Xbox Dev: 30fps isn't enough.

[CGurrell]

Simon Cooke, a developer from the Xbox Advanced Technology Group, has given his view on frame rates of games and films on his blog. He believes that the human eye constantly jitters to capture extra information, at approximately 83.68Hz on average (I saw Linus's video about 60Hz vs 120Hz, it may be that his eyes oscillate at a higher frequency).

 

Full story: http://techreport.com/news/27540/xbox-dev-explains-why-30-fps-isnt-enough?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

 

Blog: http://accidentalscientist.com/2014/12/why-movies-look-weird-at-48fps-and-games-are-better-at-60fps-and-the-uncanny-valley.html

 

Sorry if this is a dupe, had a look and couldn't find anything

[ZetZet]

You can tell the difference between 120 and 144 though. And trained people see even more. 

 

 

Yes. 1/200th of a second? Yes. Tests with Air force pilots have shown, that they couldidentify the plane on a flashed picture that was flashed only for 1/220th of a second.

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

[OlekKing]

Why is he trying to attach refresh rate numbers to our eyes? Our eyes perceive movement, it is that simple, the more information we get, the smoother the picture is, the issue about 30 fps in games is that it's fucking horrible for controlling, i can't stand it even with a controller and being a couple meters from a TV.

There is some sort of limit past which we cannot really see any meaningful difference, pilots have been recorded spotting a 1/255th of a frame.

What is that bullshit about "approximately 83.68Hz"?

[Humbug]

Why is he trying to attach refresh rate numbers to our eyes?

my thoughts exactly. Sounds like his own brand of pseudo science.

[OlekKing]

my thoughts exactly. Sounds like his own brand of pseudo science.

I'm guessing by the time 240Hz and 240 fps is a PC standard, he'll come back to this 83.68Hz shit and say that 80 fps is enough.

[mr moose]

You can tell the difference between 120 and 144 though. And trained people see even more. 

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

 

That is wrong, it grossly misrepresents how the human eye works.  It is getting tiring constantly reading the same links to the same websites.  I wish they would shut them down.

 

http://dwb4.unl.edu/Chem/CHEM869P/CHEM869PLinks/www.ece.wpi.edu/infoeng/textbook/node71.html

http://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03204258

http://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03204935

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpersci.mit.edu%2Fpub_pdfs%2Fspatio85.pdf&ei=7meZVPu2O8f38QWZ6ILgBQ&usg=AFQjCNFIfNgEkyhyQ8ULrCu58gbjIikbPw&bvm=bv.82001339,d.dGc

 

The human eye can see 1 frame if it is flashed up by itself because of vision persistence, but if you flashes up 200frames in one sec the vision persistence would not allow you to distinguish between them. 

 

I like this xbox dude, he's pretty on the money with 83,  most researchers currently agree it is about 75 or a little more with training.

[othertomperson]

Eye... refreshrate. Funny when I learned about the eye, astoundingly they completely forgot to mention its shutter speed...

 

75 - 80 is pretty much what I've heard from other sources so I'll go with it.

[OlekKing]

Eye... refreshrate. Funny when I learned about the eye, astoundingly they completely forgot to mention its shutter speed...

 

75 - 80 is pretty much what I've heard from other sources so I'll go with it.

There is nothing comparable to a shutter of a camera in the human eye. When the eyelid is open the image is continuously projected onto the retina unlike in a camera. 

What are your sources? Various people pulling stuff out of their ass?

[mr moose]

There is nothing comparable to a shutter of a camera in the human eye. When the eyelid is open the image is continuously projected onto the retina unlike in a camera. 

What are your sources? Various people pulling stuff out of their ass?

 

But the retina doesn't continuously transmit that image to the brain, it has a delay as the receptors need time to recover before they can send another signal. This is called vision persistence. So while there is no shutter, there is a shutter like effect not only in the eye, but the brain also turns off the visual input while the eye is moving to prevent distortion of the visual image.

[TheGFactor]

Damn straight 30fps isnt enough.

[OlekKing]

But the retina doesn't continuously transmit that image to the brain, it has a delay as the receptors need time to recover before they can send another signal. This is called vision persistence. So while there is no shutter, there is a shutter like effect not only in the eye, but the brain also turns off the visual input while the eye is moving to prevent distortion of the visual image.

Brain turns off visual input when the eye moves? Excuse me but what the hell are you talking about?

The only instance i can recall of when the brain does such a thing is with cases of Amblyopia where one eye can drift off target but the person doesn't notice it and gets no double vision because the brain turns off input from the bad eye.

 

Brain turning off visual input due to eye movement? What kind of joke is that?

Are you going to link me some sort of scientific paper? I've never heard of such a stupid thing. Go ahead and correct me if i am wrong. Or did you read that somewhere on a facebook post?

[mr moose]

Brain turns off visual input when the eye moves? Excuse me but what the hell are you talking about?

The only instance i can recall of when the brain does such a thing is with cases of Amblyopia where one eye can drift off target but the person doesn't notice it and gets no double vision because the brain turns off input from the bad eye.

 

Brain turning off visual input due to eye movement? What kind of joke is that?

Are you going to link me some sort of scientific paper? I've never heard of such a stupid thing. Go ahead and correct me if i am wrong. Or did you read that somewhere on a facebook post?

 

What kind of joke?  One that has been known by researchers for a lot longer than you think:

 

[OlekKing]

 

Literally took me 20 seconds to google. That's the shutter effect he's trying to explain to you.

I am not talking about persistence of vision.

That only occurs with specific colors and patterns or sudden exposure to bright lights, what does that have to do with the brain turning off visual input when you move your eye?

[OlekKing]

What kind of joke?  One that has been known by researchers for a lot longer than you think:

 

I am waiting for a scientific paper or even a citation from an Ophthalmology book.

 

Video description: "Experimental psychologist Professor Bruce Hood"

[WelshDdraig]

I like this Xbox guy. Sure more fps is better to an extent (3D gaming as an example) but finally a developer has come out on the console side and said 30 fps is not enough. 

[OlekKing]

He didn't say it turned off, but rather the visual input does. There's just a delay because the brain has to read the image before outputting. I'm assuming because this happens so quickly, we actually don't notice the delay, but there are some labs for you to see for yourself.

"the brain also turns off the visual input while the eye is moving"

The tiny delay caused by the time needed for the information to travel to the brain and then get processed is not the equivalent of a camera shutter.

[mr moose]

I am waiting for a scientific paper or even a citation from an Ophthalmology book.

 

Video description: "Experimental psychologist Professor Bruce Hood"

 

OMG, demonstration performed in the video and you still won't accept it.   :rolleyes: 

 

I guess he must be lying and set the whole thing up as a trick to fool pc users.

[OlekKing]

OMG, demonstration performed in the video and you still won't accept it.   :rolleyes:

 

I guess he must be lying and set the whole thing up as a trick to fool pc users.

I continue to request either a research/experimental paper or a citation from Ophthalmology book...

Your words were quit clear: "the brain also turns off the visual input while the eye is moving"

[LAwLz]

That is wrong, it grossly misrepresents how the human eye works.  It is getting tiring constantly reading the same links to the same websites.  I wish they would shut them down.

Yeah our eyes are a bit more complicated than that. Saying that we can see 83 FPS is not correct either.

If you run a video at 220 FPS and all frames but one is black, then we will be able to see that single picture frame very clearly. I guess you could say we can see 220+ FPS, but we might not be able to differentiate between frame 219 and 220 if they are similar.

Saying that we can see 83 FPS would be wrong since there are tests like the one posted above showing that under the right conditions we can see a single frame in a 220 FPS video.

 

I wonder what would happen if they did the experiment in reverse. Show 219 pictures of a plane and 1 completely black frame. I wonder if that would be registered or not.

[ShadowCaptain]

Yeah our eyes are a bit more complicated than that. Saying that we can see 83 FPS is not correct either.

If you run a video at 220 FPS and all frames but one is black, then we will be able to see that single picture frame very clearly. I guess you could say we can see 220+ FPS, but we might not be able to differentiate between frame 219 and 220 if they are similar.

Saying that we can see 83 FPS would be wrong since there are tests like the one posted above showing that under the right conditions we can see a single frame in a 220 FPS video.

 

I wonder what would happen if they did the experiment in reverse. Show 219 pictures of a plane and 1 completely black frame. I wonder if that would be registered or not.

 

That would be an interesting experiment,

 

Another thought I had was how subliminal adverts work, a single frame can be recognised by the brain but not represented visually in our thoughts, perhaps higher frame rate gaming mean your brain has access to more information thus can react better, even if our eyes are not actually displaying the information consciously to us

 

(did that make sense?)

[mr moose]

I continue to request either a research/experimental paper or a citation from Ophthalmology book...

Your words were quit clear: "the brain also turns off the visual input while the eye is moving"

 

And he says that quite clearly in the video.  but here you go:

 

http://dwb4.unl.edu/Chem/CHEM869P/CHEM869PLinks/www.ece.wpi.edu/infoeng/textbook/node71.html

http://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03204258

http://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03204935

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpersci.mit.edu%2Fpub_pdfs%2Fspatio85.pdf&ei=cHSZVODBNc6A8gXTuYLwBQ&usg=AFQjCNFIfNgEkyhyQ8ULrCu58gbjIikbPw&bvm=bv.82001339,d.dGc

 

And this one because it's interesting:

 

http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/mot_reverse-phi/

 

 

 

I wonder what would happen if they did the experiment in reverse. Show 219 pictures of a plane and 1 completely black frame. I wonder if that would be registered or not.

My understanding is that you would not register the black one because the image from the preceding frame would still be in the retina for the duration of the black frame.

[OlekKing]

And he says that quite clearly in the video.  but here you go:

 

http://dwb4.unl.edu/Chem/CHEM869P/CHEM869PLinks/www.ece.wpi.edu/infoeng/textbook/node71.html

http://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03204258

http://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03204935

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpersci.mit.edu%2Fpub_pdfs%2Fspatio85.pdf&ei=cHSZVODBNc6A8gXTuYLwBQ&usg=AFQjCNFIfNgEkyhyQ8ULrCu58gbjIikbPw&bvm=bv.82001339,d.dGc

 

And this one because it's interesting:

 

http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/mot_reverse-phi/

 

 

 

My understanding is that you would not register the black one because the image from the preceding frame would still be in the retina for the duration of the black frame.

You said that the brain turned off visual input from the eyes when moving them, that is incorrect, you were of course talking about saccadic masking, the brain blocks or ignores the input it gets whenever you move your eye past something without actually focusing on it. What does that have to do with "turning off visual input from the eye"?

Saccadic masking only occurs during those quick eye movements because you are not focusing on what is between your initial focus position and your focal destination, if you were to slowly move your eyes along with your head it would not happen. It has nothing to do with a camera.

What the hell does it have to do with the shutter effect on a camera? Exactly nothing.

You have to understand that the confusing and stupid part is you trying to compare this to a camera shutter.

[mr moose]

You said that the brain turned off visual input from the eyes when moving them, that is incorrect, you were of course talking about saccadic masking, the brain blocks or ignores the input it gets whenever you move your eye past something without actually focusing on it. What does that have to do with "turning off visual input from the eye"?

 

 

Do you really think there is a difference between what I said in red and what you say in blue? and the sentence in green is the same bloody thing.  :rolleyes:

[OlekKing]

Do you really think there is a difference between what I said in red and what you say in blue? and the sentence in green is the same bloody thing.  :rolleyes:

The eye is the light receptor, not the brain, you made it seem as if the eye stopped allowing information in, which is what a camera shutter is, which is why this has nothing to do with a camera shutter.

[LAwLz]

That would be an interesting experiment,

 

Another thought I had was how subliminal adverts work, a single frame can be recognised by the brain but not represented visually in our thoughts, perhaps higher frame rate gaming mean your brain has access to more information thus can react better, even if our eyes are not actually displaying the information consciously to us

 

(did that make sense?)

Yep that made sense. Even if we don't consciously registers each frame we might subconsciously use the extra info.

 

 

My understanding is that you would not register the black one because the image from the preceding frame would still be in the retina for the duration of the black frame.

Hm you might be right. I wonder what would happen with 119 white frames instead of black ones, or 119 frames with a faint static on them.

It's a shame they didn't include those kinds of tests.