Mythbusting: "Human eye cannot see beyond 60 FPS"

[May90]

TL;DR
I did heavy reading about the topic, and the conclusion was that "Human eye does not see in FPS" so the topic "human eye can see X fps" is pointless.

P.S.


All true, I don't get the point of this post then?

That's right, we don't see in FPS. However, I doubt you will argue than a billion FPS will look perfectly smooth to us while 1 FPS is basically a slide show, right? There is some middle ground, and there is some upper limit of that ground past which increase of FPS doesn't really make us perceive the image any smoother.

The point of the post is that it is far past 60 FPS, it is probably past even 1000 FPS. Yet so many people believe that past 60 FPS, sometimes even 30 FPS, "human eye can't tell the difference". This is a wrong belief and it can lead to wrong purchases sometimes.

[Remilia]

"Wrong purchase" depends on how the person values it.
Considering the current highest input for a display is 144Hz, you're not really getting more info past that until new stuff comes out. Do note I said input, not refresh rate.

Again, it differs person to person. Everyone is different and some people may just not give a fuck.

[DeltrusDisc]

"Wrong purchase" depends on how the person values it.
Considering the current highest input for a display is 144Hz, you're not really getting more info past that until new stuff comes out. Do note I said input, not refresh rate.

Again, it differs person to person. Everyone is different and some people may just not give a fuck.

Technically there have been 240Hz TVs out for a while and if I recall right, even 600Hz plasma TVs.

Why? Don't ask me.

(I think it's marketing mumbo jumbo, as neither seem to be TRUE 240/600Hz.)

[May90]

Technically there have been 240Hz TVs out for a while and if I recall right, even 600Hz plasma TVs.

Why? Don't ask me.

(I think it's marketing mumbo jumbo, as neither seem to be TRUE 240/600Hz.)

240Hz is true. Mostly they are used for 3D where every eye actually experiences 120Hz, but they also have pure 240Hz mode. Actually, even in mid-2005, when CRT monitors were still live, many high end models had 200+Hz.

600Hz, on the other hand, refers to a little bit different thing. In plasma TV, every pixel consists of three colored subpixels, so, to display some mix of colors, it shows different colors with different frequencies; every frame actually consists of a few colored sub-frames, so 600Hz is essentially 60Hz * 10 "frames per frame". It doesn't affect frequency of the actual picture we see, which is still 60Hz.

[DeltrusDisc]

Thought I heard something about the 60 and 10 thing, making 600Hz a marketing gimmick.

[Remilia]

Technically there have been 240Hz TVs out for a while and if I recall right, even 600Hz plasma TVs.

Why? Don't ask me.

(I think it's marketing mumbo jumbo, as neither seem to be TRUE 240/600Hz.)

That's why I said input not refresh rate. HDMI 1.4 doesn't even support 240Hz, let alone 600Hz.
My FG2421 can technically do 240Hz for the motion blur reduction, essentially taking the frame from the 120Hz and duplicating it and introduce a flicker to reduce perceived motion blur.

[May90]

My FG2421 can technically do 240Hz for the motion blur reduction, essentially taking the frame from the 120Hz and duplicating it and introduce a flicker to reduce perceived motion blur.

Interesting, I haven't heard of such thing. Does it really work well at blur reduction?

[Remilia]

Interesting, I haven't heard of such thing. Does it really work well at blur reduction?

In my opinion, yes however it introduces a flicker so for those that are more or less sensitive to these it'd be something you won't be having on too often.

[fixx]

All cinemas for more than 50 years were showing movies at 72fps (24fps true reel speed of the movie and each frame shown three times to reduce flicker) which is percieved to be smooth enough motion to not be distracting for vast majority of people. 48fps HFR Hobbit looks too low framerate because it falls below the 72fps people have gotten used to seeing so the actual treshold of smooth enough motion for most humans is somewhere between 48 and 72 fps.

Notice that the difference between smooth motion (minimum fps required) and how fast changes the brain can register are two different things. 60Hz monitors work because it's above the smooth treshold, while some people experience flicker problems even at 72Hz. 85Hz has always been considered to be the magic number after which 99.99% of humans will not see flickering of monitor refresh.

Brain can "see" much faster changes than even 144Hz monitors can display, but at those speeds the images are processed subconsciously. In twitch shooters you might see motion at let's say 200fps speed and just point and click there instinctively. It does give real advantage in reaction times but the brain no longer can tell you if it's friend or foe, just that there's something there.

My FG2421 can technically do 240Hz for the motion blur reduction, essentially taking the frame from the 120Hz and duplicating it and introduce a flicker to reduce perceived motion blur.

