How many FPS can a human eye see?

[Botasky]

I think we see around 120fps, but things that we see is not smooth as we see on 120Hz TV because we have 360 degree shutter angle, that mean more motion blur than TV

[Anthraxian]

Folks, there is an underlying misunderstanding of the science behind this whole argument.

 

That problem is that people confuse frames per second and hertz. Monitors refresh their "frame" at 60 hertz - and now we have new spiffy monitors that can do 120 hertz.

 

A "frame" is actually a compilation of TWO images called "fields" that the monitor draws. So, when the monitor refreshes at 60 hz it is only really drawing at 30 fps. In other words, one "frame" takes 2 HZ to draw.

 

No matter how many "FPS" you feed it from your video card - it is still only displaying at a MAXIMUM of 30 fps.

 

So, up until the advent of the new 120hz monitors, you have NEVER seen an image more than 30 fps. Guess what, do the math - the new monitors can only draw 60 frames per second max. SO, you will not be "seeing" the 90 fps your computer tells you it is outputting - because the monitor simply cant draw that many frames per second.

 

Now, as to how much "fps" the eye can see. First off many have said - correctly - that we do not see in "fps." True. What we can "see" and what we can "discern" however, are two different animals. The human eye/brain system CAN "see" more than 30 fps, but it cannot DISCERN the difference in an image more than 30 fps.

 

Movies are at 24 FPS by the way. Yes, the multi-trillion dollar movie industry has figured out that they don't have to feed you movies faster than 24 fps.

 

So, what have we learned so far:

 

1) A "frame" is a compilation of two "fields" that the monitor has to draw.

2) A 60hz monitor takes 2 fields and turns them into a frame. A 60hz monitor can only draw 30 frames per second.

3) Anyone who tells you they can tell the difference between 30 fps and 100 fps on a 60hz screen does not understand science - since they are only being given 30fps MAXIMUM anyway.

 

The "perception" that gamers get from being able to "tell" the difference between more fps is quite simple. Any time you are playing a game that requires a lot of computing power - you might be getting 120 fps. Ok, well thats good. But then you start running around and adding eefects and particles and explosions and the FPS "dips." In other words you aren't getting "120 fps" - you are getting a HIGH of 120fps and a low under 30fps (which is where you can see a visible stutter).

 

So, I am looking forward to playing Battlefield 4. I have played the beta and I am getting 90 fps, but it is dipping into the 20s when under a lot of stress. So, what I need to do is to tweak and or upgrade my computer so that the LOW spikes stay above 30fps at all time. Even though your monitor can't DRAW faster than 30fps or 60fps - it does benefit from have producing MORE fps so that your low spikes don't dip into the visible range.

 

What does your monitor do with all the extra fps your computer is sending it? Nothing, it just ignores it. It can't draw beyond its technical capacity.

 

Hope this helps you all understand the myth and the reality of this seemingly endless "what can the human eye see" debate.

[Chibi]

Folks, there is an underlying misunderstanding of the science behind this whole argument.

 

That problem is that people confuse frames per second and hertz. Monitors refresh their "frame" at 60 hertz - and now we have new spiffy monitors that can do 120 hertz.

 

A "frame" is actually a compilation of TWO images called "fields" that the monitor draws. So, when the monitor refreshes at 60 hz it is only really drawing at 30 fps. In other words, one "frame" takes 2 HZ to draw.

 

No matter how many "FPS" you feed it from your video card - it is still only displaying at a MAXIMUM of 30 fps.

 

So, up until the advent of the new 120hz monitors, you have NEVER seen an image more than 30 fps. Guess what, do the math - the new monitors can only draw 60 frames per second max. SO, you will not be "seeing" the 90 fps your computer tells you it is outputting - because the monitor simply cant draw that many frames per second.

 

Now, as to how much "fps" the eye can see. First off many have said - correctly - that we do not see in "fps." True. What we can "see" and what we can "discern" however, are two different animals. The human eye/brain system CAN "see" more than 30 fps, but it cannot DISCERN the difference in an image more than 30 fps.

