lets solve this once and for all! FPS and the human eye!)

A2597

A2597

Newbie
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Messages
1,682
Reaction score
0
So, some say 30, some say 60, some say 200.

correct answer? Your all right!!

try this little bugger out, it's a program to test how many FPS you see. turn off vsynch on OpenGL before using it though.

http://sdw.arsware.org/FPSCompare/

I can EASILY tell the difference between 100 and 200, 120 and 200 became much much harder to tell the difference though. so I'm guessing I see near 120 on an average day.

(I still support my theory that FPS you see varies depending on whats going on.)
 
My eyes seem to settle out at 100 fps, between 100 and 200 fps i can see very little difference

Cool little program, nice find!
 
whats the refresh rate of your screen when you see 100 or 200 fps ?
 
The most noticeable is when you pan left and right in games, easy to see the FPS there and 30 doesnt cut it if you wanna get really good at it.

And if the FPS are low there's less data going to your eyes, your brain, and you can't make accurate decisions! Notice on 90 compared to 30 that 30 fps lags behind becaus it is not being updated as much.

I'd say 90 is a good fps
 
good point nicrd....120 is the refresh rate...

LMFAO. Ohhhh well. ;)
 
I just noticed that I can't get them to go above about 60~ FPS. Why?
 
It's not a "theory" that if an object is moving very slowly it takes a lower framerate to convince the eye than if it is moving quickly.

If an object is perfectly still you don't even need 1 fps because there is no motion to detect. If an object is moving, the higher the framerate you get the smaller the gap between the current position and the position in the last frame will be; the smaller that gap is the more fluid the motion appears to the viewer. So, you don't need 60fps (or 100fps, or whatever you normally try to get in games) in an RTS where units are tiny and they move slowly across the screen, but it would help in a fast-paced racing game or an action FPS.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
I just noticed that I can't get them to go above about 60~ FPS. Why?
Click to expand...
I'm guessing you have vsync on and a monitor refresh rate of 60 Hz.

Either that or your gfx card is really old.
 
Snakebyte said:
I'm guessing you have vsync on and a monitor refresh rate of 60 Hz.

Either that or your gfx card is really old.
Click to expand...

Or it could be the windows XP refresh rate bug EVERYONE has...
 
CB | Para said:
Or it could be the windows XP refresh rate bug EVERYONE has...
Click to expand...
What's that? I don't have this problem with XP apparently.
 
My god this debate can go on for ages, as some forums have proved :)

One point people seem to miss is that motion blur, in films and tele, plays a big part in how you can happily watch them at 25fps. Part of this also follows onto the duration of the still image on the screen, because although you see 25fps it doesnt mean that the screen always has an image on it, at some point its black between frames. (Don't quote me on that though, I can't back it up at the moment nor can i remeber whether it was in rendering games to the screen or on your TV)

To be honest though, I never get tired of this debate because no one ever comes up with the answer, everyone always manages to prove eachother wrong somehow.
 
Wow...i thought this was an old thread dragged up...but no...its the exact same stuff all bundled in a brand new thread.

heh, i see more of a blur with the lower one than the higher one....that is to do with my LCD monitor though.
 
By default windows xp locks your refresh rate at 60mhz.
 
heh, if by "default" you mean "Before you change it yourself" then...no duh. As soon as you change your refresh rate, voila, problem gone.
 
I need to get a better monitor so I can actually get past 60 fps ;P

edit: oddly enouhg, my monitor reportedly can handle 75, but it never goes over 60 :(
 
It's all in your mind...

Ooo0ooooinyourmindooooOOO :rolling:
 
the human eye could see 1 million fps! lol, it just wouldnt register conciously that well atall. but im confused your eye registers lower frames per second as a jerkier motion,, but the human eye still takes everyframe in no matter the speed, even if its really smooth at 100 fps. it like ...'can you count how many frames are in this second' rofl. its all an Illusion.. even the world we see around us is taken in a frame at a time. we proccess it so fast however that its totally smooth. so im not confused really..

an Illlusiooooon :eek:

begs the question,,... what are we...? when we can realise illusions that without would make our perceptions obsolete.. what are wweeee? LOl :imu:

were evolving... EEEvolving
 
I can't see any diff between 90-100 nor 100 and up(200).
 
Each "frame" we take in IRL is a compilation of all the light data captured over a certain amount of time. That's where motion blurring comes from... and it's part of the reason we don't see the lack of light between each refresh of the monitor. To get an effect similar to how a computer renders you would need a dark room and a good, variable-speed strobe light.
 
Okay, I think I have it figured out. I had a flash of inspiration in Media Studies class, in a discussion about animation.

