FPS over 35 looks smoother than reality

[Taylor Swift]

Why is it that when I play a game running over roughly 35 FPS, it looks smoother than my eyesight? This has perplexed me for a while and idk I wish my vision was that smooth

[Cassie the Loot Goblin]

secuda の投稿を引用：

One-Punch Penguin の投稿を引用：

we do, actually. that's why things moving fast look blurry unless you're able to keep your eyes trained on them. if we didn't see in FPS, motion blur would not be a thing.

Erm, there are bunch of reports how the eyes works more then anything i can say about it due to the fact i am not an expert on the field.
But let say if we do see less then 24 fps then we would not notice that big of a difference in game if a game dips down from 60 to 30 because we would not notice it in the first place because it would be to high response time for our eyes to catch upp with and everything would be in blur rather then smoth movements that we usually see.

the 24fps thing is the speed at which the human eye is tricked into thinking it is seeing motion. the human eye sees at well beyond that. however, motion blur. if we didn't see through FPS-style motion then it would not exist.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Yeah, being able to distinguish individual frames is different from seeing smoothness in motion.

[Taylor Swift]

Red Death の投稿を引用：

Humans can't actually see past 24 fps

Plaid の投稿を引用：

Red Death の投稿を引用：

Humans can't actually see past 24 fps

Wrong. They can't see past 15.

an lol mellow|do my homwork pls の投稿を引用：

Plaid の投稿を引用：

Wrong. They can't see past 15.

32*

Punch-Out Penguin の投稿を引用：

Plaid の投稿を引用：

Wrong. They can't see past 15.

Did you never do science? The human eye can only see at 5 Frames per second.

secuda の投稿を引用：

One-Punch Penguin の投稿を引用：

we do, actually. that's why things moving fast look blurry unless you're able to keep your eyes trained on them. if we didn't see in FPS, motion blur would not be a thing.

Erm, there are bunch of reports how the eyes works more then anything i can say about it due to the fact i am not an expert on the field.
But let say if we do see less then 24 fps then we would not notice that big of a difference in game if a game dips down from 60 to 30 because we would not notice it in the first place because it would be to high response time for our eyes to catch upp with and everything would be in blur rather then smoth movements that we usually see.

I have seen a million different studies on it and they all say different

[Cassie the Loot Goblin]

Skyrim の投稿を引用：

Red Death の投稿を引用：

Humans can't actually see past 24 fps

Plaid の投稿を引用：

Wrong. They can't see past 15.

an lol mellow|do my homwork pls の投稿を引用：

32*

Punch-Out Penguin の投稿を引用：

Did you never do science? The human eye can only see at 5 Frames per second.

secuda の投稿を引用：

Erm, there are bunch of reports how the eyes works more then anything i can say about it due to the fact i am not an expert on the field.
But let say if we do see less then 24 fps then we would not notice that big of a difference in game if a game dips down from 60 to 30 because we would not notice it in the first place because it would be to high response time for our eyes to catch upp with and everything would be in blur rather then smoth movements that we usually see.

I have seen a million different studies on it and they all say different

Pretty sure the first few were jokes.

[secuda]

Punch-Out Penguin の投稿を引用：

Skyrim の投稿を引用：

I have seen a million different studies on it and they all say different

Pretty sure the first few were jokes.

yea.
Pretty sure it was a quote from Ubisoft execude during assasins creed 4 or something like that?

[Smugass Braixen-Chan]

24fps was chosen for movies because it tricks the brain into thinking it's real.. Or something..

I think this whole FPS argument that's been going on for the last few years is stupid, honestly. When did how often the screen refreshes become more important than graphics?

[Zefar]

Tronex ⚡ の投稿を引用：

PC gamer magazine has wrote an article about what fps is suitable for human eyes.
After long research it turns out that it depends on what you used to see, people who usually play with crappy fps will find 30-40 suitable while people who play on 90 could tell the difference between 60 and above.
But normally anything above 60 is hard to notice.

Must been a pretty bad study.

The human eye can detect a difference up to 200 FPS.

Skyrim の投稿を引用：

Why is it that when I play a game running over roughly 35 FPS, it looks smoother than my eyesight? This has perplexed me for a while and idk I wish my vision was that smooth

https://frames-per-second.appspot.com

Check there. As I do not believe your eyes are lagging as eyes see in constant motion and not Frames per second.

Insanity Wolf-Chan の投稿を引用：

24fps was chosen for movies because it tricks the brain into thinking it's real.. Or something..

I think this whole FPS argument that's been going on for the last few years is stupid, honestly. When did how often the screen refreshes become more important than graphics?

A better refresh rate generate better gameplay feel because it's much more smoother and more realistic. Also the industry at the moment seems to not care about FPS all that much and focus only on graphics. Then they make claims like "It's more cinematic" to try to get away with it.

[Smugass Braixen-Chan]

If the thing about being cinematic were true, they'd do what the Godzilla game did and let you cap the refresh-rate at 24FPS.

I wish they'd just be honest and say that lower frame rates mean higher graphics before the FPS starts to tank on its own.

At the end of the day, I would be all for 6,000FPS if I didn't have to make my game look like PSOne Hagrid to achieve that.

[Commander Makara]

Commander Makara の投稿を引用：

I think it might be pertinent to note that, given the context and relevace to videogames etc.) When most people here seem to refer to the "framerate" of the human eye, what they are cactually referring to, is in essence, the flicker-fusion threshold.

This is NOT constant nor consistent and every eye (human or otherwise) is different. There are an incredibly complex system of factors which can influence such (not even counting age and health of the individual('s organs)) but also the environment, ambience, fatigue and concentration of the brain.

Given that sight is a combination of 'MINORITY input from visual stimulus combined with MAJOR process of the occipetal cortex to form and interpret the details. Most of what we "see" is determined by the BRAIN with particualr changes to focus, distance, direction and frequencies/intensities updating the 'image' we "see" ultimately as 'realised'.

In humans, rod and cone cells exhibit different levels of "FFT". With rods perceiving the finer intensity changes at a maximum of around 15Hz whilst cones typically do not exceed maxima of around 70 Hz

Ernest Greene's research into the FFT below provides insight into how these values are established and the interpretation:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0123458

Naturally, neurons are able to generate impulses at far higher frequencies than the frequencies at which flicker-fusion is observed, so the limitation on temporal resolving power is usually attributed to some form of persistent neuronal activity.
...
There has been an ongoing debate as to whether the fusion takes place in the retina or at a later processing stage..Individual flashes could be followed in the optic nerve and lateral geniculate nucleus up to about 60 Hz but the cortex never followed photic driving above 34 Hz. This is about the frequency at which Brecher found flicker fusion in the monkey, so Walker and associates thought it likely that fusion takes place in cortex.

So whilst light itself changing is not detected by the eyes beyond around 60 - 70 Hz - the brain's processing can smooth-out, interpolate and "make-up for" the difference resulting in a perceived rate of smoothness way in excess.

____________________________________________


Studies (particualrly recently at MIT) have shoen that with an amount of dedicated spefici training, when a focussed individiual concentrates on a small region and for a specific context, the ability to detect changes in as low as 12 millisecond intervals can be recorded. HOWEVER this is NOT indicative of any consistency and certainly not for extended periods.

[Azza ☠]

The human eye doesn't see in FPS (Frames Per Second). That is entirely a myth.

However, at the same time, a health young standard human eye can perceive and detect drops below 48 FPS and even noticable changes even up to 120 FPS. Why?

Persistence of vision is the phenomenon of the eye by which an afterimage is thought to persist for approximately one twenty-fifth of a second on the retina.

It's the flickering effect which annoys the human eye, as the frame flips to the next. Mostly it's ignored by the human brain, cats and dogs for example would notice it more. Depending on how smooth the edges of the animation is, the human brain will still register the previous few frames with the one it sees, calculating differences and ignoring slight variations. This is why monitors now all come with backlights, it greatly reduces this flickering effect.

You'll find that movies and console games can run lower 24FPS and get away without being noticed, because of the distance and edge blur. However, a PC has much higher quality and is closer range, therefore the brain can pick out the edge change a lot more. It entirely depends on what animation you are viewing and what device your viewing it on. For a standard PC, it's ideal to keep it at least above 48FPS at all times, for younger eyes not to be so distracted by the changes.

FPS changes and varies, so 30 FPS won't be continuous (rather it's a rise and lower (for example: 24 to 48 FPS). It's thoses changes which are even more distracting at lower FPS levels. When getting up to 120FPS+, it becomes much less noticed.

You eye also adjusts and learns to accept what it sees. If you need glasses, but don't wear them for years, the eye will consider what it sees as normal... until you see better with glasses, then when you remove the glasses vision suddenly appears a lot more blurry. The same factor applies to monitors. People running at 60Hz, will be happy, till they see a 120Hz/144Hz monitor to compare it against. The brain will then register the 60Hz as lower quality, than what it first determined it to be at.

Short answer: You don't see in FPS and there's no frames to flicker or edge jumps from movement, so it can't be worst.

[WhiteKnight77]

Azza ☠ の投稿を引用：

The human eye doesn't see in FPS (Frames Per Second). That is entirely a myth.

However, at the same time, a health young standard human eye can perceive and detect drops below 48 FPS and even noticable changes even up to 120 FPS. Why?

Persistence of vision is the phenomenon of the eye by which an afterimage is thought to persist for approximately one twenty-fifth of a second on the retina.

It's the flickering effect which annoys the human eye, as the frame flips to the next. Mostly it's ignored by the human brain, cats and dogs for example would notice it more. Depending on how smooth the edges of the animation is, the human brain will still register the previous few frames with the one it sees, calculating differences and ignoring slight variations. This is why monitors now all come with backlights, it greatly reduces this flickering effect.

You'll find that movies and console games can run lower 24FPS and get away without being noticed, because of the distance and edge blur. However, a PC has much higher quality and is closer range, therefore the brain can pick out the edge change a lot more. It entirely depends on what animation you are viewing and what device your viewing it on. For a standard PC, it's ideal to keep it at least above 48FPS at all times, for younger eyes not to be so distracted by the changes.

FPS changes and varies, so 30 FPS won't be continuous (rather it's a rise and lower (for example: 24 to 48 FPS). It's thoses changes which are even more distracting at lower FPS levels. When getting up to 120FPS+, it becomes much less noticed.

You eye also adjusts and learns to accept what it sees. If you need glasses, but don't wear them for years, the eye will consider what it sees as normal... until you see better with glasses, then when you remove the glasses vision suddenly appears a lot more blurry. The same factor applies to monitors. People running at 60Hz, will be happy, till they see a 120Hz/144Hz monitor to compare it against. The brain will then register the 60Hz as lower quality, than what it first determined it to be at.

Short answer: You don't see in FPS and there's no frames to flicker or edge jumps from movement, so it can't be worst.

For most PC games, 60FPS is good and where we think it runs smooth, but for a game like Flight Simulator 2004 or FSX, 20 FPS appears smooth. That is due to how one is generally looking at a static image of a cockpit and slow moving ground. Even during takeoff and landings where speed is more apparent, it still looks smooth, yet by the time one gets below 15 FPS, it does start to be noticeable.