Hello all

I have heard alot of stories that people can see more than 24.5 fps, and if a game has a avr of 50 fps ,they say it ain't fluid because some frame drops are like 27 fps.

what I have been told from pro's that a human eye can't see more than a max of 30 fps.

where is the truth and proof about this ongo'n thing?

If there are people that have the real truth on what the human eye can see, I would like to know, because I have heard many wierd things , but never could see the truth in those so called stories.

Cheers,

Obi-Wan Kenobi.

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

read it ;)

hmm this was interesting :
The Human Eye and it's real capabilities - tahDA!
 This is where this article gets even longer, but read on, please. I will explain to you how the Human Eye can perceive much past the mis conception of 30 FPS and well past 60 FPS, even surpassing 200 FPS.

it is strange that my eyes can't see faster than 31 fps in a game, is this so odd?

I played StarWars RAcer @ 47 fps on a Voodoo5 5500 AGP 64MB on an AthlonXP 2700+ @ 1024 x 768 x16 in Glide + FSAA x4.

The game motion was very fluid, my eyes couldn't detect any stutter, so is it odd that my eyes can't see the difference between 47 fps avr or 74 fps avr that was with FSAA x2 setting?

Ooooh, what do we have here... another link!  ;D

http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_3.html

ahh perfect :)

This nerve is just a pathway, and does no processing on its own. Its bandwidth is actually really huge, so a lot of information can be passed on. Nerve impulses also travel at over 200 mph to the brain, so it is nearly instantaneous for information to be received from the eye (since the optic nerve is only about 2 cm to 3 cm long).
The visual cortex is where all the information is put together. Humans only have so much room in the brain, so there are some tricks it uses to give us the most information possible in the smallest, most efficient structure.

T-Buffer's comes from the human eye heh then it went to 3dfx.
One of these tricks is the property of motion blur. We cannot get away from the phenomena because it is so important to the way we perceive the world. In the visual cortex we can theorize the existence of what I call the motion blur filter. Because the eye can only receive so much information, and the visual cortex can only process so much of that, there needs to be a way to properly visualize the world.


This what 3dfx tried to show with thier Napalm products I was thinking, simply brilliant actually.
Take for example a fast moving object. The faster it goes, the more it blurs (be it a snowflake or a train). Why does this happen? Let's take the example of a snowflake. At any time it has a fixed position in the universe, no matter what speed it goes at (unless it starts to get relativistic, then we go into some strange physics, but something that is not applicable to what we are talking about). Lets say at 5 mph, we see the snowflake in perfect detail as it falls to the ground. Now we hop into a car and go 55 mph. Can we see the detail of the snowflake? No, it is just a streak to us.

The Conclusion in short, so 30 fps isn't bad at all though the lowest fps can make it look worse than it really is.
So what is the answer to how many frames per second should we be looking for? Anything over 60 fps is adequate, 72 fps is maximal (anything over that would be overkill). Framerates cannot drop though from that 72 fps, or we will start to see a degradation in the smoothness of the game. Don't get me wrong, it is not bad to play a game at 30 fps, it is fine, but to get the illusion of reality, you really need a frame rate of 72 fps.

thanx for your help, if there are others with thier theories go ahead :)

Another thing to think about:

Most people can see flicker in a CRT monitor at 75 Hz.  I need to run at 85 Hz or more to eliminate flicker in my peripheral vision.

In that case one's eyes are distinguishing 75+ screen re-draws per second.

wrote on 10.05.06 at 01:12:20:

what I have been told from pro's that a human eye can't see more than a max of 30 fps.

I call bullsh*t.

Depends on the human, I can tell the difference between 30 FPS vs 60 FPS.

yeps so it may seem, though this does have some clearity afterall.

So what is the answer to how many frames per second should we be looking for? Anything over 60 fps is adequate, 72 fps is maximal (anything over that would be overkill).

oh about the herz thing on TFT's then:
If your screen refreshes at 85Hz and your game runs at 50Hz (=50fps): Are you sure that you don't need to synchronize them? Are you sure, you don't need to play with a multiple of 85 to enjoy synchronized refresh updates? So the game running at 85fps may better than at 100fps. Maybe even a TFT display was better. It displays only with about 40fps but progressively.

got that from here:
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

dunno if that is true, did sound sensefull though.

wrote on 10.05.06 at 03:56:21:

I call bullsh*t. Depends on the human, I can tell the difference between 30 FPS vs 60 FPS.

Short answer, but true. It depends from a game.

wrote on 10.05.06 at 03:56:21:

I call bullsh*t. Depends on the human, I can tell the difference between 30 FPS vs 60 FPS.

correct. its easy for me too see the difference in shooters like quake 3 with 30 and with 60 fps... especially when you move fast...

okay why are movies in theatures and on the telly 30 fps?

is there an explanation too that, , if 60fps is vissible, why aren't movies , TV-Show's shown in 29.89 fps instead of 40 or 60 fps, are they blured?

if I have a Monitor @ 100 Herz and my game gets 47 fps AVR I see no jitter, I find it rather odd that some people do see the difference between 47 fps and 60.

I suppose humans are different on this perspective, some may have trained eyes to see the frames per sec faster, but still 72 fps is the limit  like the article pronounced:

So what is the answer to how many frames per second should we be looking for? Anything over 60 fps is adequate, 72 fps is maximal (anything over that would be overkill).

Above that on a 85 or 100 herz screen it isn't visible anymore., what I think it's alot in the peoples minds they think they see more but to be relistic they don't it's more like an illusion.

