Steam'i Yükleyin
giriş
|
dil
简体中文 (Basitleştirilmiş Çince)
繁體中文 (Geleneksel Çince)
日本語 (Japonca)
한국어 (Korece)
ไทย (Tayca)
Български (Bulgarca)
Čeština (Çekçe)
Dansk (Danca)
Deutsch (Almanca)
English (İngilizce)
Español - España (İspanyolca - İspanya)
Español - Latinoamérica (İspanyolca - Latin Amerika)
Ελληνικά (Yunanca)
Français (Fransızca)
Italiano (İtalyanca)
Bahasa Indonesia (Endonezce)
Magyar (Macarca)
Nederlands (Hollandaca)
Norsk (Norveççe)
Polski (Lehçe)
Português (Portekizce - Portekiz)
Português - Brasil (Portekizce - Brezilya)
Română (Rumence)
Русский (Rusça)
Suomi (Fince)
Svenska (İsveççe)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamca)
Українська (Ukraynaca)
Bir çeviri sorunu bildirin
Bu konu kilitlenmiştir. 
Tartışma Kuralları ve Yönergeleri
Bu iletiyi bildir
One person's perception is different from anothers, and the only people arguing that 60 FPS is the highest we can see are arguably just stupid and arguing for the sake of wanting to be right.
Well the point of the debate is for people to show off how good at assuming and using intuition they are. But people are terrible at guessing and filling in the blanks with whatever sounds reasonable.
And people tend to assume that the video standards we we've had are developed around some special insight into human vision, "They are X because X is what human beings can see." And don't understand that that many times those standards are more to do what human being can tolerate, what the technology is capable of, and what is cost effective at the time when the standard was developed. IE film used to run at 24 FPS because it worked well enough for people watching it and film was expensive. Not because 24FPS was a magical optimum for human vision.
But good luck expecting random people to accept they don't know anything about the subject and that their assumptions are usually bogus and totally uninformed.
The debate is only a thing because of movies being shot in 24 FPS with ♥♥♥♥ tons of motionblur, to mimic how eyes react in normal life, it's just more apealing to watch movies and shows with motion blur (see all the complaints from 60fps movies.)
But, with movies and shows, you're not really focusing, you're just 'watching' (same way you can't really judge input lag or refresh rate of a monitor you're watching), so you don't really see. But with a monitor you're sitting infront of, and actively using, you can and will feel the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ that is 24FPS.
Obviously peoples perception of motion is different; Racecar drivers, Jet pilots, and anything that requires fast reactions generally see things faster, notice things quicker, identify things faster.
I think there was a study that shows a fighter jet pilot a frame for 1/100th of a second, and the pilot was able to identify the plane that was shown to him.
So it really depends on how trained your body is to see it, and some natrual ability.
Though I have no doubt that some people can't see higher than '24 FPS', though, those are in the minority, just like people who can see differences at ultrahigh refresh rates.
I don't understand how people can perpetuate this ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ though, considering they have the ability to test themselves (setting monitor refresh rate to 24hz, and back to 60hz.)
they notice movement and light/color differences
a led blinking at around 30+ blinks/sec (50% pwm) will appear to be on but dim compared to constant on (100% pwm)
but move the led and you can easily see its blinking, even at a much higher freq (2+khz)
The example often used is a figure jumping over an obstacle. With low fps the figure might be close to landing on the ground in the game processing whereas on the display he is in mid-flight and so putting the player at a slight disadvantage if attempting to shoot at the figure.
it does it all of the time in the real world
reflex time is consistant, your brain knows how soon to send signals to make things happen in sync
my2ct
The reason for 24 fps originally was that one decided 48 fps was enough for film but then didn't wanted to use that much film so 24 fps it become. Supposedly. 50 and 60 fps for TV is from the AC electricity being run at 50 and 60 Hz and being used as a clock.
Film has motion blur. As in the shutter isn't open for an infinitively short time it's open for a while and if things move they become blurry which help connect the images.
IMHO motion blur in games just seem unclear and laggy.
Edit: Because we have 2 eyes
with motion blur effects 24fps may look smooth
blink a led at 24hz and you can see its blinking
did a quick test with an arduino using its onboad led
blnk without delay example sketch
just changed the timer to 500/24 (20ms) (slightly faster turns out to 25/s)
easy to see its blinking
at 60 (8ms = 62.5/s) its less noticable, but you can tell its not all on next to its power led
shake it and you can see long blinks next to the power led
at 120 (4ms = 125/s) it looks more on, but still dim next to the power led
shake and you see shorter blinks