Or, at the very least, that I can personally perceive more than 60fps. It's simply that when I use my laptop, at a 60Hz refresh rate, for very long at night with no other lights in room, generally reading articles over a mostly white screen. When I suddenly close the lid I can perceive a rapid flashing in front of me, the negative of what I was looking, much like those old optical illusions. If the flashing is perceptible, then change at 60Hz is perceptible to the eye, at least subconsciously. I would say that based on this 120Hz refresh rate monitors are useful for something other than 3D and would probably reduce eye fatigue.
'Subjective' Proof that the Human Eye Can Perceive More than 60fps
- Thread starter firewolfsm
- Start date
When I lived in the States I could see the 60Hz "pulsing" from fluorescent lights. After a bit I could ignore it, but no doubt I could see it.
If you google around a bit you'll find there is lots of studies on the temporal resolution of the human visual system and you can operate on a threshold (given the right light intensity) of detecting changes on the order of 1/200-1/300 of a second.
MagnusTheBrewer
IN MEMORIAM
- Jun 19, 2004
- 24,135
- 1,594
- 126
Mind explaining this statement?
A Hertz is simply 1/s. So yes 60Hz, technically, is equivalent to 60 FPS, or 60 m/s, etc...
If you mean that the monitor's refresh rate has no bearing on a video game's framerate then yes and no... ever hear of VSync?
busydude
Diamond Member
- Feb 5, 2010
- 8,793
- 5
- 76
Agreed. I game on a CRT. Love me some 85hz. 60hz (for fast games) truly feels incredibly choppy to me. After this 100 pound monster kicks the bucket I'll go for a 120hz LCD (or faster if they have it by then). I will miss the blacks though.
gorobei
Diamond Member
- Jan 7, 2007
- 3,669
- 997
- 136
false syllogism.
flashing of an after image on your retina only tells us something about your retinas, not the lcd. could be anything: transition from rod to cone sensor cells in the retina, stress induced increased blood pressure pressing against optic nerve causing false stimulation at whatever your pulse rate was.
flashing of an after image on your retina only tells us something about your retinas, not the lcd. could be anything: transition from rod to cone sensor cells in the retina, stress induced increased blood pressure pressing against optic nerve causing false stimulation at whatever your pulse rate was.
One of the problems with using a 120hz lcd. After a while it doesn't feel anything special but once you go back to 60hz it feels annoyingly choppy. Dirt2 for example refuse to work at 120hz in dx11 and you will feel the chopiness and horrible screen tearing instantly. If you happily using a 60hz, don't try a 120hz lcd!
this
IIRC, top fighter pilots are tested to be able detect and even identify the difference between enemy and friendly plane profiles when flashed somewhere on the order of 1/250th of a second
I know there's a link out there to a site that goes into depth on this topic, I'll try to find it but in the mean time I'm pretty sure they came to the conclusion that the ideal frame rate to most accurately simulate real world would be around 400-500fps
It the same for me, back in the old CRT days I used to notice refresh rates below 75hz and "felt" like the experiance was even smoother at 85hz.
Today on a LCD (75hz), I dont notice it.
I think it has something to do with how CRTs refresh the screen pixel by pixel, and you notice it "blinking". This isnt how LCDs work, so you dont notice that stuff.
Usually I dont hear/see "fluorescent lights" pulseing until they are starting to go bad. Then its very preceptable, on the bran new ones, usually I cant see it pulsateing.
Today on a LCD (75hz), I dont notice it.
I think it has something to do with how CRTs refresh the screen pixel by pixel, and you notice it "blinking". This isnt how LCDs work, so you dont notice that stuff.
Usually I dont hear/see "fluorescent lights" pulseing until they are starting to go bad. Then its very preceptable, on the bran new ones, usually I cant see it pulsateing.
ViRGE
Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
- Oct 9, 1999
- 31,516
- 167
- 106
Bingo. CRTs refresh by exciting the phosphors; they'll begin to dim as soon as they're no longer being excited. Being able to see a CRT flicker was less about your ability to quickly see things and more about your ability to perceive brightness.
these types of discussions remind me a lot of that ghost hunters show.
"did you see that?"
"i totally did! did you just feel that too?"
"oh oh! i totally just did!"
"did you see that?"
"i totally did! did you just feel that too?"
"oh oh! i totally just did!"
pcgeek11
Lifer
- Jun 12, 2005
- 21,321
- 4,439
- 136
lehtv
Elite Member
- Dec 8, 2010
- 11,900
- 74
- 91
Over 60hz is so easily noticeable that it boggles me why this thread needs to exist.
I wave around the mouse cursor at 60hz. Then at 120hz. 120hz updates the mouse cursor position twice as fast, so I see twice as many cursors at any given moment. It looks twice as smooth! Surprise!
I play an FPS game at 60hz locked to 60fps. I turn around quickly in-game. Then I play it at 120hz locked to 120fps, and turn around quickly. The turn feels twice as smooth! Surprise!
I wave around the mouse cursor at 60hz. Then at 120hz. 120hz updates the mouse cursor position twice as fast, so I see twice as many cursors at any given moment. It looks twice as smooth! Surprise!
I play an FPS game at 60hz locked to 60fps. I turn around quickly in-game. Then I play it at 120hz locked to 120fps, and turn around quickly. The turn feels twice as smooth! Surprise!
Last edited:
The author needs to learn the functional difference between the words "proof" versus "evidence".
There is no proof of anything here. At best the author is presenting subjective evidence, not even quantified evidence.
Thread title needs to be changed to avoid misrepresenting the reality of what the thread's OP actually contains.
It's not really that hard to setup fraps and check out various framerates on games you play to see where you notice a difference in gameplay.