But if there are frame drops liek from 47 to 21 then it is noticeable, because 21fps is under the fluid framerate of 29.89 fps.

but to forget the logicness, not every human can see this difference otherwise there wouldn't be so much discussions about this case :) I truely do believe the people that can see more than 30fps , that's a miracle, but really 30fps is a fluid screen wityh no frame drops then for my eyes, here by we are all but different so it's hard to calculate what is visable for the one and the other.

wrote on 10.05.06 at 16:07:50:

okay why are movies in theatures and on the telly 30 fps?

This is an old and rather pointless argument that was beat to death back when 3dfx was still king.

TV and movies smear from frame to frame giving the illusion of a higher frame rate.

PC monitors are more precise devices compared to TV and the low framerate is more evident.

hmm sorry it isn't pointless it's rather interesting, otherwise I wouldn't post such a difficult thing.  

And not to mention That I was argueing, to argue is  pointless, nether the less. :-/

Hmm to watch TV on a monitor still gives a fluid image and still the images moves @ 30fps so does Live TV on both type of screens, still odd, I think it's something got to do with bluring, that makes the image smoother as in films and so on, something like that.

Anyways playing a game @ 30 fps at that framerate in a constantly stable situation does give a smooth image, but yes I do agree that 60 fps avaridge is a perfect speed, since that there are frame drops of 30 fps sometimes which keeps the framerate at a very fluid state :)

Nah, I have a general comment:
In cinemas an average FPS rate of 25Fps is used and everybody thinks it's fluid.
In computer games some people think or believe or FEEL the same about 25Fps. Other would say it's not fluid. I would say 35Fps are enough to play absolutely fluid, fps rates above it give you more reserves in critical situation with loads of effects. That's why most of the gamers put so much money in their computers. They want and NEED these reserves.

What I call bullshit is if somebody tells me, that for example 40Fps are not enough, there is NO stocking, point.

a avr of 70 to 80 fps is perfect, then the lowest framedrop is also higher than 30 fps ;)

Did more research myself today and yeap Gary and all you other lads are correct all the way, silly me hehe :-X

With an AVR of 40 you get framedrops below the 30 fps and that is where the stuttering's enter the battlefield yaay ::)

First of all, I don't perveice Movies in a Cinema as "fluid" (I can see the tricks they use to try to fool the human eye, it's especially visible with rapid camera motion - the Motion Compensation hits its limitations)

Now, for a slow Strategy Game, I can easily accept 30-40 fps (but not for controls, for example... nothing bugs me more than a mousepointer stuttering around at that low rate)

From personal experience :
From 3D shooters in a competitive play (Internet), I demand around 60fps minimum, it starts bugging me big time if it's below that.
In close-quarter "death around every corner" type Games, I'd rather have 100-120fps to reach fully intuitive interaction and control.
Playing that with 40fps instead would mean frequent death and a good deal of frustration.

(I know Quake 3 Arena international tournament cracks have their systems setup to never drop below 150-200fps, because that's what their lightning fast reactions are tuned to after years of training)

----------
AFAIK, it's not the human eye that is limiting anything, it's the human brain which primary job is to filter unneeded information out of the massive Video Stream and concentrate/repackage/give sense to the Details of Interest.

In fact, the human brain can (given some time) completely modify the Image the eyes are delivering.
There were numerous experiments, one of the more remarkable involved volunteers carrying Glasses that would flip their entire field of view upside down.
After an average of 2 weeks (and a hell lot of sickness / turned stomaches later), all volunteers had gained the ability to see "normal" again.
Their Brain had adapted to the new situation and flipped the Images again.
(naturally, after the exeriment was ceased and glasses taken off, the ordeal repeated - as the volunteers were seeing everything upside down again, just this time without glasses ;) )

Basically, with sufficient training the fps the brain can detect and work with can increase tremendously.

The TV and Movie examples (25-30fps) are possible only with Motion Compensation that blurs it enough so the human brain is able to complete the stuttering animation on its own - that's one of the brain's most powerful functions, testable for everyone on a wide series of Visual Experiments that demonstrate the brains abilities and shortcomings - some of which are quite funny.

mkay, but why not make movies with 100 to 120 fps? I mean if that would be usefull as in a fluid frame rate , it's kinds strange that films are still go'n at 25 to 30 fps, so there has gotta be something missing on that part.

If the Fps rate goes down from 40Fps, there must be a very speciel situation I believe. Generally 40 Fps are enough to play OFFLINE Shooter.
This connection to the proffessional Q3 gamers is some kind of nonsense. Some years ago they had been playing with detail settings @min. to be as good as possible (because of slow computers) today some Q3 gamers still play this way because they think they are better this way :D
I've never seen some Bf1942 players doing this today :D Q3 and it's players are to special to compare with other games.

Q4 runs perfectly on my sys @ around 45Fps, even online no problems. So where is the freaking problem?
I mean: If your computer is able to display for example 50 Fps @max details it's perfectly ok. But you got problems if your I-Net connection is to slow and your ping is to high. This is what some people don't understand and therefore they put their details down.
And: If you play @ 200Fps, there is basically NO situation where the framerate goes far enough down to give you a disadvantage.

Everybody feels different about Fps rates and everybody configures games like he wants. But, sorry, nonsense to put the details down if you have average 50-60fps, even online.

wrote on 14.05.06 at 03:34:41:

mkay, but why not make movies with 100 to 120 fps?

As I pointed out before- TV and Movies blur the frames together!

PC monitors do not, they are more exact.

yeah seems to be true allright :)

72 fps is indeed a nice framerate with a 100 herz screen :P, only games with Motion Blur it looks alot better :)

Thanx for Motion Blur 3dfx  :-*