Whats the highest framerate that the human eye can detect?

[Genx87]

It is upto the user. 24 FPS is what they usually show movies at, TV is 30 FPS. But both are using some form of motion blur. This is something you dont get in GPUs(But I think 3dfx was working on something like this before they went out of business). This allows movies and TV to hve lower frame rates and still look smooth. Games I think would probably be noticeable upto 60 FPS for most people and some people may even notice from 60-120.

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by: Richdog
If something is moving at constant 30fps then that is what the human eye needs to see something as smooth. Even if the frame rate is higher it will still be only moving at the same speed as the constant 30fps would. Therefore anything higher is only psychologically noticeable, not physical. Simply put, you only THINK it's smoother because you KNOW it's running at a higher FPS. That's my thought anyway, feel free to debate.:beer:

LOL, I hope? Surely you've noticed how insufficient a movie's 24fps is during a panning shot of any decent speed?

I agree that an object will move at the same speed regardless of how many updates you get of its movement, but (I assume) we're talking about interactive games, not passive movies. You'll notice the difference between 30 and 60 and 120fps when you perform a 180 degree spin quickly. This was all covered in VIAN's thread.

 

[VIAN]

Oh yeah, I hate that, it looks all nice when your moving forward, but then suddenly you move your mouse to the left. Doh, it's crappy, this is one thing that I used to think was image tearing, cause it sort of looks like it, and it annoys me. I have to test something out like that.

By the way, TVs show 60 frames per second Interlaced in sync with a veritcal refresh of 60. 30fps progressive is to flickery, imagine your monitor at 30Hz.

 

[VIAN]

I finally tested it.

Tested with Voodoo5 5500 driven by Amigamerlin3.0xp playing Day of Defeat.

85fps@85Hz w/vsync looked smoother than 100fps@85Hz w/o vsync

This concludes that vsync is needed for the smoothest motion.

The following has VSYNC always on.

Now on to test 60fps@85Hz vs 85fps@85Hz.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: FFactory0x
isnt this like the biggest ongoing debate on the planet or at least ANANDTECH

Yes... the horse is dead and you're beating it's maggot infested carcass... please stop.

 

[VIAN]

Look... it's still moving!!

Don't bother coming into this thread and wasting space.

 

[VIAN]

85Hz w/vsync.

fps_max 60

Going forward is always smooth. But when you strafe or look side to side with the mouse, you are able to see a blur of multiple frames being rendered.

fps_max 85

Going forward is always smooth, unnoticeable from 60. But when you strafe or look side to side with the mouse, you aren't able to see the blur of multiple frames rendered unlike at 60. It is a lot smoother, and unnoticeable.

I was unnable to test at higher fps because my monitor only goes up to 85Hz max and Steam only allowed a max of 100fps anyway. 100fps@100Hz could still be smoother, but I'm not sure how.

So, for known seemless play, play at 85fps@85Hz w/vsync.

3dfx claimed that 60fps was needed for optimal play, are they correct, or are they wrong. It could be said that the blur of the frames were left there on purpose to account for the real-life blur effect of shaking your hand back and forth in front of your face. But then again, I wasn't exactly strafing side to side and lightning speed for that to happen now was I. So, I think 85fps is better. What do you think?

 

[Mingon]

If something is moving at constant 30fps then that is what the human eye needs to see something as smooth. Even if the frame rate is higher it will still be only moving at the same speed as the constant 30fps would. Therefore anything higher is only psychologically noticeable, not physical. Simply put, you only THINK it's smoother because you KNOW it's running at a higher FPS. That's my thought anyway, feel free to debate.

Probably the stupidest comment ever!

30fps vs 60 fps next time search the forum!!! and if you cant see the difference between 50 and 100 search for the optician. (have fraps running in the background to check refresh rate)

 

[Richdog]

As I said it was only a thought, very likely wrong, so try act like a mature adult as opposed to a kid and not get rude, eh Mingon (sigh)?

 

[Mingon]

As I said it was only a thought, very likely wrong, so try act like a mature adult as opposed to a kid and not get rude, eh Mingon

Who's being rude, you made a statement that was quite plainly wrong and I retorted with another statement that you made 'Probably the stupidest comment ever!' and I stick by it. Your comment was ill informed and backed up by no evidence, I am guessing you have tried the program I linked and are now feeling a little silly if not you should.

 

[Richdog]

Umm nope sorry i'm not feeling silly and obviously have no 'need' to feel silly, I just accept that i'm wrong, something we all do when we grow up. Are you trying to tell me you're never wrong about anything? Just out of interest... how old are you mate, because by the maturity and wording of your last response i'm guessing mid - late teens? :beer:

 

[Mingon]

oops dp

 

[Mingon]

Umm nope sorry i'm not feeling silly and obviously have no 'need' to feel silly, I just accept that i'm wrong, something we all do when we grow up. Are you trying to tell me you're never wrong about anything? Just out of interest... how old are you mate, because by the maturity and wording of your last response i'm guessing mid - late teens?

Not really, but when I say something I try to make sure I know what I am talking about. Whereas you made a silly statement, followed by trying to make out that you think your somehow older and wiser, which I highly doubt. When you have spent more time in this forum you will learn that on average every 4 months this topic is discussed, and each time someone make a statement based on what they think they know - usually based on some misguided information on tv screen refresh rates. To be honest I didnt think my response was that bad, you are obviously touchy due to your age (23 so young (see it works both ways)) and in all honesty your comment was perhaps the stupidest statement I have heard yet in all of the FPS discussions in the last 2 years so my response was correct.

"The hardest thing is to argue with someone who is undoubtedly wrong, yet wholly convinced that they are right..." Richdog

 

[Serp86]

I need at least 85hz so that i won't notice any flickering

However, i am perfectly happy if the game is running at 30fps (one example is vice city - which has the frame limiter at 30fps. I feel it very smooth.)

 

[Richdog]

Originally posted by: Mingon

Umm nope sorry i'm not feeling silly and obviously have no 'need' to feel silly, I just accept that i'm wrong, something we all do when we grow up. Are you trying to tell me you're never wrong about anything? Just out of interest... how old are you mate, because by the maturity and wording of your last response i'm guessing mid - late teens?

Not really, but when I say something I try to make sure I know what I am talking about. Whereas you made a silly statement, followed by trying to make out that you think your somehow older and wiser, which I highly doubt. When you have spent more time in this forum you will learn that on average every 4 months this topic is discussed, and each time someone make a statement based on what they think they know - usually based on some misguided information on tv screen refresh rates. To be honest I didnt think my response was that bad, you are obviously touchy due to your age (23 so young (see it works both ways)) and in all honesty your comment was perhaps the stupidest statement I have heard yet in all of the FPS discussions in the last 2 years so my response was correct.

"The hardest thing is to argue with someone who is undoubtedly wrong, yet wholly convinced that they are right..." Richdog

I rest my case... lol. Pure rudeness and arrogance. As i'm sure the people on Anandtech who know me will agree, I don't make a statement and expect it to be gospel, I encourage my ideas to be disputed, it's what discussion is all about, and if i'm wrong so what, tell me someone who isn't sometimes? But I don't call people stupid, and I really don't 'attempt' to act wiser and more mature. Maybe it's just etiquette and politeness are lost on you, in which case re-read my sig. That's all time i'm willing to waste explaining such a simple thing to you. Case closed.:beer:

 

[JonnyBlaze]

Originally posted by: VIAN
85Hz w/vsync.

fps_max 60

Going forward is always smooth. But when you strafe or look side to side with the mouse, you are able to see a blur of multiple frames being rendered.

fps_max 85

Going forward is always smooth, unnoticeable from 60. But when you strafe or look side to side with the mouse, you aren't able to see the blur of multiple frames rendered unlike at 60. It is a lot smoother, and unnoticeable.

I was unnable to test at higher fps because my monitor only goes up to 85Hz max and Steam only allowed a max of 100fps anyway. 100fps@100Hz could still be smoother, but I'm not sure how.

So, for known seemless play, play at 85fps@85Hz w/vsync.

3dfx claimed that 60fps was needed for optimal play, are they correct, or are they wrong. It could be said that the blur of the frames were left there on purpose to account for the real-life blur effect of shaking your hand back and forth in front of your face. But then again, I wasn't exactly strafing side to side and lightning speed for that to happen now was I. So, I think 85fps is better. What do you think?

this is basically what i was saying except i can lock it at 160hz / fps and it looks better all the way up

JBLaze

 

[Mingon]

it's what discussion is all about, and if i'm wrong so what, tell me someone who isn't sometimes?