 

Movies are at 24 FPS by the way. Yes, the multi-trillion dollar movie industry has figured out that they don't have to feed you movies faster than 24 fps.

 

So, what have we learned so far:

 

1) A "frame" is a compilation of two "fields" that the monitor has to draw.

2) A 60hz monitor takes 2 fields and turns them into a frame. A 60hz monitor can only draw 30 frames per second.

3) Anyone who tells you they can tell the difference between 30 fps and 100 fps on a 60hz screen does not understand science - since they are only being given 30fps MAXIMUM anyway.

 

The "perception" that gamers get from being able to "tell" the difference between more fps is quite simple. Any time you are playing a game that requires a lot of computing power - you might be getting 120 fps. Ok, well thats good. But then you start running around and adding eefects and particles and explosions and the FPS "dips." In other words you aren't getting "120 fps" - you are getting a HIGH of 120fps and a low under 30fps (which is where you can see a visible stutter).

 

So, I am looking forward to playing Battlefield 4. I have played the beta and I am getting 90 fps, but it is dipping into the 20s when under a lot of stress. So, what I need to do is to tweak and or upgrade my computer so that the LOW spikes stay above 30fps at all time. Even though your monitor can't DRAW faster than 30fps or 60fps - it does benefit from have producing MORE fps so that your low spikes don't dip into the visible range.

 

What does your monitor do with all the extra fps your computer is sending it? Nothing, it just ignores it. It can't draw beyond its technical capacity.

 

Hope this helps you all understand the myth and the reality of this seemingly endless "what can the human eye see" debate.

That might be true for interlaced monitors.

But since all modern monitors use progressive scan, the whole frame is drawed in a single hertz.

[D3MON]

Its a case of deminishing returns, if you start at 7.5fps youll notice the frame change, if you double that to 15 things start to appear smoother, if we keep doubling, at 30fps things start to look fluid like actual motion (hence modern movies and consoles use it being the smoothest with the minimum power consumption), 60fps things are as fluid as most people will need (you have to more than double what is already some serious gpu power to hit 120hz and put up with overclcoked tn panels, at 120fps it looks just as fluid but in very quick movements like when you snap the mouse to turn around (as seen in linus's "can linus see more than 60fps" video), its hard to tell but there is a minor givaway in small spaces and walkways but like i said the benefits gained probably outweight the downsides (added gpu and tn panels)

if you were to double again to 240fps and 480fps (if monitors could display it) the benefits would be minimal.
i try to get 60fps in fast paced stuff like bf3/4 and such where responses are needed. and 30fps if the game isnt as fast paced (ill turn it up and get maybe 40fps givingmyself some headroom then turn on vsync to lock it to 30fps to prevent tearing)
that said the eye does have something called persistence of vision which is essentially motion blur, our eyes do have a brief resetting period but its covered up by our brain, which then sees the next image and melds them together to give the illusion that something moved.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-yLfm5HsHc
these guys made me want to buy a pentium 4, glad I didnt...

[coen113]

humans can indivudually identify about 24 fps, but you dont see in fps

[Timmyfox]

The eyes are analog and in theory sees the world with an infinite (yes, infinite) amount of FPS.

It's the brain however that processes this information. However, it doesn't work on a linear scale. When you feed it information at a fixed FPS it's all up to the speed of the brain and how trained your eyes are to determine how many fps you can tell the difference between.

 

Otherwise the brain picks up visual changes more "as needed" rather than at a fixed meaurable FPS count. A camera flash for example flashes for a -very- short period of time. One could compare it to a single frame at maybe 15000fps. The brain will pick it up because it's a sudden change and not a constant change,

 

It's really not measurable, but more has to do with what you are used to (the placebo effect also comes into play here).

[SirReallySam]

Grannys need to be RMA:d

hahaha that's so funny and CRUEL D:

[SirReallySam]

Basically We don't know...

