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

[VG Docs]

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. 

I think there's some sort of misunderstanding here.

 

You posted saying "no, but it does have a limit to the amount of frames it can interpret.." That's the post I was responding to. I also mentioned the 30, 60, and 120 FPS thing as well, but I'll get on about that in a minute. 

 

When you posted that it was a reply that I though implied that we all have the same limit of FPS. My post was simply me trying to say that it's not true. I used poor vocabulary in some areas, like when I said "And the mind has no specific limit of frame rate", what I meant was that not everyone is limited to the same frame rate cap due to your brain, eyes, etc. 

 

"You can tell the difference between 30 60 and 120, but this does not mean you can SEE it."

I think I get what you're saying there now, but I do think it could be re-worded a little better.

 

Also, you may want to use another analogy, the 100C thing isn't limited by our thermoception anymore, but by our nociception. Two different senses. Just some friendly advice.

 

Since it's text, my posts may seem a bit hostile, but those aren't my intentions. 

[EttrionNano]

I personally can't tell much above 40 FPS, but anything below becomes visible, 24 is pretty weak (and this is coming from someone with a mere IHD 3000)

[mr moose]

I think there's some sort of misunderstanding here.

 

You posted saying "no, but it does have a limit to the amount of frames it can interpret.." That's the post I was responding to. I also mentioned the 30, 60, and 120 FPS thing as well, but I'll get on about that in a minute. 

 

When you posted that it was a reply that I though implied that we all have the same limit of FPS. My post was simply me trying to say that it's not true. I used poor vocabulary in some areas, like when I said "And the mind has no specific limit of frame rate", what I meant was that not everyone is limited to the same frame rate cap due to your brain, eyes, etc. 

 

"You can tell the difference between 30 60 and 120, but this does not mean you can SEE it."

I think I get what you're saying there now, but I do think it could be re-worded a little better.

 

Also, you may want to use another analogy, the 100C thing isn't limited by our thermoception anymore, but by our nociception. Two different senses. Just some friendly advice.

 

Since it's text, my posts may seem a bit hostile, but those aren't my intentions. 

That makes much more sense, cheers.  I don't read it as hostile (most of the time anyway).  Forget the 100c thing then.  I was just trying to give examples of how not so correct to assume there are no limits to one sense when there are limits to every other sense.

 

I also did not mean to infer any hostility.  Except to those maybe who keep saying we can see above 100fps,  although for the record if someone from MIT or UoN came and told me I was wrong, I would write a public apology to the forum for misleading them. B)

[zeibis]

If GPU could directly sync video output with our eyes we didn't need more then 24fps. So brain-sync next big thing

 

But you can relay tell the difference between 24, 30, 60 fps, with gsync/freesync as long as it stays above 30fps it should be a good experience.

[Camul]

Because our eyes see 24 frames per second Thats why they say its science But I don't know why for the games

I don't know where you got that from.

[Tr3vor]

Why are we even talking about this?

 

It is very very very obvious that we can see more than 24fps.

[Noose]

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

 

My xbox runs games on silky smooth 30fps. I don't get why people game on 1080p the human eyes can't see the difference between 720p and 1080p. And besides 60fps is to fast to game on.

[Tam3n]

24 fps in movies seem fine because we are accustomed to it. If movies standard had been 60 fps and you had to then watch something in 24 fps it would look like crap. I watched the hobbit HFR version (48 fps) and it looked a lot smoother.

If you have been playing games on PC @ 60 fps you can usually tell if something is running at 60 fps or not, that why dips below 60 can be annoying, not to mention tearing etc.

 

edit: Human eye can't see above 720p?

[mr moose]

24 fps in movies seem fine because we are accustomed to it. If movies standard had been 60 fps and you had to then watch something in 24 fps it would look like crap. I watched the hobbit HFR version (48 fps) and it looked a lot smoother.

If you have been playing games on PC @ 60 fps you can usually tell if something is running at 60 fps or not, that why dips below 60 can be annoying, not to mention tearing etc.

 

edit: Human eye can't see above 720p?

 

Tim Smith (psychologist who specializes in visual perception and movies and stuff), has a theory that follows those exact lines, the reason we think 24 is better is because that is what we are used to.

http://www.bbk.ac.uk/psychology/our-staff/academic/tim-smith/research

 

And for the record: of course no one can see above 720p, most people can barely see past their noses let alone as far as new concept. :lol:

[TheBLOODYTOXIC]

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?

