So, this guy on youtube said you can see more then 30fps (NSFW)

[Max Game]

This is a great explanation of it.

 

Exactly what I was getting at, I would go even further to say you can see flashes of light with a duration shorter than 1/1000 or even 1/10000 sec. So your brain takes them all in but throws away the ones that didn't show any dramatic changes because it thinks they are unimportant (Something to do with survival). You are left with ~24fps of percievable images (I don't think it's always an exact amount but in and around that) that can occur randomly throughout that second hence the blurring effect.

That's not the point of the video but I can explain it a little myself.

 

Imagine a box which's sides are all 60 pixels long on the left side of your screen, this box's is moving to the right side of the screen at a rate of 60 pixels per second.

And since the monitor in this example is a 60Hz monitor running at 60 FPS, the box is moving one pixel each frame.

Scaling this down to 30 FPS makes the box move at 2 pixels per second and at 15 FPS it will be moving at 4 pixels per second. (This obviously scales linearly in any direction)

 

Now let's ramp this up using a HUGE monitor with the same pixel ratio (Pixels per cm/inch) disregarding the limits of the hardware.

If the box is moving at 3600 pixels per second and the monitor is still at 60 FPS, the box will be moving at 60 pixels per frame.

If we double this (7200 pixels per second) it will be moving at 120 pixels per frame.

 

Now we really see when a high framerate makes a difference, when it is moving this fast, there is a clear space between the box's original position and it's new one (60 pixels wide to be exact)

This is noticable! This point is very important when explaining this, since it is fluidity that we want in our games.

 

At higher framerates this issue becomes smaller: At 120FPS, there is no longer a space between these two positions, the box moves its own length per frame (60 pixels per frame).

And at 7200 fps, the box moves as smooth as possible relative to the monitors's framerate, that being 1 pixel per frame.

 

ATTENTION: A monitor at 7200 FPS is RIDICULOUS!

This 'experiment' only exists to prove the point that we can most definately see the difference af different framerates, BUT ONLY WHEN THE OBJECT IN QUESTION IS MOVING VERY FAST ACROSS THE MONITOR!

 

I do hope this is clear enough, because I don't know why I took the time to write all of this.

And as I said, this only exists to prove the point that 60fps is not the limit that we can see. Goodnight!

[Puppet]

That's not the point of the video but I can explain it a little myself.

 

Imagine a box which's sides are all 60 pixels long on the left side of your screen, this box's is moving to the right side of the screen at a rate of 60 pixels per second.

And since the monitor in this example is a 60Hz monitor running at 60 FPS, the box is moving one pixel each frame.

Scaling this down to 30 FPS makes the box move at 2 pixels per second and at 15 FPS it will be moving at 4 pixels per second. (This obviously scales linearly in any direction)

 

Now let's ramp this up using a HUGE monitor with the same pixel ratio (Pixels per cm/inch) disregarding the limits of the hardware.

If the box is moving at 3600 pixels per second and the monitor is still at 60 FPS, the box will be moving at 60 pixels per frame.

If we double this (7200 pixels per second) it will be moving at 120 pixels per frame.

 

Now we really see when a high framerate makes a difference, when it is moving this fast, there is a clear space between the box's original position and it's new one (60 pixels wide to be exact)

This is noticable! This point is very important when explaining this, since it is fluidity that we want in our games.

 

At higher framerates this issue becomes smaller: At 120FPS, there is no longer a space between these two positions, the box moves its own length per frame (60 pixels per frame).

And at 7200 fps, the box moves as smooth as possible relative to the monitors's framerate, that being 1 pixel per frame.

 

ATTENTION: A monitor at 7200 FPS is RIDICULOUS!

This 'experiment' only exists to prove the point that we can most definately see the difference af different framerates, BUT ONLY WHEN THE OBJECT IN QUESTION IS MOVING VERY FAST ACROSS THE MONITOR!

 

I do hope this is clear enough, because I don't know why I took the time to write all of this.

And as I said, this only exists to prove the point that 60fps is not the limit that we can see. Goodnight!

 

That is what I was saying, we can definitely see a difference in refresh rates above 60fps but only when something dramatic enough happens for our brains to include it in the however many images are played out in our minds.

[Avratz]

http://testufo.com/

 

Yes, you can. It isn't subject to opinion. When you factor in low persistence, lightboost/ulmb, the need for higher frame rates is even more apparent.

 

Whether or not you care is another matter.

[Speedstack79]

Its the plecebo effect if I spelled that right, you cannot see more than 60 frames and if you can it dosent bother me because im a casually play for fun im not like in esports or anything.

I think 120 hz monitors seem smoother because they create less graphical glitches such as tearing or flickers (the monitor and gpu not syncing at the same exact time) (120hz monitors allows for more frames to be displayed to make up for these graphical glitches (g-sync solves this)). I do not think most people can tell the difference between 60hz and 120hz if both had g-sync.

 

Also, I do not think 120hz monitors exactly help with responsiveness in games either, you see the frame 8ms early, your response time is still about 200ms(the average repose time for humans is over 200 ms), I actually posted a thread about it here the few people that responded got roughly the same reaction time on 60hz and 120hz monitors and even crt monitors which have almost no delay in the rendering of frames.

[minimalist]

Yes I have been to my friends house to see his new high end BenQ monitor he got , so I tried playing rust and some games while I was there and it did not effect my gameplay so it dosent makes no difference to me.

