FPS and the Human Eye

Every day i see another post telling me that the human eye can 'only' see 24fps/30fps/60 fps ect.

Frankly, it's all rubbish - and here's the proof:
http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

The USAF, in testing their pilots for visual response time, used a simple test to see if the pilots could distinguish small changes in light. In their experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. Pilots were consistently able to "see" the afterimage as well as identify the aircraft. This simple and specific situation not only proves the ability to percieve 1 image within 1/220 of a second, but the ability to interpret higher FPS.

Click to expand...

that PROVES that people have been known to precieve images at 220fps and over!

there's a hell of a lot of information there people. Read it. Bookmark it. Remember it.

wow. pretty interesting stuff. now we know

yeah, i dont know why people assume you cant see higher, i know i can EASILY tell the difference between 100 and 60.

Yeah, I was convinced of this fact a while ago... especially in FPS games, UT2003 looks great at 60fps, while 30fps (though technically "smooth") doesn't look as natural.

People just forget (or don't know) that although the human eye may physically be incapable of differeing anything higher than 35fps, the human mind is capable of interpretting that very limited information and deducing a HELL of a lot of information from it. That's why we can 'see' really high frame rates and know what is smooth and what is not.

About 70% of what you see in your sight is made up sheerly by the mind. ALL your peripheral vision, and most of what you don't directly stare at is generated by the mind.

So there ya go.


Didn't realise we could see as high as 220 fps though!

This is great information that everyone should know. Maybe it deserves a sticky.

yea im thinking it should be a sticky, too many people argue about this topic.

Falcon-K said:

yea im thinking it should be a sticky, too many people argue about this topic.

Click to expand...

That's what I have been saying too!

Poor James had been answering this question for months now.

But as you all know, a sticky won't work as nobody reads them.

Does anyone have a link to the actual study? The article is sort of amateurish...

I don't know if I can tell past 60fps since I assumed that was as smooth as I could see things and never really tried to spot the difference, but I know to me there is a HUGE difference between 30 and 60fps!!!

the USAF also gives pilots crack, so was this done while they were high?

I only really have a couple problems with the usaf study. First of all, the strangest thing is that I have seen that study mentioned in many FPS arguments, but never seen any official documentation in any form (for example, try to look it up in google and you get a bunch of articles and forum posts about FPS and computer games).

Even if it is true, which it probably is, the only reason you could see that plane is because of visual sensory memory (well known psychological phenomena). I wonder if they ever checked if someone could identify 2 planes in 2/220 of a second, in two frames? what about 3 in 3/220 of a second? Anybody have an extremely high refresh rate for their monitor and try something close to that experiment?

just because a person can see a light that only flashes for 1/200th of a second does not mean that same person will be able to tell the difference between 80 and 100fps on a game...

a true test of if there is a noticeable difference between 80 and 100fps (or any two different fps') is to have someone set the video card at a certain fps and then ask someone else to compare that to another setting...obviously without knowing which is which...

i'm not saying that there isn't a discernable difference between 100 and 80fps...i'm just saying that because a person can detect a light at 1/200th of a second doesn't mean they can tell the difference between any two fps settings...

Everyone has they're own view on things. FPS, is a relatively touchy subject. The fact that an individual can see past 30 FPS? Good for you! I know I can. Past 60 FPS? Even better! 200+ holy cow!
*insert golf clap here*
Is there a point to seeing more FPS than someone else? If it bothers you that much why do you watch TV, look at movies, play video games? I'll gladly spend the time to create and render something, at both 60 and 100 FPS to see who can see the difference. Point being, is that your brain doesn't care. If it does, your mind is either "special" or thinks more slowly than 90% of the rest of the world. C'mon, you're comparing us to fighter pilots?

Does anyone have a link to the actual study? The article is sort of amateurish...

Click to expand...

I'd like to see it too. Or at least 3 other different articles to back up this guy's claims. Not that I don't think it's possible, but I would like to see supporting evidence from opticians, and neurological experts as to wether or not the brain and the eye can differentiate between howevermany FPS' and howevermany FPS' .

OK boys, let's see if I can convince you if we can tell the differance between say, 60fps and 100fps.....
(and can we tell the differance between 100-200fps.)

first let me say that I've been a pro. photographer for many years, and all my examples will be based upon how a camera works, as well as the human eye/mind.

let's start by thinking of a car driving on a road at 35mph.....

taking a picture of it with a shutter speed of 1/60 of a sec., you'll notice the results will be blury.
taking a picture of it with 1/125 it still will be a little blury, but alot better...infact, most people may not see any blur at the back of the car.

now think of a car racing at 100mph.....

even at a shutter speed of 1/250 of a sec. the photo may be a little blury....
1/500 of a sec. should fix this....but can we see at 1/250 of a sec ?
so why can we see the car at all????
(and what if the car is moving stright at us, instead of moving across????)

we'll it's for the same reason that I can take a picture of a car, moving at 35mph using only 1/60 of a sec shutter speed....and the image is NOT blury.
tricks? no. I just understand a few things that maybe you don't.
infact some have already picked up on it.

first, understand that most people take a picture with the camera not moving at all.
yet I did a lot of sports photography, and learned real quick, that when taking a picture of a moving object, you "move with the object" when taking the picture.
infact, that's how our "eyes" work.
we never stare at a fixed plane....(I'm not talking about something in the sky)...we look everywere, our eyes move/focus all over the place.
and it is our mind that inturprits what we are seeing.
but there is only so much that our eyes can do.

so a car at a race trac may be flying at 125mph....but our eyes and head are following it. getting a better image in our mind then if we stay stationary and looking at a fixed point/plane.
"how?" you say.
because you are moving your eyes and head, you are giving your mind alot more information.

now in games, who here only stares at the cross hairs?
nobody.
your looking at the picture on your screen all over the place.