I don't care what special testing has showed what. I care what I can actually notice. I did it for myself years ago by over / under-clocking my video card / CPU. I'd start noticing choppiness when the momentary FPS got into the mid 30s. It became annoying in the high 20s.
Everyone is going to be sensitive in different ways. I don't think you can assume any kind of universal number here. It's the kind of thing you have to test individually and see for yourself. It takes time to setup and run a bunch of tests like that; once you have this information though, you can make significantly more intelligent buying decisions on your hardware and cut through a LOT of the internet fluff / BS / hype (like CPU reviews showing CPU "bottlenecks" where minimum FPS is 70+ FPS).
I don't care what special testing has showed what. I care what I can actually notice. I did it for myself years ago by over / under-clocking my video card / CPU. I'd start noticing choppiness when the momentary FPS got into the mid 30s. It became annoying in the high 20s.
Everyone is going to be sensitive in different ways. I don't think you can assume any kind of universal number here. It's the kind of thing you have to test individually and see for yourself. It takes time to setup and run a bunch of tests like that; once you have this information though, you can make significantly more intelligent buying decisions on your hardware and cut through a LOT of the internet fluff / BS / hype (like CPU reviews showing CPU "bottlenecks" where minimum FPS is 70+ FPS).
Last edited:
Disclaimer: Incoming wall of text! I suck at biology, but you can find (MOST OF) those things I said via the internet if you try hard enough. This is not from one source, but from my memory(PLUS MY CONNECT THE DOT ABILITY). Please correct me if I have made mistakes.
First you have the understand the magic 60hz idea.
If you are presented with two slides, one completely white and one completely black, alternatively, then how fast does the alternation must be for you to perceive them as grey slides and not black and white, and the answer is when they are presented at 60hz.
That is not the same as saying a human eye can not see changes faster than 60hz, we can. What the result indicated was that, playing slides at 60hz will allow our brain to connect those individual slides, forming animation.
However, the test above was a test done really long time ago and there were lots of factors missing which may impact the result were not controlled. For example, the brightness of the room, the size of the display, the angle of the display etc. It was found that we can see the flashing when the display is not right in front of us, or we are not looking directly to the display.
More funny tests were done, like showing a frame with sky, glass and a house continuously and mix one with an ufo in it. Human were not able to detect this frame at first, but interestingly the idea of an UFO somehow got into their mind. So they change the UFO image with an image of coca-cola, and display it every 60th frame, playing it at 60 hz. Surprisingly, no candidates knew they have saw the bottle, but the image was in their brain.
This test was extended to show animation, with the coca-cola frame on every 60th frame. The result is even more interesting, all candidates fail to realize the existence of that slide, but all pick coca-cola when they were offered drink selection. Further test concluded that the slide does not need to show every 60th frame, but once is enough. Depending on what the rest of the animation represents, once is enough to trick us into believe that the image is what we think of instead of what we saw. However, once they were told and shown the coca-cola slide, they were all to detect its existence, even at much faster frequency.
In other words, we can see things happening beyond 1/60th of a second, but since the brain was not expecting the appearance of the image, so it simply discards it as a visual image, but the image itself is registered within the brain. When we were ask about it, the image comes back, but instead of thinking that it is something we just saw, we think of it as something that come across our mind.
As technology advances, we know how our eye functions. Light cause some chemical change in cells within our eyes. It isn't the magitude of change our eyes detect, but the rate of change of those chemicals. Depending on the magnitute of this chemical change, the chemical may not be able to restore to its stable state, and therefore we will see the image after we close our eyes, in the opposite colour.
Further study showed that our eyes actually move without us knowing it. To retine the image in front of us, the eyeball actually move periodically to prevent chemical changes to stop, and therefore losing the image presented by chemical changes. If the image actually moves with the eyeball, then in a few second the image becomes black eventually. To prevent that, we will involuntarily blink to restore the image.
All this lead to the understanding that it was not because we fuse image together when it is shown at 60hz, but rate of chemical changes in our eyes with write lights. Sorry, my chemistry and biology knowledge can't go further.
If you have a fan, or ever watched a fan starting (it was fun to do when I was young, next to singing into it), you will realize that the fan appears to decelerate in the direction it spins, to stop while we know it is spinning, and then accelerate in the opposite direction. Eventually, the blade disappears. That has something to do with the rate of change in chemicals in eyes and how our brain decodes the information sent from the eyes. A disc, containing 7 rainbow colours, will appears to be white if you spin the disc fast enough. Once again, it is the result of chemical changes.
Back to monitor. As you can see the 60hz phenomenon doesn't mean a whole lot when it comes to monitor. In fact, with fast moving objects, we can detect the discontinuation between frames, but we can't say it out as we never knew it happened. All our brain can tell us is that there is something wrong via pain. After a long intense gaming session, we feel tire. Part of it is because of the game, but part of it is the result of things that our brain fail to decode every 1/60th of a second. With 120hz monitor, this problem mostly goes away. Because of this, we are less tired, and since the information sent by the eye makes more sense, our brain are able to detect changes in FPS of a game. After a while, our brain will get used to 120hz and we can simply distinguish the difference between a 60hz monitor and a 120hz monitor in seconds of looking into it.
Last edited:
+1
though IIRC from one test setup, it was a dark room for several seconds, then a bright/short flash of a picture, then back to a dark room. It is more to do with the way the eye works waiting for a image to fade than the person's ability to "perceive" a fast rate of change.
you can do it on a bright day, just look at a bright area, then close your eyes. the Bright image is still present on your eye lids.
In LCD's it would be called ghosting and be a negitive effect you want to avoid. (generally though, some people like it as it helps smooth out motion, makeing it more natural).
Fayd
Diamond Member
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter