Why do we need more than 24fps in games...

[mr moose]

the point where it becomes indistinguishable is about 200-400fps depending on the person.

no it's not, I've always said it's about 75 but that may be a bit high.

 

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

[ManOfDisguise]

if i play GO on my 144hz monitor even 90 fps is laggy

[ManOfDisguise]

no it's not, I've always said it's about 75 but that may be a bit high.

 

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

lool so u saying i cant tell the difference between 75 and say, 144? because to me its night and day!

[FanaticArtz]

i cant even stand less then 120Fps if it drops i can tell.

24Fps thing is complete bull shit and the scientists that put this theory out there clearly do not play video games. 

[Cwazywazy]

I've never used a 120hz screen but I have kicked my laptop screen from 60 to 95hz. There is a pretty definite difference.

[ThorBuildingLegos]

I found this link which describes very aptly why it's more subjective than anything else. Not everyone shares the exact same physiology, and the same can be said for the eyes. the connection between the eyes and the brain it self. I was born blind and remained blind the first 3-4 months of my life. My cornea is a bit offset, or "bent" as we say here in Norway, meaning I have bad perephrial vision and sometimes can't distinguish details that are far off in the distance.

 

But: I have experienced 24hz, 30hz, 60hz and 120hz and I can without a doubt say that it makes a difference. But the reason is a bit more complex than people would first perceive.

 

When we increase the frame rate we not only increase the amount of frames but the amount of light and colour and the increase, decrease or general changing of light and colour. Film-makers know this and it's the reason why the latest installment of The Hobbit was shown not only in IMAX but in glorious 120Hz. That means more pixels, more light, colouring and more detailed transitions.

 

Why would they throw money in to incredibly expensive 120Hz cameras and projectors If there is no perceivable effect? The producer wouldn't have allowed the move in the first place if it were the case. Consider 3D technology. Originally I said I couldn't see the difference -- until I saw Dread 3D. Just watching that movie outside of a 3D environment screams gimmick. But once you're in the theatre with a screen that supports said technology (provided you wear glasses) the 3D scenes become something of an experience rather than a gimmick. So... yeah. I never thought I would write that, but there you go.

 

Add to the fact that hundreds, thousands of reviewers, gamers, benchmarkers and so on get 120Hz screens and rave about the experience you'd have to be some kind of paranoid conspiracy theorist to deduce that all of these people are working in cahoots to sell 120Hz screens.

 

Bullocks, I say.

 

If you don't see the difference there might be something wrong with your eyesight, like mine is (I can only perceive newer 3D technology which is why I originally thought it was nothing more than a gimmick).

 

Also, comparing still images in regards to FPS... is completely missing the point.

[Oshino Shinobu]

I'm not sure about you, but I can definitely see more than 24FPS.

 

A consistent FPS is more important than a higher FPS in my opinion, as you notice the drops in FPS more than anything. 

[ThorBuildingLegos]

I'm not sure about you, but I can definitely see more than 24FPS.

 

A consistent FPS is more important than a higher FPS in my opinion, as you notice the drops in FPS more than anything. 

 

Definitely... which kind of adds to the point that there is a perceivable difference.

[_ASSASSIN_]

ever tried 120hz? the mouse is way more smooth its awesome 

i got better aim in shooter games

and in windows the mouse is way smoother 

you should try it

yes I have and it is smooth but I'd much rather have better colors and viewing angles compared to my last 120hz panel

[Oshino Shinobu]

Definitely... which kind of adds to the point that there is a perceivable difference.

Roll on G-Sync!

[Opcode]

The human eye can see beyond 24 FPS. And there are people in the world that can see beyond 30 FPS. So it's become standard that 30 FPS and faster is the "butter" zone.

[mr moose]

lool so u saying i cant tell the difference between 75 and say, 144? because to me its night and day!

no, the guys over at WPI.edu are, and apparently so are these guys who have based there research of peer reviewed work from MIT

 

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=82&ved=0CCsQFjABOFA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.cs.wpi.edu%2F~claypool%2Fpapers%2Ffr%2Ffulltext.pdf&ei=wCvhUpTtDsagkwXnv4DwAQ&usg=AFQjCNHGUvVvV6ECtR0XZrePA-Rd6qi2Jg&bvm=bv.59568121,d.dGI

 

What you can perceive, as I have already said, is essentially input lag or the lack there of.

 

And here's a bit from good old wiki, although I do think they need to update because many other scientists including Dr Tim Smith have release substantial papers regarding what and why we percieve what we do.

 

The human eye and its brain interface, the human visual system, can process 10 to 12 separate images per second, perceiving them individually.^[1] The threshold of human visual perception varies depending on what is being measured. When looking at a lighted display, people begin to notice a brief interruption of darkness if it is about 16 milliseconds or longer.^[2] When given very short single-millisecond visual stimulus people report a duration of between 100 ms and 400 ms due to persistence of vision in the visual cortex. This may cause images perceived in this duration to appear as one stimulus, such as a 10 ms green flash of light immediately followed by a 10 ms red flash of light perceived as a single yellow flash of light.^[3] Persistence of vision may also create an illusion of continuity, allowing a sequence of still images to give the impression of motion.

 

 

The visual persistance can be as low as 10ms, which would give some people (not many) the ability to see 100fps.

[mr moose]

I found this link which describes very aptly why it's more subjective than anything else. Not everyone shares the exact same physiology, and the same can be said for the eyes. the connection between the eyes and the brain it self. I was born blind and remained blind the first 3-4 months of my life. My cornea is a bit offset, or "bent" as we say here in Norway, meaning I have bad perephrial vision and sometimes can't distinguish details that are far off in the distance.

 

But: I have experienced 24hz, 30hz, 60hz and 120hz and I can without a doubt say that it makes a difference. But the reason is a bit more complex than people would first perceive.

 

When we increase the frame rate we not only increase the amount of frames but the amount of light and colour and the increase, decrease or general changing of light and colour. Film-makers know this and it's the reason why the latest installment of The Hobbit was shown not only in IMAX but in glorious 120Hz. That means more pixels, more light, colouring and more detailed transitions.

 

Why would they throw money in to incredibly expensive 120Hz cameras and projectors If there is no perceivable effect? The producer wouldn't have allowed the move in the first place if it were the case. Consider 3D technology. Originally I said I couldn't see the difference -- until I saw Dread 3D. Just watching that movie outside of a 3D environment screams gimmick. But once you're in the theatre with a screen that supports said technology (provided you wear glasses) the 3D scenes become something of an experience rather than a gimmick. So... yeah. I never thought I would write that, but there you go.

 

Add to the fact that hundreds, thousands of reviewers, gamers, benchmarkers and so on get 120Hz screens and rave about the experience you'd have to be some kind of paranoid conspiracy theorist to deduce that all of these people are working in cahoots to sell 120Hz screens.

 

Bullocks, I say.

 

If you don't see the difference there might be something wrong with your eyesight, like mine is (I can only perceive newer 3D technology which is why I originally thought it was nothing more than a gimmick).

 

Also, comparing still images in regards to FPS... is completely missing the point.

That link is kinda misinforming, whilst a number of people can see 100fps it is a rather rare number,  His inclusion of the pilot test to prove frame rates is wrong, all that tests proves is you can see one frame out of 220 not 220 frames per second.  As for the rest I think I have posted enough peer reviewed articles to explain how it works and why.

[smjpl]

So 24fps is good enough for movies and according to science we can only see can only see 24fps.

So why do we need higher for games.

Opinions?

 

Seeing and feeling are two very different things.

[Milesgaming]

Because screw science, that's why

[Swegly]

Movies are different. They dont have input lag like gaming does therefore when filming it only captures whats going on in the camera but for gaming it has to process what you decide to do, where to move, ect. Hope that makes sense.

[zip2k4]

That link is kinda misinforming, whilst a number of people can see 100fps it is a rather rare number,  His inclusion of the pilot test to prove frame rates is wrong, all that tests proves is you can see one frame out of 220 not 220 frames per second.  As for the rest I think I have posted enough peer reviewed articles to explain how it works and why.

 

no point, I posted a single post here i believe and all it stated is that we're digging an old thread already.

 

at some point this thread just needs to die

[Askew]

according to science

 

What science is that? :lol:

[-iSynthesis]

Try running minecraft with 30&60fps. theres a huge difference. 45 is really low for me, thats why i dont want to record MW2 with fraps :-/

[EmotionalSloth]

I can't stand any games under 50 fps.

[Lays]

That link is kinda misinforming, whilst a number of people can see 100fps it is a rather rare number,  His inclusion of the pilot test to prove frame rates is wrong, all that tests proves is you can see one frame out of 220 not 220 frames per second.  As for the rest I think I have posted enough peer reviewed articles to explain how it works and why.

 

(I'm not trying to start a huge argument, nor am I trying to put-down your information, because I do agree with most of it)

 

 

I don't really care what research says or doesn't say, I'd rather go with my personal experience. There's THOUSANDS of articles saying it's 60, 30, 120, 200, 1000, and with that many different arguments out there I find it hard to trust just one.

 

When I play games and they dip below 60-80, I can definitely notice a difference.  Moving from a 60hz 5ms panel to my vg248qe's has been a massive improvement, not only did it make my aim better, I feel as if I'm half a second ahead of everyone else in my game.  Could it be that it's a better panel then the crappy HP one I moved from, maybe, but I know what I see, and I think a lot of others will agree.

 

Arguing over this makes no sense to me, seeing as there's so many different articles/studies on the internet about it, and especially since they say "oh well some people can train themselves to see more, and some are different than the others" There's to many variables for their to be a "definitive answer" in my opinion. 

 

But I think it does get to a point of diminishing returns, is there a difference between 100 and 120? Maybe, but I think it would take some serious getting used to the game that was being played, and all other variables would have to be taken out, (other players using different things, different spots of the map, etc)

[pummetje]

LOL! Is r/Pcmasterrace leaking`?

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

 

your obviously not experienced at all 

have you even played a game at 30fps and after that 60fps?

huge diffrence

[ThorBuildingLegos]

That link is kinda misinforming, whilst a number of people can see 100fps it is a rather rare number, His inclusion of the pilot test to prove frame rates is wrong, all that tests proves is you can see one frame out of 220 not 220 frames per second. As for the rest I think I have posted enough peer reviewed articles to explain how it works and why.

It wouldn't be the first misinforming link in this thread.

But I still stand be the fact that it is individual. Not everyone are born the same and the difference can be chalked up to strong attributes and deficiencies. We can create an understanding of the similarities between people in general, but I feel that the scientific research behind this is not complete. To be scientifically validated means peer reviews, lots of extra testing, since the process is largely about disproving rather than proving, and these claims we are making (they are nothing more) don't hold weight under scientific scrutiny without exhaustive research in to the subject.

So yeah, this post needs to die.

[Legion]

Try playing at 60 then 100+ Its all icky and teary.

[Coollok100]

In a movie, you have the advantage of motion blur in between frames, which helps to blend frames together from your point of view. This is not, however ideal in games, as you may have experienced - I always turn motion blur off due to the lack of clarity you end up with. Also, as games are interactive, you can 'feel' the difference in the input lag. Your brain notices the difference in time between you moving the mouse and the update appearing, and you get a jutter as each image appears on the screen, followed by stillness, even if you are moving the mouse smoothly.