the human eye and FPS

[XeroTYM]

i wish movies used more fps... i think it'd make the movies a lot better

[Vihsadas]

Hey, that's a great read. I didn't know some of that stuff. But I did know that trying to evaluate the human eye in "FPS", would be like trying to evaluate the human brain in "Mhz".

Originally posted by XeroTYM on 12-23-2003 at 03:21 PM
i wish movies used more fps... i think it'd make the movies a lot better

We're getting there. HDTV is a step in the right direction, and newer TVs are increasing the Refresh rate on their systems. It would be cool if we could come up with technology complete indepednat of FPS. Like a morphing visual field

[edudlive]

i can easily tell differences up until about 115hz

[Vihsadas]

Originally posted by edudlive on 12-24-2003 at 08:13 PM
i can easily tell differences up until about 115hz

dude. your superman!!

[Sieran]

A little off topic but just to comment/question on this...

For some reason when i set my monitor to 75 hertz it gives me a slight headach and makes my feel somewhat sick to my stomach and so deos 80, but at 85 it stops.

At 65 i dont notice a flicker on the screen but inbetween 65 and 85 i do slightly (why i think i feel sick) and anything beyond that i dont.

I guess my question is why dont i see the monitor slicker slightly at the lower end refresh rate but i do at higher ones untill i hit 85?

If it matters i have a viewsonic E90f 19"

[retepsam]

If your TV is working at 60 Hz, maybe cos you are a resident of the USA (?), then perhaps there is a beat frequency sorta thing?

I dont know what I am talking about here, it is a wild idea, but maybe there is a point every so on where the TV sends a blank frame to the screen, immediately followed by the graphics card also sending a blank frame to the screen - so the 2 blank screens become more noticeable.

It's a sort of lowest common multiple thingamajig, but as it is a wild idea of mine it may be total nonsense, my ideas usually are.

[3dfxrain]

yo, unlock the vsync rate and your games will have better frame rates

[Zel]

i was always told that the human eye sees around 30-35 fps, that doesnt mean that a 40 FPS game is going to lok as nice as an 80, because the eye and the monitor are not synched.

think if something is running at 36 fps and youre seeing 35 frames then thats just over one frame per one seen, so occasionally youll see twice before the next frame appears, causing a jitter. and at very high rates then the chance of the eye catching two off synched frames is very minimal and there is an overall smoothness.

thats my 2c on how 60hz monitors cause occasional black flicker even though thats way faster than the eye sees.

[wb22rules]

Originally posted by retepsam on 12-26-2003 at 01:20 AM
If your TV is working at 60 Hz, maybe cos you are a resident of the USA (?), then perhaps there is a beat frequency sorta thing?

I dont know what I am talking about here, it is a wild idea, but maybe there is a point every so on where the TV sends a blank frame to the screen, immediately followed by the graphics card also sending a blank frame to the screen - so the 2 blank screens become more noticeable.

It's a sort of lowest common multiple thingamajig, but as it is a wild idea of mine it may be total nonsense, my ideas usually are.

I follow ya , dont know the chances of it being correct though

[Vihsadas]

Originally posted by Zel on 12-27-2003 at 06:13 PM
i was always told that the human eye sees around 30-35 fps, that doesnt mean that a 40 FPS game is going to lok as nice as an 80, because the eye and the monitor are not synched.

think if something is running at 36 fps and youre seeing 35 frames then thats just over one frame per one seen, so occasionally youll see twice before the next frame appears, causing a jitter. and at very high rates then the chance of the eye catching two off synched frames is very minimal and there is an overall smoothness.

thats my 2c on how 60hz monitors cause occasional black flicker even though thats way faster than the eye sees.

Well, the problem with that, is that you are thinking that the eye "sees" in frames. But this is not true. It's sees in continuous streams, and is nothing analogous to frame rate. The article that was posted at the begining of the thread is a good read. The human does see an imporvement up to about 130Hz?(I think that's what the article says).