Question about frame rates and the human eye...

[CamaroGuy]

I was wondering if there is a point where our eyes cannot detect an increase in frame rate.

I know with monitor refresh rates, anything above 85Hz, for me atleast, and my eyes do not notice any difference.

I guess what I want to know is this: will our eyes be able to tell the difference between, for example, 100 fps versus 90 fps. I am inclinded to think not, and if I'm right, then getting skyhigh frame rates is nothing more than bragging rights if the image looks just as good to your eyes at a lower, but still acceptable, frame rate. I think televsion (NTSC format) is broadcast in 30 fps and that looks pretty darn smooth to me.

-CamaroGuy

 

[Rain Man]

The human eye can't see more than 30 fps (why TV is 30 fps). Games are better off with higher fps since the fps is not constant.

 

[jeremy806]

Here we go again so I'll speak my peace now.

TV uses blurring to make 30fps look good.

30fps is crap for gaming. 60 fps minimum should be fine.

Jeremy

 

[Master Yoda]

at 25-30 fps (constant) it starts to look smooth, but if you watch something like a flight over rows of corn (repeated contrasting lines) on tv you can see the jerkiness if you look closely. tv also uses blurring as jeremy806 said. i believe they human eye can't see anything past 80 or so.

just my $0.02

 

[CamaroGuy]

Thanks guys.

-CamaroGuy

 

[Balt]

I think above 60 is excessive. In Counter-Strike I set my fps_max to 45, and I haven't noticed a difference between that and the default (72). Except for the fact that my ping dips a little.

 

[pyr]

the reason that you want a high fps rate on a computer monitor has a lot to do with the resolution. TVs have crap for resolution so it does just blur into each fram, but with a monitor, the high resolution means that it must be scanned much faster. thats why you can get a headache if you use a monitor running at a high resolution at 60Hz. it flickers badly enuf that youll get a headache even tho on a TV it would be perfectly fine.

 

[PCFreak]

Dude even 60fps in games to me is choppy I play with min 80 fps +

 

[Mday]

but with gaming, the frames are rendered in real time which means the FPS is an average where sometimes the FPS is below, and above your average... when below, it can be below that 30 which defines full motion video.

and there is a difference between frames also, a video chip would render an entire frame. CRTs refresh a line at a time.... or something like that.

 

[vlad]

Pcfreak, 60fps is definitely outside the area where you can detect a difference. Don't forget, however, that the psyche can have drastic effects on the physical body. So it's completely possible that somebody who spent $350 on a video card honestly believes that he can see a difference between 70 and 100fps.

BTW, TV is 29.97fps, and movies (on reels, like in movie theaters) are 24.

I don't mean to rip on anyone, but sometimes I think people who play at like 60+ fps do it mainly to masturbate their ego.

Vlad

 

[MarkyBoy]

A lot depends on the sort of game you play. As I play racing sims a constant frame rate is what matters to me. It is very annoying when you arrive at a slow corner behind another car after a straight and the frame rate slows down. Most people would agree that a constant 60fps would be great.

 

[pyr]

vlad: you are wrong about that. Think about it. under 60FPS means that every second 60 flashes go off right? well have you noticed that if you use a monitor (especially a large one) at 60Hz for a long time your will get a headache? You *do* noticed the flickering. it sucks. also you can notice it with some florescent lights. they are going at 60Hz which is the just about where it starts to get harder to detect the flicker but you still can especially if you move your arm or wave something around under florescent lights. fast motion gives the flicker away, and what are most games but fast motion.

 

[Olorin]

Also the phosphors in a television have a longer persistance, so 30Hz doesn't give the flicker that a monitor trying to display 30Hz would give.

I personally don't notice higher fps in games much; until recently I was using a TNT and was lucky to get much over 30fps, and CS and UT played fine. My CLA2 is noticebly smoother, but the higher resolutions are what I notice more than higher framerates. For me a steady lower framerate is fine.

I did read a convincing article once in favor of high framerates; the main argument was that the higher the framerate the more frames that are rendered during a fast turn: i.e. say you flip a 180 that takes 1/4sec, at 30fps 8 frames are rendered during the turn, so you only see a frame every 22deg. The higher the framerate the more you can see during extreme manuvering, like a QIII player would experience. But if you play more realistic slower paced games like CS or Rogue Spear that doesn't come into play as much, so a lower framerate is acceptible to most people. But some people are very sensitive to flicker and jittering, so they might discern the difference between high framrates that others might not see.

 

[kao]

Olorin, that's exactly what I've been thinking but couldn't articulate!!! I swear in Half-Life I could see stuff being launched at me better, like grenades from a distance as I rounded a corner and turned to see the trajectory with more FPS I totally play better on higher FPS. Instead of getting nailed my health takes a big hit, but I'm still standing cuz I could see the grenade.

 

[Insane3D]

I also must disagree with Vlad, it has been my experience that higher framerates translate into faster gameplay. My guess is you have not actually played any games over 60 fps. In Unreal Tournament I get a high of 150fps and a low of 50fps when there are lots of players on the screen. My average framerate in that game is usually a 70-90FPS average. I do notice the difference between 60 and 120 fps. I am always moving when playing UT or Q3 and the higher the framerate, the faster I move around. I think that any game plays better the faster the framerate...period. I also don't think comparing a TV to a larger monitor (19" and up) running in high resolution like 1280X1024, 32bit color, is a fair comparison. I think it is funny that people always say "that is enough FPS for me", when they haven't even played at a higher FPS. I used to think 60 was pretty cool, but the higher framerate I play with, the less I consider the earlier level "acceptable". It really all boils down to what is acceptable for YOU.

 

[Tangman]

Frame rates are also used to achieve quick reaction times, so you can stop on a dime, and strife at ease.

 

[pillowlover]

The human eye doesn't see in fps...

 

[stahlhart]

Don't necro old threads.
-- stahlhart