[Lays]

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/7199031187

[Trail Mixorz]

The human eye isn't calculated in fps. It sees unlimited "fps" but there's natural motion blur. That's why looking at 120hz monitors vs. 60hz monitors looks way different.

[Trail Mixorz]

Folks, there is an underlying misunderstanding of the science behind this whole argument.

 

That problem is that people confuse frames per second and hertz. Monitors refresh their "frame" at 60 hertz - and now we have new spiffy monitors that can do 120 hertz.

 

A "frame" is actually a compilation of TWO images called "fields" that the monitor draws. So, when the monitor refreshes at 60 hz it is only really drawing at 30 fps. In other words, one "frame" takes 2 HZ to draw.

 

No matter how many "FPS" you feed it from your video card - it is still only displaying at a MAXIMUM of 30 fps.

 

So, up until the advent of the new 120hz monitors, you have NEVER seen an image more than 30 fps. Guess what, do the math - the new monitors can only draw 60 frames per second max. SO, you will not be "seeing" the 90 fps your computer tells you it is outputting - because the monitor simply cant draw that many frames per second.

 

Now, as to how much "fps" the eye can see. First off many have said - correctly - that we do not see in "fps." True. What we can "see" and what we can "discern" however, are two different animals. The human eye/brain system CAN "see" more than 30 fps, but it cannot DISCERN the difference in an image more than 30 fps.

 

Movies are at 24 FPS by the way. Yes, the multi-trillion dollar movie industry has figured out that they don't have to feed you movies faster than 24 fps.

 

So, what have we learned so far:

 

1) A "frame" is a compilation of two "fields" that the monitor has to draw.

2) A 60hz monitor takes 2 fields and turns them into a frame. A 60hz monitor can only draw 30 frames per second.

3) Anyone who tells you they can tell the difference between 30 fps and 100 fps on a 60hz screen does not understand science - since they are only being given 30fps MAXIMUM anyway.

 

The "perception" that gamers get from being able to "tell" the difference between more fps is quite simple. Any time you are playing a game that requires a lot of computing power - you might be getting 120 fps. Ok, well thats good. But then you start running around and adding eefects and particles and explosions and the FPS "dips." In other words you aren't getting "120 fps" - you are getting a HIGH of 120fps and a low under 30fps (which is where you can see a visible stutter).

 

So, I am looking forward to playing Battlefield 4. I have played the beta and I am getting 90 fps, but it is dipping into the 20s when under a lot of stress. So, what I need to do is to tweak and or upgrade my computer so that the LOW spikes stay above 30fps at all time. Even though your monitor can't DRAW faster than 30fps or 60fps - it does benefit from have producing MORE fps so that your low spikes don't dip into the visible range.

 

What does your monitor do with all the extra fps your computer is sending it? Nothing, it just ignores it. It can't draw beyond its technical capacity.

 

Hope this helps you all understand the myth and the reality of this seemingly endless "what can the human eye see" debate.

 

 

I saved this for future use in a debate class. Hope you don't mind me taking it. Love you

[Alex(PlayMedium)]

[mucitel1]

I saved this for future use in a debate class. Hope you don't mind me taking it. Love you

Except what he said is not true. He is talking about interlaced video (what people would call '1080i') while monitors with progressive scan (what people call 1080p) can draw 60 frames per second. So if you were to play battlefield 3 and your framerate would be 40 fps constantly and then it would spike to 60 fps you would notice more smoothness. 

[IzMike]

We don't see in frames: http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

This is a good article... I was going to post this in here but u beat me too it

[Tomislav Matic]

more frames reduces blur, and that isn't always a good thing. it's good for games, but personally i don't like it in video...24 fps is what they use for movies, in europe i believe is I believe 25 fps. Mexican soap operas 30 fps... Hobbit 48...(that's why it looks like a Mexican soap opera)...so in video/movies it basically comes to preferences...also in cameras when you see like 1080p with 120 FPS it's basically to be used for slow motion...