Human Eye works at 60fps

[DAN-di-WARhol]

Can someone answer me this: Why are VR kits pushing 90fps and even 140fps when the human eye can only detect 60fps? It seems like a waste of tech to me.

[HienoKaveri]

Publicado originalmente por DAN-di-WARhol:

Can someone answer me this: Why are VR kits pushing 90fps and even 140fps when the human eye can only detect 60fps? It seems like a waste of tech to me.

This is the dumbest sh1t I seen for a while. I recently switched from a 60Hz display to a 120Hz one, and the smoothness and clarity was like night and day. Get ya eyes checked buddy, or ♥♥♥.

[unknown]

Really depends on what you are looking at. This study shows that humans can detect certain things at over 500 hz where most of the research shows that the average human sits at around 60-90 hz. There are a lot of factors and some of it has to do with how our eyes work and movement rather than actually seeing the separate frames. The study below is done for the intention of seeing what is important for making computers seem more like what we see in the real world. Interesting stuff if you have the medical knowledge.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4314649/

Don't forget to read the articles in the references pages as well if you really want to understand eye site and framerate

[GlaucomaPredator]

OP this is going to throw a wrench in your potato theory.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1vy3qe/how_many_frames_per_second_can_the_eye_see/cewz6ih/?utm_source=BD&utm_medium=Search&utm_name=Bing&utm_content=PSR1

[unknown]

Publicado originalmente por Only Two Genders:

Publicado originalmente por DAN-di-WARhol:

Can someone answer me this: Why are VR kits pushing 90fps and even 140fps when the human eye can only detect 60fps? It seems like a waste of tech to me.

That nonsense is based on Psychology, not Science.

No not based in psychology either. Psychology is very scientific when you really go into it. People just don't hear about real psychology. The news kind of ruins psychology by only posting what fits their narrative rather than all of the intricacies of the study and one one talks about things like meylination or the various neurochemical bonds and chemical connections that control your body and mood. Though i will say our understanding of psychology is very small compared to the other sciences since we have only recently began studying it.

[unknown]

Publicado originalmente por Only Two Genders:

Publicado originalmente por unknown:

No not based in psychology either. Psychology is very scientific when you really go into it. People just don't hear about real psychology. The news kind of ruins psychology by only posting what fits their narrative rather than all of the intricacies of the study and one one talks about things like meylination or the various neurochemical bonds and chemical connections that control your body and mood. Though i will say our understanding of psychology is very small compared to the other sciences since we have only recently began studying it.

Psychology is anti-science. Actual scientists shun it.

You obviously aren't a scientist then. It also depends on which psychology. I would agree about social psychology since thats kind of iffy, but biopsychology and cognitive psychology are pretty deep fields.

[unknown]

Publicado originalmente por Only Two Genders:

Publicado originalmente por unknown:

You obviously aren't a scientist then. It also depends on which psychology. I would agree about social psychology since thats kind of iffy, but biopsychology and cognitive psychology are pretty deep fields.

Cognitive Psychology is just Psychology, as it refers to thought.

Biopsychology is means of understanding how the brain functions, which is less psychology and more practical science.

psychology is a broad term. Multiple fields within it which require very different schooling. I mean Its kind of like saying all of medicine is fake because nutrition isn't a farce which it kind of is when you look into a lot of the actual studies. Don't judge an entire branch of science for the failures of some its branches. Or with the studies that get media attention where people say the exact opposite of what the study actually says. The problem with psychology in my mind has to do with the people who start to say things in books and material that isn't based on scientific fact. I mean that is exactly what freud did and all of his stuff has been widely accepted as being completely wrong and sometimes even the opposite of what actually occurs due to scientific studies. Then there are people who make claims based off of their experience in their practice but don't actually setup experiments to test their theories. That gives the field a bad name and people tend to look at early psychologic research when they think if psychology. I mean everyone knows crazy uncle freud but no one knows the names of the people who came up with real scientific findings. Anyway but looking at the post that you said which was

"That nonsense is based on Psychology, not Science."

and there have been no studies showing that 60fps is what we see. There was one where psychologists told people that 3 monitors were different one being 60h one being 120hz and one being 240hz despite them all being 60hz and people said that the 240hz was better despite all of them being the same monitor, but that doesn't mean you cannot see 60hz but that would be a misinterpretation on your part or the part of which every sham media site misrepresented yet another study. The study was testing to see if people would see differences when they were none. Other psychological and medical studies say that you do not see in hz. And can detect differences up to over 500hz depending on what is changing.