Other way around. The TVs that advertise higher refresh rates than 50/60Hz add frames out of thin air and introduce more motion blur to make the picture appear smoother. On a 200Hz TV you might see 1 real frame for each 3 imaginary ones (PAL broadcast is 50Hz interlaced) where the TV creates interpolated motion to reduce flicker.

[Remilia]

Granted I don't look at TVs that often but it shouldn't be a huge difference.

http://www.blurbusters.com/faq/zeromotionblur/
At Sony's / Samsung's method. Essentially just increased frame rate + strobe.

http://gaming.eizo.com/wp-content/up...whitepaper.pdf

[andywilson]

Granted I don't look at TVs that often but it shouldn't be a huge difference.


At Sony's / Samsung's method. Essentially just increased frame rate + strobe.

I totally miss that I thought I were be a part of that time member so I can also Look this TVs shows.

[Zoibert the Bear]

Holy fucking necro

[plz delete account]

I would rather be more worried about us being able to having dimishing returns on resolution.

People saying we can only have 60fps are people who make tvs and games to make people think it does not matter.

Is that why electricity in NA and parts of Asia runs at 60 hertz and is the basis for 60 Hz monitors?

People thinking it's a visual thing are funny.

[Calfredd]

Is that why electricity in NA and parts of Asia runs at 60 hertz and is the basis for 60 Hz monitors?

People thinking it's a visual thing are funny.

I forget the source, but there was a youtube channel that proved down to a 1ms response time for the human eye. So until we're getting 1000 fps+Hz displays, its always going to be better to go higher if you can.

I started using 144Hz+g-sync back in 2014 when you had to mod an asus vg248qe with a $200 dev kit from nvidia to get g-sync, since then I've owned 27" 1440p 144Hz g-sync, 34" 1440p UW 100Hz, 34" 1440p UW 160Hz, and now a 32" 4K 240Hz display. The difference between 144Hz and 240Hz was something I didn't expect to be so prolific, but LTT did a video on the subject himself.

It's definitely a trained behavior, back in the development days of g-sync, the driver would regularly bug out and reset the monitor back to 60Hz. It was immediately noticeable in just raw Windows by just the cursor. They ended up patching out that bug, I forget what the trigger for it ended up being.

8 year necro.

[plz delete account]

AC runs at 60Hz because its a convenient multiplier for most machines. When a generator spins, the poles are setup to drive multipliers of 60. You also can't mix frequencies for AC so people decided to standardize it way back in the early 20th century was a good idea. Its a natural frequency as well, where its easy to mask in submarines for stealth (still not as good as a full DC distribution submarine though).

Exactly; it's driven by practicality, and not whether 60 is the most a human eye can see.

But on your "you can't mix frequencies for AC" point, that's incorrect. Harmonic frequencies are typically used in lighting and sound.

[plz delete account]

I'm talking about electrical distribution systems, having more than one frequency on an electrical distribution bus generally means fires or damage. Its a similar fault to having parallel AC generators out of sync on the same bus.

I think you're misunderstanding my explanation so I'll simplify it- 60Hz displays being common really has nothing to do with AC electrical distribution systems generally being 60Hz. There's ease of use and understanding reasons with how generators are designed that makes 60Hz. Outside of that, a problem you can run into is if you're running old style fluorescent lighting in a space without other light sources that operate at 60Hz and said machines spin at a speed which is a multiple of 60. If both are supplied by the same AC power source, then you physically can't see the machine spinning, which is an obvious safety issue and is scary as hell to see in person.

you realize I'm an electrician and at no point has anything you said not factually checked out? Same with what I've said: It takes less effort to run on the same cycles your power distro is if you are running a monitor, then it is to take 60hz, and transform it into 144hrtz, for example.

[StillMcfuu]

This has always been a ridiculous discussion, the eye and brain don't process information in the same way a monitor presents it. The eye doesn't see frames. It's constantly receiving info.

[Cynical Asshole]

This is not a myth. Any normal person can clearly see a difference between playing a game at 60 FPS and playing the game at 120 FPS.

120 FPS is basically the optimal amount of FPS. Beyond that you barely notice any difference.

[Biomega]

This is not a myth. Any normal person can clearly see a difference between playing a game at 60 FPS and playing the game at 120 FPS.

120 FPS is basically the optimal amount of FPS. Beyond that you barely notice any difference.

This is quite funny.

"Human eye cannot see beyond 60 FPS? Lmao obvious bullshit!

...Human eye cannot see beyond 120 FPS, not THAT is the gospel truth!"

[Kaleredar]

The human eye can obviously only see 2 FPS; one for each eye.


Anyway, why is this thread still going? This is from three US presidents ago.