How many FPS can you notice?

[PrincessFrosty]

What's often ignored when this debate comes up every so often is the interpolation speeds or resolution of input from peripherals (mice, controllers, keyboards).

*snip*

There's a big difference in "feel" when you set a Quake engine game to run at 125 FPS. Mouse input and movement is smoother and more responsive as the interrupt of the peripherals is provided a lower latency. I believe this carries over to many other twitch based games.

A very valid point worth considering.

I get this a lot with vsync debates, I've always preferred tearing and vsync off because with very high frame rates that are significantly higher than your monitor, you do tear frames, but the frames below the tear lines are actually representing more recent input within the same single physical monitor refresh, so while it's somewhat of a visual mess and you never display more than 1 total screen every refresh, you do get more temporal information.

And for that reason I've always preferred twitch shooters and other more competative games to be running at something arbitrarily high like 300fps even on 60hz monitors, because you're still decreasing the response time from the players input to what they observe, even if its just for smaller/partial parts of the screen.

I definitely think that the average human eye can easily see much more than even 120hz but it's a case of diminishing returns, trying to determine correctly a 30fps scene vs 40fps scene is easy, but 120 vs 130 is much harder. These days 60fps ought to be seen as a good minimum and ideally we should be targeting 100-120, much above that seems pointless for any practical purpose.

 

[Ichigo]

lmao why is some guy trying to start a fight about proving shit? no one can prove to you what you're seeing. if you can't see it congrats it's basically a money saver. no one cares. for the rest of us it's still clear as day.

 

[therealnickdanger]

Pretty sure standard for 24fps films shutter is 1/48 and thus hobbit had sharper images than usual which was one of the reasons why people didn't like it. (shorter motion blur)
If they would have shot using 360 degree shutter he would have got images identical to standard 24fps 180 degrees used in most movies.

24fps = 1/48 (180-degree) typical shutter
48fps = 1/96 (360-degree) typical shutter

Jackson used a 1/64 (270-degree) shutter on the 48fps content because he WANTED it blurrier. If he had used 1/96, then it would have been sharper... but look more like a videogame.

 

[Ban Bot]

There are studies online about this. Too many factors in play, e.g. what colors are present. And average framerate is a long way from fixed framerate. And then there is the science aspect where it isn't just an issue of the eye noticing a single pixel change but how the brain interpolates information in the field of vision (studies I show people can detect changes much > 60Hz).

 

[B-Riz]

FWIW, Diablo 3 got a lot "smoother" after getting the 144Hz Asus lcd.

 

[Pantlegz]

Well I am only gonna reply this last time since we keep going in circles. Either my eyes and 6 other friends eyes are horrid anything above 60 FPS is bull. Either show me physical proof I live in Vegas and work next to the Galleria Mall or just take your loss.

Since I recently moved from a 60hz monitor to 144hz monitor I've got a pretty fresh memory of both and I can easily tell the difference up to at least 120hz from 120 to 144 maybe not so much. Proof you say? See the link below. That's the difference from 60hz to 120hz, I'm sure as you move up in refresh rate the difference becomes less noticeable but it's still there. Prior to looking into new monitors I though anything over 60hz was a waste of money too, now that I have something faster I know better. Or check some Youtube video's to see the difference between 60 and 120 or 60 and 144, it's fairly noticeable.

http://www.blurbusters.com/faq/60vs120vslb/

 

[bystander36]

Since I recently moved from a 60hz monitor to 144hz monitor I've got a pretty fresh memory of both and I can easily tell the difference up to at least 120hz from 120 to 144 maybe not so much. Proof you say? See the link below. That's the difference from 60hz to 120hz, I'm sure as you move up in refresh rate the difference becomes less noticeable but it's still there. Prior to looking into new monitors I though anything over 60hz was a waste of money too, now that I have something faster I know better. Or check some Youtube video's to see the difference between 60 and 120 or 60 and 144, it's fairly noticeable.

http://www.blurbusters.com/faq/60vs120vslb/

I was messing with that page yesterday, and saw something I thought was interesting. I was playing with the speeds of the UFO, as I expected if you go slower, it would be less obvious, and when I made it go faster, it would be more obvious.

What I found, when I put it at the slowest speed possible, there was a very noticeable difference still. Not in smoothness, as you normally associate with high frame rates, but in how much more detail I could pick out. The graphics on the UFO were less blurred at 120 FPS. I could see two distinct white dashes between the black lines on the UFO which looked like one blur at 60 FPS.

One more thing that higher hz is supposed to help is motion blur, and I was surprised that it was pretty effective, even with fairly low motion.

 

[motsm]

I have done tests on my CRT, and I could see differences over 100Hz, but I don't recall the exact refresh rates I tested. In games, the difference between 60 and 85Hz is significant, but above that, you get diminishing returns, IMO.

 

[Pottuvoi]

24fps = 1/48 (180-degree) typical shutter
48fps = 1/96 (360-degree) typical shutter

Jackson used a 1/64 (270-degree) shutter on the 48fps content because he WANTED it blurrier. If he had used 1/96, then it would have been sharper... but look more like a videogame.

Your calculation of 48fps 360 shutter is wrong.
If you have fully open shutter at 48fps you get 1/48, 1/96 is 180degree shutter which at 48fps gives half the motion blur lenght when compared to normal 24fps film.

He wanted it to look sharper and thus shot with 1/64 which gives same images as shooting 24fps content with 135 degree shutter.

With 48fps you cannot shoot blurrier imagers than you get with 'normal' 24fps 180 degrees, at least without having a camera which stores multiple images at same time. (something like overlapping shutter)
It's most likely easier to shoot with fully open shuter and higher framerate and combine frames properly in post.