(without you moving in the game....)
your eyes are looking at not only the still parts of the image, but also of all the moving parts/NPCs....
if the FPS is increased from 60FPS to say 100FPS, your mind is not only getting a clearer picture of what you are looking at, but will now have more information to work with.
IT IS THE NUMBER ONE REASON that your aim in a first person shooter will increase.
I know that some people may think that aim has more to do with the game itself(the amount of FPS), but while that is true to some extent, it is you who is getting better at hitting things because of the increased information.
there is NO lag at 60fps as compared to 100fps....we are not talking about online, so lets skip that.

so what does our eyes really see???
how many FPS so to speak?

everyone is differant...I see lots.
that's why I see high refresh rates with vsync on....and will get a headache real quick at less then 75
my peripheral vision is above par as well.
but it is our eyes as well as our mind that "SEEs" things.....even if we don't realise it.

I know I may not have made myself very clear on a few points, but I hope that with my very bref examples, I have made my point.

mica

Lol micamica1217. I get what you're saying, but I have a feeling it's only because I have some experience with photography. What makes this such an interesting subject is because the optimal framerate varies significantly from person to person. Most people (including myself) don't notice a difference between 60 and 100 FPS, but can easily see a difference between 60 and 45. There are quite a few people, however, who fall on eith side of that range.

micamica1217 said:

OK boys, let's see if I can convince you if we can tell the differance between say, 60fps and 100fps.....
(and can we tell the differance between 100-200fps.)

first let me say that I've been a pro. photographer for many years, and all my examples will be based upon how a camera works, as well as the human eye/mind.

let's start by thinking of a car driving on a road at 35mph.....

taking a picture of it with a shutter speed of 1/60 of a sec., you'll notice the results will be blury.
taking a picture of it with 1/125 it still will be a little blury, but alot better...infact, most people may not see any blur at the back of the car.

now think of a car racing at 100mph.....

even at a shutter speed of 1/250 of a sec. the photo may be a little blury....
1/500 of a sec. should fix this....but can we see at 1/250 of a sec ?
so why can we see the car at all????
(and what if the car is moving stright at us, instead of moving across????)

we'll it's for the same reason that I can take a picture of a car, moving at 35mph using only 1/60 of a sec shutter speed....and the image is NOT blury.
tricks? no. I just understand a few things that maybe you don't.
infact some have already picked up on it.

first, understand that most people take a picture with the camera not moving at all.
yet I did a lot of sports photography, and learned real quick, that when taking a picture of a moving object, you "move with the object" when taking the picture.
infact, that's how our "eyes" work.
we never stare at a fixed plane....(I'm not talking about something in the sky)...we look everywere, our eyes move/focus all over the place.
and it is our mind that inturprits what we are seeing.
but there is only so much that our eyes can do.

so a car at a race trac may be flying at 125mph....but our eyes and head are following it. getting a better image in our mind then if we stay stationary and looking at a fixed point/plane.
"how?" you say.
because you are moving your eyes and head, you are giving your mind alot more information.

now in games, who here only stares at the cross hairs?
nobody.
your looking at the picture on your screen all over the place.

(without you moving in the game....)
your eyes are looking at not only the still parts of the image, but also of all the moving parts/NPCs....
if the FPS is increased from 60FPS to say 100FPS, your mind is not only getting a clearer picture of what you are looking at, but will now have more information to work with.
IT IS THE NUMBER ONE REASON that your aim in a first person shooter will increase.
I know that some people may think that aim has more to do with the game itself(the amount of FPS), but while that is true to some extent, it is you who is getting better at hitting things because of the increased information.
there is NO lag at 60fps as compared to 100fps....we are not talking about online, so lets skip that.

so what does our eyes really see???
how many FPS so to speak?

everyone is differant...I see lots.
that's why I see high refresh rates with vsync on....and will get a headache real quick at less then 75
my peripheral vision is above par as well.
but it is our eyes as well as our mind that "SEEs" things.....even if we don't realise it.

I know I may not have made myself very clear on a few points, but I hope that with my very bref examples, I have made my point.

mica

Click to expand...

I think this was a very good post and makes a lot of sense to me!

ooooh i love causing trouble lol

shame on you

from many a past arguement in such threads I have come to a conclusion taht the human eye itself doesnt see in FPS, but rather will be able to pick something up moving more fluid than something which does not, IE 60fps vs 30fps...I do think that it would be harder for your brain to discern between increasingly larger fps, but still 25-30fps is very low, and anyone who games will tell you that it really is visually better to have games going atleast twice as high as this.

however, I wonder how much of this is pyschological...that if you took these gamers that swore by such things into a test environment where one screen was at 30 and the 60 whether or not they would still tell. And inturn how everyones eyes will vary in quality which I should imagine would effect peoples perception on this matter.

Exactly ninthebin, someone has to perform a blind test on a gamer that apparently can see the difference between 85 and 100 FPS, and test them at 60, 70, 85, 100 FPS and see if they can tell the difference. My bet is that you can't find many, if any, people that can tell the difference between 85 and 100 FPS, and not many people that could tell the difference between 60 and 100 fps while actually playing a game.