The reason that you see motion on TV, despite it being only 24 data-frames per second, is that your TV actually displays it at 60 frames per second, all the time. When you play a game at 30fps, the screen refreshes twice (image-black-image-black-image2-black-etc), giving your eye the ILLUSION that it's full motion. You only "see" one image per two frames, but your brain registers two, smoothing out the motion. This also requires less film/data per program, reducing the cost of recording media used in the program.

And I don't think the human eye can take in infinite FPS. You have to think of your sight not as FPS, but as constant light input. I'm too lazy to explain, but saying that you can register a million frames per second is impossible by definition.
 
theres a blank screen between frames...? why.. ? surely that cant be efficient.hmmm...

yeh your eyes can only take in so much info at once,, but we are way more powerful than any GPU, and CPU put together. :p

I wonder what an average humans recieved IPS is?
 
stigmata said:
Okay, I think I have it figured out. I had a flash of inspiration in Media Studies class, in a discussion about animation.

The reason that you see motion on TV, despite it being only 24 data-frames per second, is that your TV actually displays it at 60 frames per second, all the time. When you play a game at 30fps, the screen refreshes twice (image-black-image-black-image2-black-etc), giving your eye the ILLUSION that it's full motion. You only "see" one image per two frames, but your brain registers two, smoothing out the motion. This also requires less film/data per program, reducing the cost of recording media used in the program.

And I don't think the human eye can take in infinite FPS. You have to think of your sight not as FPS, but as constant light input. I'm too lazy to explain, but saying that you can register a million frames per second is impossible by definition.
Click to expand...


This is just wrong. You would definately see the black. Look at the 3d shutter glasses. Those black out one eye and still flicker a LOT and those do the "image-black-image-black" thing at 120 fps. I think what you are thinking of is interlacing. which is where every other line updates, then the other set of lines update.
 
I think the fps has to be the closest possible to the refresh rate of the screen. If your screen is at 60 Hz, then having a higher fps will not change anything, because your screen only draws 60 images per seconds. Its even better to get 60 fps then 73.6 fps at 60Hz so that the right image is exactly drawn at the right time. If you see a difference between 100 and 200 fps, its only because at 100 its not well synchronised with the refresh rate, not because you see more than 100 images per second.
 
Since I am l337 and know what I am looking for in fps. the best i can do is tell the difference between 150 and 200. Barely. Anyway as humans we precieve time really slowly. Thats why a blinking screen looks like movement. If u r in a building with only fake lights, u r also getting a real life FPS. To smooth out real life Fps use a match the dun or tourch. :thumbs:
 
mm 85 FPS looks nice ;)
Especially with that 85 Hertz refresh rate.

I noticed much tearing w/out Vsync. Must enable again!
 
According to this thing, after 35 FPS it looks smooth to me. It happens to be the around 30FPS in real games.
 
OoGoff said:
Anyway as humans we precieve time really slowly.
Click to expand...

This is not true, sometimes time is fast - sometimes it's slow - depends on how much you're enjoying yourself at the time, I think. Although, there can be any number of reasons why time flys or time seems to stand still.
 
Starfish said:
This is not true, sometimes time is fast - sometimes it's slow - depends on how much you're enjoying yourself at the time, I think. Although, there can be any number of reasons why time flys or time seems to stand still.
Click to expand...


I think it has to do with the speed your brain runs at, when your brain is working very hard, time will go quicker then if your brain is idling. I am not a brain surgeon or a doctor, so don't quote me on that :).
 
Starfish said:
Brain reports - 2Ghz and counting.....
Click to expand...

240 bhp... but once habib puts in a fully sik turbo mate, she will fly


....wtf am i talking about :|
 
That isn't a true test. What we need is a program that lists 4 sections playing different FPS... lets say, 50fps, 90 fps, 120 fps, and 200 fps but it does not tell you what the fps are and people have to guess based on unbiased eye sight. Then you will know how well you can tell FPS.

Its like people who swear by "Diet Coke" and say they can't drink anything else because it doesn't taste as good. You offer them a can of diet coke and a can of some other soft drink. Sure they can tell you which one they like but if you blindfold them and give them 3 or four drinks all the sudden they have difficulty identifying which sample if the "Diet Coke" they claim is the only soft drink that tastes good to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Acurt1982
The Success and Failure of Silence: Gordon Freeman in 'Half Life' and 'Half Life 2'
Replies
1
Views
2K
Chowder
Chowder
morgs
TTT Fanfic - The Island
Replies
8
Views
2K
Krynn72
Krynn72
Dekstar
Counter-Strike: GOing Deep - Part 1
Replies
17
Views
5K
Ennui
Ennui
BabyHeadCrab
Are you a CCD (College Confidence Guy): Read
2
Replies
64
Views
4K
Danimal
Danimal
Back
Top