 

[RibeyeAndScotch]

Why does 24fps Cinema look so good but 24fps in games looks and feels so crappy?

 

[Maxram777]

I spent quite a pretty penny on a 120hz monitor, yet barly can tell the difference between 60 fps and 100. Especially when I'm comcentrated/hooked on a part of a game. Sometimes I find myself playing a game and when I look over at my second monitor to see that the frames had dropped to around 30 fps and I didn't even notice a difference. Bottom line is, I really don't care for anything over 60. Unless I'm hooked, then I wouldn't even mind 10 fps... But that's just me...


Oh and here's a hilarious runner up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_YSWGJsdEg
What can I say, we've got to give the good runner ups a chance.

 

[ZGR]

I've watched animated films that are about 7-8 fps. At first it can be bothersome, but the brain will get used to it and the movie will appear fluid in motion after awhile.

Our brains get used to whatever peripheral device we use. It is pointless to say 60/120/144 hz is the limit when we don't really know how far we can go. Let's wait a decade and revisit this topic.

I think a lot of us are used to 24p now and because of this, it is jarring to experience a movie that is above 24 fps. I can easily say that 48p is far superior to the older standard. 24p has been with us for nearly 100 years. It is time to let it go and move on. I know change can be hard, but it is for the best.

 

[bystander36]

Why does 24fps Cinema look so good but 24fps in games looks and feels so crappy?

Cinema movies don't look that good, but it can look ok. The trick is they avoid moving the camera fast, and when it is moving, it is almost always focused on a large central object/person. On top of this, they add plenty of motion blur, which results in less detailed scenes.

If you ever watch an old western, or a recent one like Cowboys and Aliens, you may see them pan a large open landscape. When this is done, the flaws of 24 FPS is horrendous. It looks so choppy it's ridiculous. Games, especially 1st person games, pan the view a lot, and this is horrible at 24 FPS, even with loads of motion blur.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

Why does 24fps Cinema look so good but 24fps in games looks and feels so crappy?

24 fps cinema looks bad. Action scenes are nothing but stutter and blur, can't see what's going on.

But we're used to it, so improvement looks weird.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I think its not really about FPS as a fixed number. But more about how much minimum, lag, desync, tearing, judder etc

 

[Whitestar127]

What exactly are we discussing here? Most people here seem to just measure the amount of motion blur reduction when going from 60 hz/fps upwards on an LCD monitor. To me that's not even something to discuss, as it's pretty obvious to my eyes.

Would perhaps be more interesting to discuss at what point it's possible to percieve a difference in "fps motion" disregarding factors like lag, motion blur, flicker and whatnot.

But I guess the only way to test that would be to place two or three CRT monitors (to remove percieved motion blur) next to each other, run the UFO test at different fps/hz on the 3 screens but with the same speed for all, and see if there was a difference between say 60, 85 and 100 hz, all vsynced.

Yes, there would still be flicker differences. More flicker at 60 of course. But if you could look beyond that I think you should be hard pressed to see a difference in just the motion itself.

My guess is that you would have to go below 60, maybe even 50 to start seeing the "jitter" that reduced fps would produce, i.e. going from completely 100 % smooth at 60 to "jerky" because of less fps.

Apologies if I have just completely misunderstood this thread.

 

[Pantlegz]

What exactly are we discussing here? Most people here seem to just measure the amount of motion blur reduction when going from 60 hz/fps upwards on an LCD monitor. To me that's not even something to discuss, as it's pretty obvious to my eyes.

Would perhaps be more interesting to discuss at what point it's possible to percieve a difference in "fps motion" disregarding factors like lag, motion blur, flicker and whatnot.

But I guess the only way to test that would be to place two or three CRT monitors (to remove percieved motion blur) next to each other, run the UFO test at different fps/hz on the 3 screens but with the same speed for all, and see if there was a difference between say 60, 85 and 100 hz, all vsynced.

Yes, there would still be flicker differences. More flicker at 60 of course. But if you could look beyond that I think you should be hard pressed to see a difference in just the motion itself.

My guess is that you would have to go below 60, maybe even 50 to start seeing the "jitter" that reduced fps would produce, i.e. going from completely 100 % smooth at 60 to "jerky" because of less fps.

Apologies if I have just completely misunderstood this thread.

The jerkyness or tearing isn't so much about fps as it is about fps is relation to the monitors refresh rate. With adaptive sync technologies you can display a frame rate that is not the the same as the max refresh rate of the monitor and it still looks smooth. The discussion, as I took it, was about whether going from 60hz to 120/144hz and if there was a noticeable difference, which I'd say is pretty obviously yes.

 

[Whitestar127]

Ah, ok. If input lag and motion blur is to be included, then yes, obvious difference.

 

[bystander36]

Don't you mean if motion blur is excluded?

 

[Kenmitch]

Not sure how many I notice. Playing at 1080p with a 970 on a 144Hz monitor.

Been just playing around with farcry 4 in the arena. It seems like the higher the framerate the better I do. 970 doesn't have enough grunt it looks like to push 144fps.

 

[rcarlos243]

It depends on the game.

I have a BenQ XL2420z which is a 1080p 144Hz monitor and depending on the game I could easily tell the difference if the game is showing less than the screen HZ (like 118FPS @ 144Hz).

Like in GTA 5, Grid Autosport or any First person games I could easily feel the game is not at constant FPS (very noticeable especially on the edges), while on top down view such as RTS, it is not as bad.

As for the pure 60HZ vs 100HZ vs 120HZ vs 144HZ, assuming the system can perfectly maintain the FPS on each HZ, I could feel the difference as there is significantly less input lag when comparing 60HZ to 144Hz (very apparent in FPS and racing games).