The human eye and framerate. No i'm not Starting a rage fest I found a very interesting video essay.

[SquintyG33Rs]

I honestly thought this was an April fools video because of how close it released but after watching it I think this guy is speaking seriously.
 

he spends all the video time breaking down all the bad arguments people make on this topic, because biology doesn't line up with a single generic number like cameras and screens do.

[SquintyG33Rs]

Do NOT reply to this topic with ridiculous claims the mods will take the thread down.

[thrasher_565]

the thing about this topic is i watch a bunch of them and they all have variable numbers as to how fast some one can react or how many frames you can see. simply put everyone one is different... i guess you would need a way to log and test people kinda like apps to improve aiming. only problem with that is people could cheat...

[SquintyG33Rs]

11 minutes ago, thrasher_565 said:

the thing about this topic is i watch a bunch of them and they all have variable numbers as to how fast some one can react or how many frames you can see. simply put everyone one is different... i guess you would need a way to log and test people kinda like apps to improve aiming. only problem with that is people could cheat...

watch the video that's not really the topic.
Essentially what the really point of everyone disagreeing is that biology doesn't work like a camera do (digital or mechanical doesn't matter)

also the video is made from the perspective of a film maker who just likes using 24fps for artistic reasons. but he completely destroys so many shitty arguments people make on this topic so i thought it was worth a share.

[WereCat]

18 minutes ago, SquintyG33Rs said:

watch the video that's not really the topic.
Essentially what the really point of everyone disagreeing is that biology doesn't work like a camera do (digital or mechanical doesn't matter)

also the video is made from the perspective of a film maker who just likes using 24fps for artistic reasons. but he completely destroys so many shitty arguments people make on this topic so i thought it was worth a share.

Isn't that a common knowledge? (can't watch the video right now but from your description it sounds like what we already know...)

[thrasher_565]

24 minutes ago, SquintyG33Rs said:

watch the video that's not really the topic.
Essentially what the really point of everyone disagreeing is that biology doesn't work like a camera do (digital or mechanical doesn't matter)

also the video is made from the perspective of a film maker who just likes using 24fps for artistic reasons. but he completely destroys so many shitty arguments people make on this topic so i thought it was worth a share.

ya makes scene to me. first thought thow was revewtechusa... but the content was good.

 

https://www.youtube.com/@ReviewTechUSA

 

 

Edited April 3, 2023 by thrasher_565

[SquintyG33Rs]

Just now, WereCat said:

Isn't that a common knowledge? (can't watch the video right now but from your description it sounds like what we already know...)

Yeah, but the way he particularly broke down every argument I had never seen before. It's a really well made video

[jaslion]

22 minutes ago, SquintyG33Rs said:

Yeah, but the way he particularly broke down every argument I had never seen before. It's a really well made video

In the end film and games are so different that where with film you can achieve an extremely smooth image even at 24 fps by having some good motion blur.

 

Games cant do that since we dont know what the next frame will be so that chase for higher and higher refresh rates.

 

In the end I still always recommend 144hz (or around that) panels over anything else as only few games can even run at higher fps without hitting engine limits. That plus our brain is amazing at adapting and unless you put a 240 and 144 next to eachother its gonna be very hard to notice.

[SquintyG33Rs]

56 minutes ago, jaslion said:

In the end film and games are so different that where with film you can achieve an extremely smooth image even at 24 fps by having some good motion blur.

 

Games cant do that since we dont know what the next frame will be so that chase for higher and higher refresh rates.

 

In the end I still always recommend 144hz (or around that) panels over anything else as only few games can even run at higher fps without hitting engine limits. That plus our brain is amazing at adapting and unless you put a 240 and 144 next to eachother its gonna be very hard to notice.

that's not at all part of the conversation because we're assuming your v-sync on your target. and usually that's not too hard to acheive if you're not trying to be a 360Hz snob.

you're replying off of just assuming what the video says instead of watching it... you didn't even try to read the comments on the video.

[DeltaBruggemann]

Pretty interesting watch.

My takeaway is that most likely our eyes don't have a fixed sample rate/ frame rate but we are also able to detect changes in what we see over every short time periods.

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

There is one huge difference between movies and games:

With games YOU have control of the camera.
 

