lower frame rates more easily.
It's the same with resolution, many of us have experienced it first hand, Especially if your used to watching TV in HD, now that we've been used to it for a prolonged period of time our brains and eyes find SD footage uncomfortable to watch where as before we had HD it was perfectly acceptable.
I think you miss my point, I'm saying you need a 120 Hz monitor to actually comment on 120 fps beings smooth.you'd be surprised at the amount of people who say they can't tell the difference between 60/120 but they're making the fundamental mistake of viewing the content on a screen that can't display greater than 60 discrete images a second or the other thing is the game they are running isn't actually running at 120 fps.
Now if people still can't see a difference,I'm not arguing that though i am non-plussed as to why
They see the fraps count of 85 fps and assume that's what they are seeing and to them it looks the same as 60 fps which is why they make the assumption that going above 60 has no effect for them,but of course they are still only seeing 60 fps in both cases cases because of there monitor limit of 60 hz.
I got your point, hence why i did not make comment about the you tube example you gave as its a true issue, missed by many. I was just extending from that to the whole 60 vs 120 & that part still being a perception issue, hence the pepsi challange
It's all about change really. The more dramatic the change the more easily we can perceive it (up to a limit), so a single image flashing on once in the dark for 1/200th second would be perceived. In a series of continuous images like a film or game it's going to be much lower, not very much above 60fps.
A lot of people do confuse fps and Hz, hence the common belief that films are actually shown at 24Hz.
A lot of people do confuse fps and Hz, hence the common belief that films are actually shown at 24Hz.
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 191
I agree that a lot of people wouldn't even on the Pepsi challenge, be able to see a difference by just watching a passive demo.slow panning demos are quite tricky to spot 60 vs 120 etc.faster movement using a mouse to control something would probably be easier for people to distinguish between the 2 to be honest.
Heck even letting someone move the mouse cursor around windows for a couple of minutes would probably have a significant proportion side with the 120 hz monitor,i know that was the first thing that struck me when I went to 120 hz mode.of course like you said it's easier to tell the difference when you switch from one to other,but coming in blind off the street to the ordinary everyday Joe who hadn't used 120 hz/fps before maybe they wouldn't be able to tell.
Like almighty15 said ,once you get used to something it's quite tricky going back, I know I would find it tricky goin back to 60 ...I never liked it when I gave up my CRT at 85/100 hz ,goin to a 60 hz LCD was quite painful although I sort of got used to it.
Maybe the main difference is in FEEL as much as anything,120 fps if nothing else feels much smoother for gaming anyway.
Heck even letting someone move the mouse cursor around windows for a couple of minutes would probably have a significant proportion side with the 120 hz monitor,i know that was the first thing that struck me when I went to 120 hz mode.of course like you said it's easier to tell the difference when you switch from one to other,but coming in blind off the street to the ordinary everyday Joe who hadn't used 120 hz/fps before maybe they wouldn't be able to tell.
Like almighty15 said ,once you get used to something it's quite tricky going back, I know I would find it tricky goin back to 60 ...I never liked it when I gave up my CRT at 85/100 hz ,goin to a 60 hz LCD was quite painful although I sort of got used to it.
Maybe the main difference is in FEEL as much as anything,120 fps if nothing else feels much smoother for gaming anyway.
While it's generally accepted that most of us don't really need more than 60 FPS for effective immersion, the human eye is certainly capable of noticing far more, e.g. humans can consistently notice differences at 1/220th of a second:
http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
Dash, I like your thinking & to be honest you maybe right i don't know, hence the idea of a Pepsi challange, I do think, if there is a real difference then anyone should be able to see it, this should be present in anything show on screen at all times regardless of fast moving or a looped demo. The looped demo is easy to control & in a test set-up everything has to be equal with just 1 thing different in this case the monitor.
If however its a perception issue then the results would not go all the way to 1 side, however the test set-up would need controls, placebo testing i.e both at 60 etc, something I'm sure OcUk don't have time for.
However i don't feel we are looking at all the changes & maybe we are only scratching at the surface of the whole issue, think about your 60 monitor when did you buy it, was it the best tech at the time, then think about your 120 monitor, techs moved on since your 60Hz days, does it have better tech running it are the response times better etc these are all factors with your perception of the change.
A personal example of this for me(this is basic), however i just got a new tv it only does 1080p 60Hz just like my last tv in fact it has almost all the same features, however the picture is better in every way possible, why because the tech has moved on so improvements are made through time, is this effect being thought about within the 60 vs 120 debate, there are many more factors this is just 1 of many that go in front of the jump from 60 to 120 but are people going its all down to the 120Hz.
If however its a perception issue then the results would not go all the way to 1 side, however the test set-up would need controls, placebo testing i.e both at 60 etc, something I'm sure OcUk don't have time for.
However i don't feel we are looking at all the changes & maybe we are only scratching at the surface of the whole issue, think about your 60 monitor when did you buy it, was it the best tech at the time, then think about your 120 monitor, techs moved on since your 60Hz days, does it have better tech running it are the response times better etc these are all factors with your perception of the change.
A personal example of this for me(this is basic), however i just got a new tv it only does 1080p 60Hz just like my last tv in fact it has almost all the same features, however the picture is better in every way possible, why because the tech has moved on so improvements are made through time, is this effect being thought about within the 60 vs 120 debate, there are many more factors this is just 1 of many that go in front of the jump from 60 to 120 but are people going its all down to the 120Hz.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
Eyes = 500FPS.
Brain = ?????
Your brain is highly selective about data input from your eyes, the vast majority of it is processed by the subconscious mind.
You might not perceive any difference, your brain will just throw away 99% of the information your eyes bring to it.
It is easily possible to not be able to tell between 30/60 and 120FPS, but to benefit from the increased speed. Your subconscious mind will take care of that, your brain will select the information and trigger reaction before you can comprehend it.
You must simply clear your mind
Brain = ?????
Your brain is highly selective about data input from your eyes, the vast majority of it is processed by the subconscious mind.
You might not perceive any difference, your brain will just throw away 99% of the information your eyes bring to it.
It is easily possible to not be able to tell between 30/60 and 120FPS, but to benefit from the increased speed. Your subconscious mind will take care of that, your brain will select the information and trigger reaction before you can comprehend it.
You must simply clear your mind
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 403
This...
TBH the way the Frostbite engine is designed it runs perfectly well at 40fps. Each game engine is different, and some need higher fps to be bearable, but I find with BF 45-50fps seems to be perfectly fine!
For me anyways xD