-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
My friend just told me the eye can only see 30FPS
- Thread starter Fudgepuppy
- Start date
Sanctuary
Member
Many more people (or at least from those who bothered to comment or take polls etc) disliked the way the two HFR Hobbit movies looked in motion than liked. It had a very obnoxious soap opera effect going on that made it look comparatively awful to the 24fps version.
Saying that someone's opinion is bad because they don't like the way videos look at higher framerates compared to video games is a bad opinion. The two aren't even similar, because one is completely passive while the other interactive.
Unless playing an Uncharted game of course.
Sparkedglory
Member
Your friend is dumb
Clockwork5
Member
Yeah, input lag sucks in real life too, huh?
Our brain interprets the constant stream of data transmitted from the eye much faster than 30fps.
Diminishing returns on what we can percieve doesn't even begin to really kick in until closer to 60 but we still "see" everything at a much higher "framerate" than that.
Our brain interprets the constant stream of data transmitted from the eye much faster than 30fps.
Diminishing returns on what we can percieve doesn't even begin to really kick in until closer to 60 but we still "see" everything at a much higher "framerate" than that.
It's impossible for moving images to not look worse at lower framerates. Higher framerates cause video to become more lifelike, more realistic. Low framerates cause the image to become a juttery, blurry mess when the camera pans - higher framerates help reduce or eliminate the disconnect from reality that occurs when this happens and allow you to remain immersed in the video. Preferring lower framerates for anything is a bad, incorrect opinion.
Sentenza
Member
Their opinion is bad, too.
I recorded a little video showing pretty much what you just explained. This is what it looks like in slow motion, think it is 120FPS played back at 30FPS. Recorded with phone, so quality is a bit meh. http://a.pomf.se/qgxxzl.mp4
I don't agree with you on preferring lower framerate though. For movies I can see why people don't want more than 24FPS, we are so used to how it looks and for the most part it is just fine. It's just those occasional panorama shots that makes the stuttering obvious. Personally I wouldn't mind if everyone started making them at 48FPS at least, but I have no problems with movies staying at 24 either.
Games on the other hand I want 120FPS whenever possible and 60 on console. A stable 30FPS with a controller is fine, but I would never take that over 60 if I had the option.
staticneuron
Member
Your eyes are analog. They are constantly receiving information and processing it.
I think your friend is confusing perception of motion with the persistence of vision. Vision is continuous but the perception is something done by your mind and that is where it can be fooled.
The reason why anything above 30hz or fps might be hard to perceive on tv or film is simply because of perception. For video games it is a bit different since it is interactive and input lag combined with obvious judder or drops in framerate breaks the perception/illusion of smooth continuous movement.
Well he's full of shit. I can barely tell the difference between 30 and 60 unless I'm looking for it, but I still notice significant frame-drops immediately because it feels like I'm dragging the control stick through mollasses.
rokkerkory
Member
Each eye can see 30fps and thus 60 fps for most of us
This isn't something where we need to give out participation trophies to everyone, or be accepting of subjective opinions, accepting people's differences.
Even in your own post you conceit that you can see a difference. This is a binary thing with a correct objective assessment.
There is a difference between, "I can't tell a difference", and " It doesn't matter to me and I don't really care." The first is objectively wrong and is a lame cover up for some perceived slight. Given the "Fuck you", in your post, that does seem to be the case. The second is an understandable subjective opinion that people should agree to disagree on.
Sanctuary
Member
No one was talking about watching movies at 10fps. And while filming at higher framerates might create a more "lifelike" reproduction, that doesn't actually make it a better experience. Video games on the other hand have many other considerations when factoring in higher framerates.
http://www.tested.com/art/movies/452387-48-fps-and-beyond-how-high-frame-rates-affect-perception/
That's exactly what it looked like to me.
Doctoglethorpe
Member
I've always wondered if we used more then 10% of our brain if we could see more then 30fps with our eyes.
Cave Johnson
Member
Play the TLOU remastered edition and ask him to switch back from 60fps after playing for a good 10 min.
dude's in denial
NobleGundam
Banned
Welp.. Time to upgrade to cybernetic eyeballs, gaf.
Wow man, maybe we could experience sour tastes on every section of our tongue too.
Seriously though, why do you even care OP? This kid sounds like he has an IQ of 80, i'd just drop it.
ScepticMatt
Member
That's a bullshit article.
I like the science articles posted by another poster here, or the the papers collected here:
http://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=333&sid=e13a26473e3f48c3befdf10ad7456c85
That's a different question from "what frame rate do I need for smooth motion".
If you account for temporal aliasing, you may see changes above 1000 Hz, if you don't 300 Hz is way overkill.
Higher framerate is objectively better if the question is "Which provides a more authentic experience?" in terms of relation to real life, or at the very least the reality of what it looked like on set.
I don't think that's the question you're asking though. I think the question you're asking is "Which do I like more?" which is of course open to interpretation by every individual.
I think the both of you are arguing different things.
Also worth noting is that higher framerate isn't inherently better, as plenty of people don't like motion interpolated movies and TV. The motion interpolation doesn't remove any of the original frames, and only adds estimated data so if the argument is "higher frame rate is always better" whoever is arguing that has to sort of work around that issue.
AbandonedTrolley
Member
Everyone knows that it's per eye so we can see 60FPS!
SkeptiMism
Member
This really shouldn't be said often, but it's appropriate here I'd say. He's full of shit. Either he's in complete denial for some reason, or he's just bullshitting you.