The human hearing response frequency is capable from 20hz up to 20khz, but the frquencies below 20 involve other human sense. same goes for the fps you can see 24fps but the feeling at 60fps is not related with your eyes.

[Mentalguy]

 

My xbox runs games on silky smooth 30fps. I don't get why people game on 1080p the human eyes can't see the difference between 720p and 1080p. And besides 60fps is to fast to game on.

[s3ns3]

I watched the hobbit HFR version (48 fps) and it looked a lot smoother

It DOESN`T LOOK LIKE A FILM . its soap opera effect. everyone is like hell no,the motion looks like its shot by yourself with a cheap camcord camera. if you want that,tv`s have it. sony is motionflow,lg trumotion,samsung auto motion and so on. these are a bunch of names for the soap opera effect. it looks so weird and its bad for movies

[Tam3n]

It DOESN`T LOOK LIKE A FILM . its soap opera effect. everyone is like hell no,the motion looks like its shot by yourself with a cheap camcord camera. if you want that,tv`s have it. sony is motionflow,lg trumotion,samsung auto motion and so on. these are a bunch of names for the soap opera effect. it looks so weird and its bad for movies

 

Well I prefer more fluid picture above the 24 fps movie effect, but each to their own. The hobbit also has the regular 24 fps available.

[s3ns3]

Well I prefer more fluid picture above the 24 fps movie effect, but each to their own. The hobbit also has the regular 24 fps available.

thats the only one avaible for consumer it received so many criticism only few selected theathers has 48 fps version

[Noose]

My XBONE is ten times better than your weak GTX-680. Better graphics, better fps. Silky smooth at 30fps with ultrahigh 720p resolution.

[TheProfosist]

thats the only one avaible for consumer it received so many criticism only few selected theathers has 48 fps version

Its still shot in 48fps even though it may have been mastered in 24. Yes it is a even multiple but I would think there would still possibly be some weird things going on. The maon reason why 24fps was released to consumers is that there is no real way to distribute the 48fps verison.

[totjup5]

Anything below 50 feels laggy to me... So that's why

[Mentalguy]

My XBONE is ten times better than your weak GTX-680. Better graphics, better fps. Silky smooth at 30fps with ultrahigh 720p resolution.

lol.

[ThorBuildingLegos]

Because our eyes see 24 frames per second Thats why they say its science But I don't know why for the games

 

But... what..? He... and... we... empirical data... peer review... but then... again...? Aw fudge it. Unfollowed.

[applebook]

Because slideshows are for business presentations, not gaming. 

[Umeshwarnath]

24 fps is unplayable!

[mr moose]

24 fps is unplayable!

qualification, a computer that can only produce 24fps because it is struggling is unplayable, but if you have a decent pc capable of playing 100fps and you cap the fps to 24 the game should be very playable.

 

EDIT: of course I'm not saying your wrong, we do need more frames in games to help keep the action smoother etc. Plus fps is a good indicator of overall system performance.

[Tr3vor]

qualification, a computer that can only produce 24fps because it is struggling is unplayable, but if you have a decent pc capable of playing 100fps and you cap the fps to 24 the game should be very playable.

 

eeeeeh, naw. Not really. If you go by that logic, if you are playing a game on a computer that can only produce 40fps because its struggling is unplayable.

 

The only reason a computer under stress would make a game unplayable is probably input latency.

[mr moose]

eeeeeh, naw. Not really. If you go by that logic, if you are playing a game on a computer that can only produce 40fps because its struggling is unplayable.

 

The only reason a computer under stress would make a game unplayable is probably input latency.

huh? there is nothing wrong with your sentence, but it does not exclude my statement.  

 

I specifically was referring to a computer that could only produce 24fps due to its performance, as opposed to the same game being played at 24 fps by a computer capable of much higher fps, thus my point was that the game is not unplayable due to the fps but due to the lag of the pc because it is struggling.

[Umeshwarnath]

qualification, a computer that can only produce 24fps because it is struggling is unplayable, but if you have a decent pc capable of playing 100fps and you cap the fps to 24 the game should be very playable.

 

EDIT: of course I'm not saying your wrong, we do need more frames in games to help keep the action smoother etc. Plus fps is a good indicator of overall system performance.

yeah! have tried that....still unplayable and gives me a headache after a few minutes!