It's the delay between your input and what your eyes see that you feel.

With movies you get away with 24FPS with motion bleur applied to each frame. You don't have an expectation of what the camera should do next.
Trying playing an FPS game at 24FPS with motion bleur applied to each frame. You move your mouse, and the response is sluggish and delayed.

 

There is measurable (if tiny) difference even increasing from 144FPS to 240FPS.

I have no doubt which is better for me when choosing between a 4K60FPS setup and a 2K140FPS.

 

As for the eye, if you see a video, 10FPS is the point when you stop seeing a slideshow of individual pictures, and when you start seeing a continuous change. If it takes 150ms to respond to a change in frame, showing that frame 3ms later still results in at least a 3ms delay in your response. That's why with more FPS and lower input delay the game feels better, even when passing from 144FPS to 240FPS, when you'll never see individual frames.

Not even movies are shown you at 10FPS.

 

[ImorallySourcedElectrons]

I think a big factor here is that 60 Hz on an LCD is also not the same as 60 Hz on an OLED monitor, pixels don't magically switch on and off. I've had the pleasure of staring at prototype LCD screens, and I can tell you that the mechanism by which it "fades" (to avoid listing a bit too much technical lingo) has a massive impact on the perception. You can't really point it out, but you'll definitely feel it's different. Only when you went to a microscope and turned the frame rate up to 11 and illuminated in transmission could you see what was really going on. And a lot of this also comes down to driving schemes. You're by no means limited to the simple theoretical ones listed in the books. And for the movie freaks, if you consider things like those MEMS micro-mirror arrays, etc. I suspect it gets even more interesting.

 

That being said, I'm on 60 Hz and I can't be arsed to upgrade. Colour calibrated monitors with good blacks are an advantage for someone who rarely plays multiplayer shooters but does a lot of photo editing, so losing that performance in lieu of a higher refresh rate isn't really something worth considering.

 

2 hours ago, SquintyG33Rs said:

Do NOT reply to this topic with ridiculous claims the mods will take the thread down.

Human eyes are really just advanced miniature golf balls with an iris painted on after the creator saw Stargate SG-1 and thought the word iris sounded cool.

[Vishera]

2 hours ago, thrasher_565 said:

they all have variable numbers as to how fast some one can react or how many frames you can see.

My reaction time is always inconsistent, always varies.

As for how many frame i can see, the issue is that in video games the framerate is tied to the input latency so i have no idea at what point the framerate won't matter to me

[thrasher_565]

5 hours ago, Vishera said:

My reaction time is always inconsistent, always varies.

As for how many frame i can see, the issue is that in video games the framerate is tied to the input latency so i have no idea at what point the framerate won't matter to me

the how many frames shows vs lower and hier i get that but it also is a slide show and in case might no be what you want. i play diablo 2 witch is 24fps and came is coded around that and seems smooth to me.

 

i guess back then things would emulate frames and guess what it might look like but now its fast that it dose not need to guess any more.

[dilpickle]

Yeah I'm not watching that. I've seen one of this older videos where he spends 20 minutes arguing that 24fps is the "Holy Frame Rate" just because that's the way its always been. Its a pointless circular argument.

[Moto Fox]

13 hours ago, SquintyG33Rs said:

Do NOT reply to this topic with ridiculous claims the mods will take the thread down.

I invented the question mark!

[SquintyG33Rs]

11 hours ago, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

There is one huge difference between movies and games:

With games YOU have control of the camera.
 

It's the delay between your input and what your eyes see that you feel.

With movies you get away with 24FPS with motion bleur applied to each frame. You don't have an expectation of what the camera should do next.
Trying playing an FPS game at 24FPS with motion bleur applied to each frame. You move your mouse, and the response is sluggish and delayed.

 

There is measurable (if tiny) difference even increasing from 144FPS to 240FPS.

I have no doubt which is better for me when choosing between a 4K60FPS setup and a 2K140FPS.

 

As for the eye, if you see a video, 10FPS is the point when you stop seeing a slideshow of individual pictures, and when you start seeing a continuous change. If it takes 150ms to respond to a change in frame, showing that frame 3ms later still results in at least a 3ms delay in your response. That's why with more FPS and lower input delay the game feels better, even when passing from 144FPS to 240FPS, when you'll never see individual frames.

Not even movies are shown you at 10FPS.

 

did you even watch it?

[SquintyG33Rs]

1 hour ago, dilpickle said:

Yeah I'm not watching that. I've seen one of this older videos where he spends 20 minutes arguing that 24fps is the "Holy Frame Rate" just because that's the way its always been. Its a pointless circular argument.

that's fair enough i have not seen any video of his before and i didn't click on anything else after.
but i have to say this one was good.

[Mihle]

22 hours ago, DeltaBruggemann said:

Pretty interesting watch.

My takeaway is that most likely our eyes don't have a fixed sample rate/ frame rate but we are also able to detect changes in what we see over every short time periods.

I have not watched the video.

But from my knowledge, correct me if I am wrong:

 

The cells in your eyes work independently from eachother and isn't synced. So they can send signals on a lot of different types.

 

How often they send signals are dependent on how much they are activated, aka how bright it is. Eye cells do not send out an analog signal, they save up energy, and when the the total reach a certain point, and then they let out a pulse. So the more it is to detect, the faster they pulse. The iris tried to compensate for overall brightness tho to being it to the same level, but aren't able to of its too dark.

 

I think that is why if are in a very dark place, things look little more blurry (my experience) but not sure.

 

have no idea how the brain work with those signals it receives tho.

[Mihle]

That said, I personally don't think 24 FPS movies is that smooth when camera is panning or something, but I have to live with it as that is what they make.

[SquintyG33Rs]

20 hours ago, Mihle said:

I think that is why if are in a very dark place, things look little more blurry (my experience) but not sure.

Actually this is an effect of spherical lens aberration

because it's obvious your eye didn't make perfectly parabolic lenses for every "zoom" level. and a small aperture compensates for it very well. so in daylight you can't see it, but in darkness it is visible.

 

I think this does bring up a point that explains why people get confused between the eye and cameras. because the front half of the thing is pretty much identical. it's the sensory part that isn't comparable at all.

[SquintyG33Rs]

20 hours ago, Mihle said:

That said, I personally don't think 24 FPS movies is that smooth when camera is panning or something, but I have to live with it as that is what they make.

it's an "intent" and style thing.

a good cinematographer knows how fast he can swing the camera. a bad one doesn't and makes it look choppy.

either go really fast and motion blur will look good and create a transition or slow pan. but there's a dead zone in between that looks terrible.

[LAwLz]

23 hours ago, Mihle said:

That said, I personally don't think 24 FPS movies is that smooth when camera is panning or something, but I have to live with it as that is what they make.

Panning shots not looking smooth often have less to do with the frame rate and more to do with the synchronization of the frames with the TV.

Movies shot in 24 FPS will not look smooth when displayed at 60Hz because 60 isn't evenly divisible by 24.

 

That's why I prefer 120Hz screens over 144Hz, because 120 is evenly divisible with 24, 30 and 60 and as a result will look smooth regardless of which content you watch. On a 144Hz screen 30 FPS content will probably look less smooth than 24 FPS content. That's assuming something like FreeSync isn't used to lower the Hz of the 144Hz screen, and that the 24 FPS content was filmed with a lower shutter speed than the 30 FPS content, which it should be.

[saintlouisbagels]

6 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Panning shots not looking smooth often have less to do with the frame rate and more to do with the synchronization of the frames with the TV.

Movies shot in 24 FPS will not look smooth when displayed at 60Hz because 60 isn't evenly divisible by 24.

Isn't there a secondary problem of the 24fps content being output at 30fps from the device and causing the 3:2 pulldown regardless of it being played on a 120Hz TV?

I assumed that was also the problem and why blu-ray players have a specific function for outputting at 24fps.

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, saint_louis_bagels said:

Isn't there a secondary problem of the 24fps content being output at 30fps from the device and causing the 3:2 pulldown regardless of it being played on a 120Hz TV?

I assumed that was also the problem and why blu-ray players have a specific function for outputting at 24fps.

I wouldn't be surprised if some software or hardware is locked to outputting 30 FPS. It would be very stupid thing to do but I am sure there are situations where that happens.

As far as I know it's not an issue with the software I use though (mpv, Kodi, etc).