It's like the simplest maths that the higher the frame rate, the lower the response time. If you have 30 frames and then go to 60 frames, you have double the frames. If you have double the frames, you also have faster input response time by 2 times.
Also, I really wonder, what does he think about why the motion blur is there in the first place? If the frame rate is high, there's no need for the motion blur because the motion blur is made to smooth it out, but with higher frame rates you don't need it. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here though.
I have a theory though. He knows about you visiting neogaf often right? Maybe he wanted to troll you so much that you'd make a thread on it? If he knows your account name (same as on Steam or somewhere else for example). His explanation and complete denial kinda make me wonder if there could be some of the truth here.
It's like the simplest maths that the higher the frame rate, the lower the response time. If you have 30 frames and then go to 60 frames, you have double the frames. If you have double the frames, you also have faster input response time by 2 times.
Also, I really wonder, what does he think about why the motion blur is there in the first place? If the frame rate is high, there's no need for the motion blur because the motion blur is made to smooth it out, but with higher frame rates you don't need it. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here though.
I have a theory though. He knows about you visiting neogaf often right? Maybe he wanted to troll you so much that you'd make a thread on it? If he knows your account name (same as on Steam or somewhere else for example). His explanation and complete denial kinda make me wonder if there could be some of the truth here.
Sanctuary
Member
Response time isn't even what's being discussed. You can have a 120hz screen that looks better in motion, but has an equivalent response time of a 60hz screen. Just like you can have one 60hz screen with a 12ms response time and another that's 40ms. A slow response time is what would cause ghosting in the older LCD TVs and monitors. Motion blur is used to make 30fps games look smoother, but that's not quite the same thing as ghosting and it's often simply used for effect.
NemesisPrime
Banned
250 fps actually.
DeadlyVirus
Member
I remember when I was in college doing some research for a Video & Graphics presentation, I came across some biological studies saying that the human eye can't see any difference in any motion above 100 fps
Atraveller
Banned
What you are seeing here is the most advanced built-in 30/60 frame switch.Well, that does not include you then.
ScepticMatt
Member
That's only true if you have perfect temporal anti-aliasing (which necessitates eye-tracking).
Otherwise you may even see differences even at 3000 Hz.
BBC thinks you need 700 Hz to avoid strobing/aliasing for UHDTV viewing distance/resolution:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2013/12/high-frame-rate-at-the-ebu-uhdtv-voices-and-choices-workshop
BlackRainbowFT
Member
And this is a very simple topic! People with no knowledge still feel the need to think they're right...
It's no wonder why more serious topics also get deniers who spread lies...
Climate change, autism, vaccines, etc.
I have a G-Sync 144hz display and have been playing around with CSGO's fps_max setting (which can be applied in real-time in the game). As g-sync syncs the refresh rate to the frame rate, it might be a decent test.
I saw a noticeable increase up until about 132hz, when flicking it to 144hz I could see he difference in certain scenarios but it wasn't immediately obvious to me (the difference between 132-144). But it does seem highly game dependent on how high that bar is for me, and I suspect it'd also change significantly at different resolutions.
In games that didn't allow me to set the framerate cap arbitrarily and in real-time, I instead flicked the max refresh rate and I could see bigger differences in games like The Witcher 2 between 120hz and 144hz.
I saw a noticeable increase up until about 132hz, when flicking it to 144hz I could see he difference in certain scenarios but it wasn't immediately obvious to me (the difference between 132-144). But it does seem highly game dependent on how high that bar is for me, and I suspect it'd also change significantly at different resolutions.
In games that didn't allow me to set the framerate cap arbitrarily and in real-time, I instead flicked the max refresh rate and I could see bigger differences in games like The Witcher 2 between 120hz and 144hz.
Wait what? Is this a joke?
No the resistance of my thick glasses makes incoming pictures slower thus i see later
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Headhunter
Neo Member
SkeptiMism
Member
The response time comment was in response to OP's comments in the thread where he said the guy denies that too completely. But yes, increasing frame rate doesn't always decrease the response time.
CosmicGroinPull
Member
Ask your friend if you can cum in his eyes and then tell you whether it's 30 or 60fps.
You bring up a good point, and it's something a lot of people don't consider.
The average movie set feels fake once you're on it; the lighting, the props, the makeup... none of it stands up to the kind of scrutiny 60fps provides. Yes, it's a more accurate representation of what was filmed, but when what was filmed wasn't convincing in the first place, what are you really getting closer to? That's not say there isn't a place for higher frame rates, just that the standards will have to be raised considerably for it to work.
The 10% idea is also a myth.
Canis lupus
Member
So? If you can identify an object that was flashed for 1/220th of a second, does that not mean you can see 220fps?
NemesisPrime
Banned
Indeed... I hate that they always mention that.
That 10% of our brain is there for a reason... because the brain can't regenerate, so it needs some spare "parts" to move stuff to when old stuff fails. Anyway... a bit OT
NemesisPrime
Banned
It depends where in your FOV you are looking at. The human eye is a very sophisticated piece of equipment that has some smart tricks to minimize information send to the brain.
In the center of your FOV it can be up to 250 fps, depending on what is actually happening.
Anyway... apples and oranges.
NemesisPrime
Banned
What FPS does reality run? (and yes it does run in frames... there is a smallest unit of time called a Planck Unit, 10−43 seconds). An interesting question TBH. All a bit OT but rather interesting (I am not going to explain all this... I am sure all of you interested can Google). Let's just say that reality runs at a VERY high framerate
A 1 with 43 zeros behind it.Then again time is relative... that means that that framerate of reality is slightly different for each of us (if we are moving ofc).
Reality Lag!