 

The problem is that no one asked if it made a difference to YOU.  They asked if it was noticeable, and it is.

[Recon-UK]

Highest i have been is 75hz, difference is night and day black n white.

[Hikaru12]

Linuses test could have been more valid without the confirmation bias and if it had been double blind. Also, he should have repeated the same scene because that would get rid of any expectations. I mean of course if I go into a more actiony scene I'm going to assume thr settings were upped.

[WereCat]

You cant see every individual frame but you deffinitely can tell difference in smoothness.

[StareX]

you can even see 250Hz....

[Ruostunut kokis]

Humans don't see in frames per second.

 

And it's not about how many frames per second your eyes see, but how many your brains can process.

 

Also there has been dozens of topics like this within a month.

[Simon752]

Yes, i used a 120HZ monitor for about two years, and then switched back to 60HZ again and i can see a difference.

[ManOfDisguise]

w my 144hz when i play GO(in this game i notice it more) even 60fps or heck even 80fps feels choppy for me

[Osmium]

Yes I have been to my friends house to see his new high end BenQ monitor he got , so I tried playing rust and some games while I was there and it did not effect my gameplay so it dosent makes no difference to me.

Well something you did not take into account is how many frames per second you are actually getting. Rust is terribly optimized so you probably were getting sub 120 anyway.

 

http://youtu.be/hrfkX7J_LVs?t=5m12s

 

That is an amazing video. Very well thought out explanation.

[theroflcopta]

Not going any higher then 60hz until we can get like 120hz-144hz ips panels (I know that will probably never come) BUT A MAN CAN DREAM DAMMIT!

[Guest]

Nope the Eye sees 5fps max

[Ruostunut kokis]

Nope the Eye sees 5fps max

Your life must be one helluva slideshow, my friend! :lol:

[MrTomnus]

Seeing this argument on YouTube videos/forums makes me laugh every time.

 

I've studied the structure of the eye and nerve impulses in biology and to tell the truth I can't give a concrete answer. BUT, using the things I know I can at least bring a little scientific knowledge...

 

First you need to get away from the idea that human eyes run on "refresh rates". Your eye sees light because the rod cells (for black and white - light intensity) vision and cone cells (colour vision) have chemical receptors in them that react to changes in light, for example, a monitor refreshing the screen. The energy change when this occurs in the cells of the eye generates a nerve impulse which goes through the sensory neurones in the eye, to the optic nerve and to the image processing portion of the brain, the visual cortex.

 

Once the chemical receptors have returned to normal, they can "refresh" and begin to react to light again. We don't study this so I can't say the time it takes for the molecule's energy to be released, but I'd imagine it will be in the order of milli-microseconds.

 

Now, using the knowledge I do know that a nerve impulse lasts for around 2 milliseconds, with a short refractory period so impulses aren't mixed up, and assuming the cell in the eye takes a direct route to the visual cortex in the brain (so that's without synapses in the way which slow a nerve impulse down a lot) which it most certainly doesn't, the brain would receive 500 bits of visual information in one second, maximum.

 

So that's a theoretical refresh rate of 500Hz, for the brain to make sense of the image your eyes are seeing.

 

So to answer your question OP, yes, the brain should be able to notice a difference between 60fps, 120fps and even 240fps, according to what I've written. Whether the brain thinks all 500 bits of information are relevant is another thing.

 

@Jonnyswboy

[coen113]

Its the plecebo effect if I spelled that right, you cannot see more than 60 frames and if you can it dosent bother me because im a casually play for fun im not like in esports or anything.

i assure you, you can see the difference between the two.

[LOLPhilips]

Can you see it, yes.. Does it actually help ingame(I mean can you play better because of), f*ck no..

 

This was it for me atleast. playing on a 120hz samsung.

[schwat]

If you can't see the difference then you should see an eye doctor. 

 

[Samthepengu1n]

I can if its a fast and lots happening game but if its something like minecraft then no

[Nicolas]

Well I haven't tried a 120Hz yet but I guess what your friend says that you can feel it but not see it makes a bit of sense as in feeling the smoothness on the mouse and/or animations, but I can't say anything for myself since I have never used 120Hz

[JRuss16]

i have never used a monitor over 60Hz so i can not tell you

[Cwazywazy]

Yes. Anyone who tries to debate it either has bad eyesight or has used 60Hz screens their entire life.

 

I've only had 60Hz screens too but increasing it to 80Hz makes a pretty noticeable difference. Even more so on my laptop which I got up to 95Hz.

[amintha1992]

people still dont understand that human eye does not see in FPS, its a constant stream of informatino. of if there is more the better. the smoother it will be. less anomolies there will be. but then again because of other techonological bottlenecks some compremises have to be made for higher FPS like resolution and colour quality.

 

but IMO, movies needs to be more than 24 now. the reason it uses 24fps is that it can be devided in to many numbers. essentialy allowing for low FPS stuff with out much hassels in the old days. but more FPS does mean smooth movement and crisp images. love to see action movies on 48 or even mroe.

 

game.....  well we have had higher FPS than movies for ages now, so i guess its a personal preferance. do you prefer more pixels or more FPS or better colors and vibrancy?

 

my self i like more colors and resolution but also like to have atleast 40-45 on any game for a smooth game paly.