-
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
I wondering if it's more of a case of 'feeling' the difference more so than 'seeing' it?.
Take that 30vs60fps website, I can see a slight difference in the 2 comparisons but I wouldn't say its massive. Yet when I'm actually playing a game that's 30fps and then if I lower some settings to get a locked 60fps I can see and feel the difference massively, yet looking at those videos on the 30vs60fps site I struggle to see a big difference.......odd.
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
you think that's bad, a friend of mine whose soon to be a doctor told me last year that most people can't distinguish between 12 and 24 fps...
:/
eot
Banned
That is not a test of sampling rate mr scientist /o\
NemesisPrime
Banned
That is a totally different question then.
It should have been "what FPS is ideal for gaming".
We will fight over that for the next 5 years I guess
Sanctuary
Member
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
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!
Yeah, but it's not a what "frame rate" reality is, it's at what frame rate we perceive it. Pretty big distinction. Also: Time doesn't even exist
nkarafo
Member
Disliked probably just means it felt different. People are so used to 24fps in movies that anything different will feel weird to them and that translates to "bad".
You need to take one thing into account about 24fps in movies though. This number is not a standard because its an artistic choice or anything like that. The people who thought "what should the frame rate be in movies" didn't test various different rates and said "24fps looks the best".
24fps was the perfect compromise between cost and for the movie to be able to fool your eyes that is moving. Anything more than that would cost extra, anything less than that would make most people notice the individual frames, breaking the illusion of movement. Silent movies were actually slower and jerky but i think they increased it when sound became available for syncing proposes (that's why silent movies look like they are fast forward i suppose) So, basically, 24fps is just that. A compromise. It became a standard and people just got used to it. But more frames = more information, its better no matter what anyone says and you will see that after the 48fps becomes standard, future generations will watch old 24fps movies and wonder how could we live with this shit.
travisbickle
Member
Your friend is so wrong ... But we can't see the difference between 720 and 1080 on a screen less than 50" though.
nkarafo
Member
Heres an interesting read about 24fps in movies
http://vanillavideo.com/blog/2012/history-frame-rates-why-speeds-vary
http://vanillavideo.com/blog/2012/history-frame-rates-why-speeds-vary
BouncyFrag
Member
This is an outrage.
Sanctuary
Member
I'd say it's too early to say this could be wrong, but to me it looks like absolute shit. For now, and I've seen both movies in HFR, and they aren't actually "short" movies by any means. Every person I've spoken with that I know in person who has seen either of the movies in HFR felt the same. And hell, I went with a group of eight to see the second movie, and none of them enjoyed the way it looked in HFR. Sure, we can just say it's a familiarity thing, and that decades of viewing film at 24fps have "trained" us to think that's how it should be. But...
When I had my 36'' Trinitron, up until 2009 I thought it looked good enough. Actually, I thought it looked really good and didn't believe that the cost of an HDTV really warranted an upgrade yet, even though I'd seen what games looked like on a friend's 70'' DLP TV and the fact that the games I played on my PC always looked better thanks to the higher resolution. I finally decided in 2009 it was time to upgrade, so I purchased a 42'' plasma. It didn't even take an hour for me to realize how much of an improvement it was over my previous TV, which I still thought looked relatively good. This was after decades of playing games on a 480p screen. A month later, viewing what games looked like on the Trinitron looked ugly as sin to me.
Motion and image quality aren't the same thing, but I'd think the same concept would apply here. Why did it take me so very little time to adjust to an obviously better image quality, yet I still cannot stand to look at videos (not games) above 30fps? I do agree that screen panning or fast action scenes do look better at higher than 24fps, but for the rest of the scenes? Ughhh...
boiled goose
good with gravy
BlackRainbowFT
Member
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
While brain plasticity is a reality, saying that we have some extra areas for backup purposes is wrong.
We use 100% of our brain. When you see pictures of studies showing a certain area linked to a certain function, it's actually the result of a subtraction between baseline activity (i.e., doing "nothing") and the task (e.g., looking at a picture).
Also, it's not completely true that the brain cannot "regenerate". There is neurogenesis (meaning the birth of new neurons) in some parts of the brain (near the ventricules and in the hippocampus). Even axonal regeneration (meaning the regrowth of the part of the neuron that connects to another one), albeit limited, exists.
phxxBullet
Banned
you're another one of those, huh?