[unknown]

Publicado originalmente por Only Two Genders:

Publicado originalmente por unknown:

snip

That's great an' all... but the difference between 90hz and 120hz is quite clear.

oh yes it absolutely is. Its very clear...especially with vr. The way our eyes project stuff the we would get benefits all the way up to 500hz for the flickering that we can see sometimes. For the average person. if you are a gamer you likely would need a higher refresh rate.

[Xerain House]

Publicado originalmente por narcoleptic_rage:

Just because you cannot visually see a frame rate doesn't mean that you don't notice the difference. It's not all visual as you can notice the "feel" of a game in the general movement or smoothness of a game without actually recognising the flickering in an image.

However, with VR you have to have a minimum of 90 FPS because it causes motion sickness. This is because despite not actually seeing any difference in the FPS, the brain does notice that something isn't quite right & goes into defensive mode by making you feel nauseous. The 90 Hz rate is good for some people while others need an even higher FPS due to their brains being wired differently.

In the end the human eye has nothing to do with how many frames you see & there isn't one singular component of the brain that processes & encodes the visual data into the thought processes. In fact, due to the complexity of our nervous systems, humans don't actually have a definitive frame rate. You could even say that we have an infinite frame rate or none at all as what we perceive is a constant stream that isn't chopped up into frames at all.

The argument about what the human eye can see in relation to FPS is a dumbed down debate that is totally pointless in the end since, again, it has nothing to do with the eye & we do no see things as flickering images & if there was an anomaly in a thousandth of a second, you are going to notice it, even if you don't know exactly what it was that you saw.

https://youtu.be/NSzje6I3BZA

This guy says it all. We don't act on the same mechanics as our binary companions and tools. Though I will say higher frame rate has diminishing returns, and that's dependent on the person playing. It's all down to how developed your visual processing is compared to the average person and how good your assessment and reaction times are.

[TheOptimator]

There's a famous quote concerning the regulation of pornography in the US and it goes something like this: "I don't know how to describe pornography, but I know it when I see it".

I think your average person is unable to tell you if something is running at 30 FPS or 60 FPS, or if something is running at 60 hz vs 144 hz, but they *will* know the difference when they see it.

As said earlier, the human eye operates differently than mechanical stuff, it's all about how we perceive things.

[Kobe]

Publicado originalmente por DAN-di-WARhol:

Can someone answer me this: Why are VR kits pushing 90fps and even 140fps when the human eye can only detect 60fps? It seems like a waste of tech to me.

I know this is old, but ever tried playing beat saber expert/expert+ levels at lower and higher refresh rate?
The difference is like night and day

[Binge Eating λ]

put on an old headset that has a limit of 90 hz then put on a valve index and realize that 144 hz is way smoother than 90 hz when compared. ur eyes aren't screens like how you may think and they can catch the diffference from up to 360 hertz......

[Spychopat]

guys, stop biting in these obvious baits xD

[ThisCatStreams]

Because those articles are simply wrong. If you were to play a VR game at 30fps you would either be throwing up your dinner, have the worse motion sickness, a bad headache or maybe if you are made of tougher stuff just a bad time.

You can see the difference between 30, 60 and beyond. You don't always see it. But I simply can't play games at 30fps. I notice the time between my key presses and the action on screen.

I used to own GTA V on PS3. Once it came to steam and I was playing it at over 75fps on the GPU I had at the time I could not go back. It felt like it took forever for my actions to get a response from the game. Same goes for playing Dead by daylight at under 60fps. I feel like I play way worse.

Those types of articles are to stir up drama between the PC and console fanboys.

If you can't see the difference you might simply not be as into gaming as everyone else is.

[Astariol]

I can only install 10 megapixels of RAM, so we're in the same boat mate.

[KarstenS]

Go into a VR game.

Beat Saber with its Laser Pointer is very good for this test.

If you are in Beat Saber hold the controller in front of you and rotate the laser in any direction you want.

In other games, but with Lighthouse tracking: move the controller fast in front of your face over your entire field of view.

This second one will not work well with inside out tracking as the cameras of inside out tracking cameras are mostly working at 60 FPS. So the tracking result will not show more than 60 updates per second. Lighthouse tracking is working with a much higher tracking frequency, which results in much smoother controller movement, which is also a proof for "I can see more than 60 FPS".

To see the difference its also important to know, which situations are better than others to see the difference.

Objects moving fast over the entire field of view (mostly when close to you) is one situation, where everyone should be able to notice the difference very clear.