As i did, unfortunately you dont seem to grasp that I did not call you stupid, I said your comment was probably the stupidest ever. You made a statement that was, I am sure you will agree, wholly wrong.

I don't make a statement and expect it to be gospel

The difference is that I dont make statements unless i am 100% sure it is correct, its an anally retentive detail issue that I have.

and I really don't 'attempt' to act wiser and more mature

Well lets look at each of your responses

it was only a thought, very likely wrong, so try act like a mature adult as opposed to a kid and not get rude, eh Mingon (sigh)?

Just out of interest... how old are you mate, because by the maturity and wording of your last response i'm guessing mid - late teens

Each time you try to introduce an 'Age' factor - unfortunately you dont realise that age is not an issue. I teach year 6 and the one thing I always do is never idoly refute their (the pupils) comments because of how old they are. So when people make comments like yours it really, really grates. Ill admit my responses are often offhand, but I have asberger's so dont take it personal.

I have a suggestion we cant live more than 20 miles apart, meet me and we can discuss this further over a :beer:

 

[Richdog]

The difference is that I dont make statements unless i am 100% sure it is correct, its an anally retentive detail issue that I have.

Ahh... one of those... all becomes clearer...

I have a suggestion we cant live more than 20 miles apart, meet me and we can discuss this further over a :beer:

Not really the type i'd like to meet, but thanks for the offer all the same, and let's forget this quite frankly ridiculous argument, lol.:beer:

 

[VIAN]

Well, Johnnyblaze, that wasn't my intention, I knew before that, that vsync limited fps.

Smooth is consistency. I've even tried playing at 24fps and it was smooth. But, it just looks a crap load smoother at 85fps.

 

[BFG10K]

Whats the highest framerate that the human eye can detect?

The simple answer? Infinite.

You can pick any magic number you like and then simply add another rocket, light, explosion, player, texture, wall or anything else to make the scene more complex and suddenly the current framerate will dip below your magic number. Therefore this really isn't a valid question since it can't address the concept of average or fluctuating framerate that all 3D games experience.

 

[Pudgygiant]

You do realize you'll only be seeing the number of frames your monitor can spit out, no matter how much of a beast your gpu is, right? A 75hz monitor is gonna look exactly the same whether your game is running at 75fps, 100fps, 5000fps. Assuming the same settings (AA, vsync, and the like) of course.

 

[VIAN]

You know what, you maybe right. I posted this exact same thing about 2 days ago, but I edited it out because I thought I was wrong. I was thinking, well gee, if a refresh rate is 60 and fps is 120, then it would surely show 2 frames per refresh. But now that I think about it again. What is the purpose of the refresh rate, it is to refresh what is seen on the screen, a sort of frame rate on its own. And no matter how many frames the graphics card pumps out, it will be too fast for the refresh rate to show, so, at 60Hz, you will only be seeing 60 out of those 120 frames, if the timing is right - you might see a half a frame, tearing. So, thanks for getting me to think about it a second time. Good show.

 

[rbV5]

You do realize you'll only be seeing the number of frames your monitor can spit out, no matter how much of a beast your gpu is, right? A 75hz monitor is gonna look exactly the same whether your game is running at 75fps, 100fps, 5000fps. Assuming the same settings (AA, vsync, and the like) of course

You do realize if that were true, vsync would be unnecissary.

 

[VIAN]

Why would VSYNC be unnecissary? There are monitors that can scan up to 160Hz. And plus, if you read, 85fps is perfect, as long as you can keep that to a minimum.

 

[rbV5]

Why would VSYNC be unnecissary? There are monitors that can scan up to 160Hz. And plus, if you read, 85fps is perfect

I read.....85 fps is some number pulled out of somebody's a$$, because as we've discussed here and other boards it always boils down to the same answer. "Its never been determined what the "limit" of the highest framerate that can be perceived by human eye/brain...and smooth framerates are determined by the situation and is "variable" dependant on the situation and user. The rest of the discussion is just some exercise to prove what we already know is wrong. What difference does 160Hz make? for instance if "A 75hz monitor is gonna look exactly the same whether your game is running at 75fps, 100fps, 5000fps. Assuming the same settings (AA, vsync, and the like) of course." If that statement is indeed true, its true for any monitor no matter what refresh it supports.