Alx
Member
The sensitivity of all our perceptions can vary among people anyway, and most of the time will also depend on their training. Most people can't make subtle taste differences between two fine wines, unless they learn to differentiate them with practice. Some people won't notice an instrument is slightly out of tune, unless they have musical background (or are naturally gifted). Most people's touch isn't fine enough to feel the different symbols of braille, unless they take the time to learn it.
I can see how people who aren't subjected to different framerates won't be able to see the difference either. It doesn't mean they couldn't if they didn't take the time to learn it, but why would they ?
I think PC gamers would have more variations in their perceptions of performance, precisely because their platform lets them tune performances to their tastes. I think many PC gamers will push details rather than framerate, because that's easier to notice.
I can see how people who aren't subjected to different framerates won't be able to see the difference either. It doesn't mean they couldn't if they didn't take the time to learn it, but why would they ?
I think PC gamers would have more variations in their perceptions of performance, precisely because their platform lets them tune performances to their tastes. I think many PC gamers will push details rather than framerate, because that's easier to notice.
hahaha very funny
Yeah that's not how your eyes work and moreover it's your brain doing most of the leg work. I'm on my phone so I can't dig it out but there was a MIT research paper published earlier this year about the brain being able to interpret and image seen at just 13ms. That's not just see but interpret what it is. There also some good research done by NASA back in the 60's about our eyes that is worth a read for anyone interested.
quantumnerd
Member
The regular reminder: films have real motion blur and games don't even always have fake blur. This enables slow moving objects to look like they're animating more smoothly.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
The brain is essentially integrating and interpolating motion across time rather than playing back individual frames. If the steps between successive positions are relatively small (in the time component) and evenly spaced then I think it does a better job at this. If you play slow motion footage at 30fps it doesn't look much worse than it would at 60fps.
So the real question isn't what the eye sees, but what the brain creates from the input it receives from the eye. For example, if you display a number counter that cycles at 60fps you are not going to perceive 60 numbers as clear, individual frames. Information across frames is going to be blended together.
So the real question isn't what the eye sees, but what the brain creates from the input it receives from the eye. For example, if you display a number counter that cycles at 60fps you are not going to perceive 60 numbers as clear, individual frames. Information across frames is going to be blended together.
psn
Member
Embarrassing..
Sentenza
Member
At 16 bit too!
Maybe even HD ready if it's a clear day.
Its so crazy these words were uttered.
What the hell? Where do they get this stuff from? Do they not own computer monitors? They can test these things before saying ignorant things on the air. This is coming from an ign fan.
You can tell the difference between a 720p cell phone screen and a 1080p cell phone screen pretty easily. Same thing goes for any tablet or laptop. We all know about pixel density.
Same thing with FPS. It's not really a debate. There's a difference for everybody whether they know it or not. People simply need to be instructed as to how to tell the difference (usually by watching the background as the camera pans).
Right, but that's not the same as saying that your perception has good temporal resolution. Being able to detect the presence of brief stimuli and being able to distinguish two temporally closely-spaced events are two entirely different things. The former is a test of sampling coverage (which the eye should excel at), the latter is a test of how clearly those samples are resolved (which the eye isn't quite so good at, though of course the 12fps thing is absurd). If you were in a dark room and a very sharp impulse of photons hit your eye in a one-nanosecond period you'd probably be able to pick that up too, but that doesn't mean there'd be meaningful benefit to using a screen with anything remotely on the order of 1 billion fps.
AnyoneInCherno
Member
I've used a 120 Hz screen at a friend's house and there's a pretty big difference. It's much more minor than the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS but that's due to frame time. 30 FPS = 1 image every 33.3 ms, 60 FPS = 1 image every 16.7 ms. You can see how halving that more and more will lead to smaller differences between perception of smoothness.
IchigoSharingan
Member
buttery fucking smooth. A world of difference and certainly makes it very difficult to go back to anything less than 120.
it's not actually different for video. 120hz just doubles the frames (for 60fps content) or quadruples for 30fps content. or 5x for 24fps content. If you're seeing "smooth" video this is frame interpolation which is disgusting and wrong.
(talking about film/video)
But then, if it's a plasma, that's handled differently and really plasmas are something like 600hz, if it's even measurable. Pioneer FTW
MemoryHumanity
Member
He is completely, utterly, irrevocably, monumentally, irrefutably and undeniably wrong.
clem84
Gold Member
But to actually help here is a neat video you may enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I5Q3UXkGd0#t=219
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I5Q3UXkGd0#t=219
d) Tell him to go see an optician.
Love it. If you're near Toronto, I'll get him a free exam... with lots of trolling
Wow.