Is it true human eye can detect more than 30 fps?
- Thread starter FortFunFoSho
- Start date
I am not sure why some games are different... but 50fps in UT2K3 is fine, but 50FPS in Quake 3 is way too slow.
Yep. Think about this: A TV picture is a steady 30 FPS. A movie is only 25 FPS. You do want a high average FPS, so that when 20 dudes are attacking from all directions, it doesn't ever fall below 25-30 FPS, even for a half second.
Yes. Are you insane?
Try looking at 30fps and then 60fps. Then 120fps.
Tell me you don't see a shocking difference between 30/60, and a smaller one between 60/120.
The human eye generally starts to become indiscriminant of motion at 75fps, but single images can be perceived with much less viewing time. Fighter pilots can identify the orientation and model of aircraft viewed for less than 1/200th of a second. :Q
- M4H
Try looking at 30fps and then 60fps. Then 120fps.
Tell me you don't see a shocking difference between 30/60, and a smaller one between 60/120.
The human eye generally starts to become indiscriminant of motion at 75fps, but single images can be perceived with much less viewing time. Fighter pilots can identify the orientation and model of aircraft viewed for less than 1/200th of a second. :Q
- M4H
How many times is this going to be debated? YES, we can see over 30fps.. Set your refresh rate to 30hz and tell me you can't tell the difference.. most people can tell the difference between 60hz and 75hz+ as well.. 30 FPS however LOOKS like smooth motion to us.. same with movies, 24 fps is enough with motion blur to fool our eyes.. however if movies were shot at 60fps, they would look CLEARER and it would be noticable.. But then things like motion blur have a different effect.
This is like that picture resolution thing. Someone told me the human eye can't tell any difference after a certain resolution. I can't remember if it's 1200x800 or something. Can someone confirm that?
Mr.IncrediblyBored
Lifer
- Jun 18, 2000
- 11,198
- 771
- 126
A steady 30fps on a computer monitor isn't enough. 3dfx used to have a demo on their website showing an 3D rendered donut that spun one direction, while the camera spun the other direction. They showed a 30 and 60fps version side-by-side, and you could quite clearly see a difference.
The average human eye can perceive stuttering at much greater than 30fps.
HomeBrewerDude
Lifer
- Jan 18, 2001
- 14,465
- 1
- 0
triumph is correct i believe.
peripherial vision can detect flicker up to around 70-75 hertz, but will be unable to detect any detail. Foveal vision can see the detail but has much less ability to detect flicker.
However, what some people might be seeing isn't flicker. If your 'picture' is moving quickly enough so that the layout of the picture changes significatntly between frames then you will see that a frame related artifact.
The only refresh rate and frame rate that is fast enough is the one where the discrete images become blurry. From experience with 3d graphics motion blur, I'd say 30fps * 16 would give a decent motion blur approximation. Maybe even as much as 25 times per frame. That's 480 to 750 fps before things start looking real. This is, of course, assuming the monitor's refresh rate can handle those insane refresh rates.
There's a program that allows you to have 2 images side by side and change the fps of each from something like 5 to 200 fps. I couldn't see much difference between 125 and 200, but less than 125 there was a difference to 200. It didn't look smooth until about 75.
I'll try and find where it was.
I'll try and find where it was.
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
I'm gonna confirm that by calling BS.
- M4H
There is picture resolution having to do with various factors in the human eye, all roughly the same order of magnitude. For wavelength of 550nm (what the eye detects best), the diffraction limit is about 8E-5 Rad to 6E-4 rad. That means the eye can have a resolving power of 2 micrometer at best and 15 micrometer at worst. Spherical and chromatic aberration also limit the resolution to 10 micrometer. The net result is that the eye can resolve objects whose angular separation is about 5E-4 rad at best. This corresponds to objects separated by 1cm at a distance of 20m.
Using that, you can figure out the maximum resolution the naked eye can detect on a monitor screen. =)
easy test:
1) fire up a half-life game (counter-strike, day of defeat, team fortress, whatever)
2) press ~ (for console)
3) type in "cl_showfps 1" without quotes to see your frames per second
4) type in "fps_max 30" without the quotes
5) run around to test
6) press ~ again, then type "fps_max 99" without quotes
7) be amazed!
even if your computer only gets 50 frames per second in the game, i guarantee you will see a difference!
1) fire up a half-life game (counter-strike, day of defeat, team fortress, whatever)
2) press ~ (for console)
3) type in "cl_showfps 1" without quotes to see your frames per second
4) type in "fps_max 30" without the quotes
5) run around to test
6) press ~ again, then type "fps_max 99" without quotes
7) be amazed!
even if your computer only gets 50 frames per second in the game, i guarantee you will see a difference!
Confused
Elite Member
- Nov 13, 2000
- 14,166
- 0
- 0
A TV is 25/30 FPS, however, it is interlaced. That means that it draws the odd lines, then the even lines (or other way round 
), and it does "motion blur", which the interlacing helps make it feel like it is a smooth picture. So, it is actually drawing 50/60 lines per second.
On computers, the monitor is drazwing one line from top to bottom, progressively scanned. This means that you need 50/60 FPS to appear to be as smooth as a TV picture.
However, the eye doesn't see in "Frames Per Second". There is no "absolute value" of what a human eye can detect, as each one is different. Some people have different perceptions of when they can't detect "FPS"
Do a search in the Video forum, there was a big thread debating this a few months back.
To quote (somewhat) what i saw someone say in another thread recently:
Horse
dead
beating
Confused
), and it does "motion blur", which the interlacing helps make it feel like it is a smooth picture. So, it is actually drawing 50/60 lines per second.On computers, the monitor is drazwing one line from top to bottom, progressively scanned. This means that you need 50/60 FPS to appear to be as smooth as a TV picture.
However, the eye doesn't see in "Frames Per Second". There is no "absolute value" of what a human eye can detect, as each one is different. Some people have different perceptions of when they can't detect "FPS"
Do a search in the Video forum, there was a big thread debating this a few months back.
To quote (somewhat) what i saw someone say in another thread recently:
Horse
dead
beating
Confused
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter