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

[montyrule]

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?

HAVE YOU EVER PLAYED A GAME BEFORE

[JAW96]

to be honest I can't tell the difference after the 60 fps mark, I have a 60hz monitor that I knocked up to 70 noticed no difference and put it back down

 

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. 

what rig do you have that can play all games at 120+ fps, if anything below that is "unplayable"

[Phillyphries]

More fps is better for games

 

BUT NEVER TOUCH THE FRAMERATE ON MOVIES PLEASE. 23.97 fps is perfect

[Jumper118]

If we could only see at 24fps we would all be dead, especially f1 drivers. They would travel 6m before they could see the next frame. The framerate people can see at is variable and also depended on the person.

[flibberdipper]

Check out the difference between a game running at 30fps, 60fps and a game running at 120fps on a 120Hz monitor, then tell me you can't see more than 24fps

^^ This.

[Mistgrim]

Its all a mind trick played on us by the card manufacturers, all the while they sit together and laugh and drink yoohoo dressed in suits made of the money we spend. But seriously responsiveness you feel a lack of it with lower fps

[Markyod]

24 fps is choppy as FUCK, science is wrong.

[Nexus]

Movies stay at a constant 24 fps so it gives the illusion that it isnt laggy and they also use many tricks like motion blur. if you compare a movie in 24 fps and the same movie at 60 you will see the difference. Kinda like buying a regular dvd and the Blue ray version. Also as someone said before humans dont see in frames and yes we can see the difference in frame rates on a monitor. 30 - 60 - 90 - 120 will always look different and smoother as the higher the number goes and Im willing to bet that no matter how high the number goes we humans will always be able to tell the difference. Really I think its just what ever looks good to us looks good to us so if your happy with 30 stick with 30 or if you want 60 aim for 60.

 

Seeing as how you are a new member i thought id let you know that necroing threads is against the CoC

 

...

4.3 Thread Necroing

Thread necroing consists of reviving a previously resolved, settled, or "dead" thread after a prolonged period of time by the OP with the intention of bumping the thread to the top of the board. Threads with an activity gap of 1 month or greater that are brought back to the front page is considered "thread necroing". A shorter duration may be considered when dealing with situations like previously resolved threads being reposted on simply for the purpose of bumping it to the front page. Build logs are exempt from this rule.

...

 

 

 

For reference here is the CoC thread:

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/95599-linus-tech-tips-forum-code-of-conduct/

 

Edit:- Just re-read and it seems necroing only applies to the OP? 

Just ignore me. Apologies.

[miyabwah]

24 FPS feels smooth enough for me, but I'd like it as smooth as possible.

[Cryptonite]

your obviously not experienced at all 

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

huge diffrence

just wanted to tell you to follow his link since you can't understand sarcasm, I mean do you really think you can compare screenshots to determine fps? >_>

[mr moose]

(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)

There are a lot of articles sure, but the only ones you should read are the peer reviewed research articles written by psychologists, biologists, technology professors and so on. They are the ones I have linked to, and none of them are saying you can't tell the difference between above 100fps and and blow 80fps or whatever frame range you want.  What they are saying is that it is not the visual perception of those frame rates that you are noticing.  All the proper peer reviewed articles state an fps of between 60 and 100 depending on circumstances, all the tech websites are either trying to tell us it's more or their data misrepresented or just bad to begin with.

 

I find it thoroughly hypocritical that when someone posts a medical question in off topic every one jumps in with "this is a tech forum" and then a thread comes along that specifically deals with human body and how it works everyone is posting links to tech websites to prove their point.   If you want to know about science read a science journal if you want to know about computers read a tech site or two, but don't confuse the two.

 

 

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.

 

The scientific research behind this is quite thorough, avoid tech websites (they are wrong about a lot of things) and only read published articles.  I see the problem as people that don't seem to have the ability to understand why there are more factors to experiencing a game than FPS,   the change in FPS just so happens to coincide with what they experience. 

 

I.E people think that when the game struggles it drops frames and we notice that. Or the game can perform better so the number of frames goes up and we notice that.

What's actually happening is: the game struggles, we notice that through lag and delays, the frame rate rate also drops as a result. Or the game performs well and we have a much better experience and at the same time because the computer isn't struggling the frames go up. Either way it is the performance of the pc we notice not the specifically the frame rate.

[flibberdipper]

24 FPS feels smooth enough for me, but I'd like it as smooth as possible.

But your computer is slow, so you're probably used to it.

[miyabwah]

But your computer is slow, so you're probably used to it.

also, this

[mr moose]

@Lays @ThorBuildingLegos

 

However given the inability of a lot of people on here to understand the science and how they just keep confusing a correlation for actual visual perception, I tend to agree, this thread probably should just be left or locked maybe even.

 

Or my favorite option (pipedream maybe) would be to get some research professors from MIT or some other respected research institute to write a faq to end the debate once and for all.

[Lays]

@Lays @ThorBuildingLegos

 

However given the inability of a lot of people on here to understand the science and how they just keep confusing a correlation for actual visual perception, I tend to agree, this thread probably should just be left or locked maybe even.

 

Or my favorite option (pipedream maybe) would be to get some research professors from MIT or some other respected research institute to write a faq to end the debate once and for all.

 

 

Yeah #1 problem with the internatz, if you have an opinion you should get rid of it as soon as possible! BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE'S IS WRONG!

[Kilerbomb]

Are we really doing this again? Here, this will end the argument:

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

 

Also, try playing games like Minecraft with 24fps or less. Notice that in Minecraft when the framerate is lower, the mouse becomes less and less responsive. To the point where if you are playing it at 24fps it's very hard to play. Many games suffer from this mouse latency issue when running at low framerates.

[UnderADyingSun]

The human eye doesn't interpret in frames per second

[Gauzl]

Playing a game and watching a movie are completely different simply because playing a game requires a lot more focus. Anyone that says you can't see more then a certain fps is just an idiot, I can clearly see the difference between 30 60 and 120fps.

[mr moose]

The human eye doesn't interpret in frames per second

no, but it does have a limit to the amount of frames it can interpret.

 

 

Playing a game and watching a movie are completely different simply because playing a game requires a lot more focus. Anyone that says you can't see more then a certain fps is just an idiot, I can clearly see the difference between 30 60 and 120fps.

 

You can tell the difference between 30 60 and 120, but this does not mean you can SEE it.  There are plenty of well respected scientists your are referring to as idiots.

[Kilerbomb]

 

You can tell the difference between 30 60 and 120, but this does not mean you can SEE it.  There are plenty of well respected scientists your are referring to as idiots.

Oh really? http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

[mr moose]

Oh really? http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

have you actually read anything I have posted?

 

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

 

The general consensus (as I have stated many many times) is that it is about 75fps.  but people will struggle to see more than that, and what most research is telling us is that the ability to pick the frame rate above this number is due to other factors and not specifically visual perception.

[Kilerbomb]

have you actually read anything I have posted?

 

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

 

The general consensus (as I have stated many many times) is that it is about 75fps.  but people will struggle to see more than that, and what most research is telling us is that the ability to pick the frame rate above this number is due to other factors and not specifically visual perception.

Oh sorry. I thought you meant 24fps. Oops. 

[VG Docs]

no, but it does have a limit to the amount of frames it can interpret.

 

 

 

You can tell the difference between 30 60 and 120, but this does not mean you can SEE it.  There are plenty of well respected scientists your are referring to as idiots.

I understand your defense, but it doesn't make sense. 

If you can see a difference, you can clearly see each frame rate amount differently than the others, and the only way that's possible is if you can see 30, 60, and 120 fps as being higher frame rates, or if motion blur is involved, which for a lot of tests, it's not.

 

And the mind has no specific limit of frame rate. What you can see is dependent on a few things, the most important one is you. 

Sure, I probably can't see much more than a certain amount of FPS on a movie, but it's dependent on the movie/tv show/game, my eyes, mind, and visual effects. The "you can't see more than 60 FPS" thing is a complete myth. If you have an average mind, and you look at a game or even a video at above 60 FPS with a monitor that's above a 60 Hz refresh rate, you'll likely see a difference. Especially if it's as high as 120 Hz. What he's saying isn't that we can see 1000's of fps fully, he's saying that there is no specific limit or ruling for everyone's vision in proportion to FPS. If you know a scientist that says that though, then he's probably very bad at what he does.

[mr moose]

I understand your defense, but it doesn't make sense. 

If you can see a difference, you can clearly see each frame rate amount differently than the others, and the only way that's possible is if you can see 30, 60, and 120 fps as being higher frame rates, or if motion blur is involved, which for a lot of tests, it's not.

 

And the mind has no specific limit of frame rate. What you can see is dependent on a few things, the most important one is you. 

Sure, I probably can't see much more than a certain amount of FPS on a movie, but it's dependent on the movie/tv show/game, my eyes, mind, and visual effects. The "you can't see more than 60 FPS" thing is a complete myth. If you have an average mind, and you look at a game or even a video at above 60 FPS with a monitor that's above a 60 Hz refresh rate, you'll likely see a difference. Especially if it's as high as 120 Hz. What he's saying isn't that we can see 1000's of fps fully, he's saying that there is no specific limit or ruling for everyone's vision in proportion to FPS. If you know a scientist that says that though, then he's probably very bad at what he does.

When you play a game you have multiple feedback paths for your brain to perceive changes in the program/processing, it is not restricted to visual frame rate perception.

 

vision persistence is why the mind has a limit to the number of frames it can perceive, it is the time it takes the visual cortex to stop processing the last signal it received.  this delay can take up to 50ms in some people, this means that regardless of how many frames are presented the visual cortex of that person can only process and convert 20fps into visual images that the brain can interpret.  The average time for visual persistence is between 10ms and 20ms, this equates to an average of 75fps.

 

I am kinda getting tired of posting the same articles (many of which are published and peer reviewed) when people seem to either ignore them or don't have the education/experience to understand them.

 

 

 

 

 

So effectively we have a limit to what we can perceive, I don't know where people got the notion that we don't have limits to our senses, it stands to reason we can't hear over 25Khz, we can't sense temperature over 100C (due to pain) we can't taste certain chemicals, so why would anyone expect there is no limit to eye sight?  we can't detect light waves above 700odd nanometres or below 400 odd. 

[TheProfosist]

Because 24fps is meant for film and movies, you usually want games to feel smoth and buttery not all filmy. Also standard refresh rate is 60hrz now days and 24 does not go into 60 evenly so oh the pain my eyes would have to endure.

Also who ever started the thing about us only being able to see 24fps is pulling it out of their ass. That also has nothing to do whith why movies/film are 24fps.