>:(

250

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

this is an excellent article.

its obviously oudtated, not very thorough and provides no answers

did our eyes evolved dramaticaly in last few years?

it may lack answers but it does make obvious that human eye fps readability can not be simply measured into one fixed value for all circumstances.

"it does make obvious that human eye fps readability can not be simply measured into one fixed value for all circumstances. "
tldr the link yet ; will I have to, or can it be summarize quickly here ?

actually it points out how for instance blured images can be registered without stuttering (~18fps) or how videogames because of sharp images needs more fps (>50fps) for better experience.

it explains also how light intensive changes in motion pictures need more fps.

it also mentions less movement requires less frames.

it also writes a bit about refreshes on monitor etc.

i really recommend reading that article or just google for similar ones.

its kind of lame to start a debate not wanting to read others opinions even if they are a bit untacticaly too long :P

I'll read it at some point, was just curious on the moment ; hey it's not like you had to answer my request nicely or at all anyway, this is internet

looking at your anwser, most of these points are revolving around "can't see shit" (blur, darkness) which is irrelevant cause I'm trying to see if it's possible to get our own fps rate limit in ofc the best conditions (at least in the fisrt place), or irrelevant stuff ("what if things move slow and we don't give really a fuck about your hypothetical eye fps rate limit)
anyway it's interesting, but kind of off-topic at a first glance

By outdated I meant that the examples are somewhat old/weird (...maybe 120fps is enough, maybe you will get headaches after 3 hours).
Its so popularized it hurts, no sources of information whatsoever etc. It could've been all made up by that guy, for all I know.
That article sucks ass!

btw for understanding that the eye doesn't work the same in all conditions, I don't need to read that crap

you are as constructive as you would be if you didnt post anything at all. but i agree with most of what you wrote.

epic reply

There's nothing to be settled, if anyone claims that you can only see "XX" FPS anyway, you can just regard them as a complete ignorant moron.

Its funny that was one of reasons for leaving rare in 03, I had quite a heated debate with my team leader about the differece between 60 FPS in games and 120 FPS in, he was adamant there was no differece and that was one of the many things which made me think this place is going to fail at such a fundamental level if the people leading it are so blind and out of touch.

Several years later...
http://kotaku.com/5050970/peter-moore-on-rare...able-today

I owe the best career choice of my life to com_maxfps 120 :)

You have to wonder if these people ever to stop to think about what they are saying.

I did actually mean 120 and not 125.

You should have contemplated the fact that I meant what I said long before you made that velied attempt at sarcasm.

Do keep trying.

lol, I think ini just agreed with you

What an idiot...

I didn't even read 120/125 in the post.

kinda sad, for once in his life he makes a statement people can agree with and then he fucks it all up in the next post :/

Yeah, for some reason he thinks I have a vendetta/agenda/bias against him as a person (rather than just the stupid stuff he posts).

He's deluded and that's why I ignore his posts these days because they're kinda depressing :/

yeah, kind of like when becks thinks I have a personal thing against him, whereas I only think he's stupid and boring. :/

likewise.

But your need to imagine things about me when replying to other people does hint you have quite an obsession.

:/

So insecure.

nailed another one.

hahaha

Lol. That vid of the helicopter looks wierd :D

there's no limit of any sort and this thread is super pointless :d

outstanding arguments there
as we're on unjustified opinion, mine is you're not able to distinguish 10 000fps from 1 billion fps, therefore there is a limit
but, anyway

there's no need for an argument here... why would our eyes have a fps limit of any sort?
afaik our eyes perceive motion not individual frames therefore 24fps with motion blur (aka tv) works fine and 120fps in games (without motion blur) look 'smoother' than 60fps. what do you want to discuss?

nothing with you since you don't back up your opinion with facts, proofs, arguments

why wouldn't our eyes have a limit of any sort ?
duh

our eyes perceive motion not individual frames -> more fps = smoother game. get it?

our eyes doesn't perceive individual frames ? even in a video at eg 5fps, you sure ? lol

anyway you just have a problem with the title of my thread, which is badly written as stated at the end ; maybe you'll manage to pass it and get to the little physic experience I talk about in the thread (not that I care, hey)

also : "more fps = smoother game"
would you bet it's indefinitely or could it be some kind of limit, eg would you tell the difference between a quake game at 10 fps, 100 fps, 1000 fps, 10 000 fps, 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 fps. when wouldn't you be able to tell the difference. but I've already wrote that some post ago, repeating stuff is annoying

don't be even more retarded than before... your little 'physic experience' (sic) proves my theory.
of course there's a certain amount of fps we need to perceive motion but that's not what you wanted to know, right? i can tell the difference (and so can you btw) between 10, 100 and 1000 fps. for practical reasons i never tested any further.
again, what's your point?

you're such a waste of time

I had some training for my new job and some dumb woman told me our eyes can only see about 13fps............

Needless to say i stoped listening after she said that :\

http://www.evscam.com/

Lol i just came along this website while at work :D

goddamn, you almost got me fired!!!

it's not about how many fps your eye can see,
it's about how many fps your hand can feel.

what if you are chuck norris?

you get your ass kicked by bruce lee

c'est ne pas possible!
it's not return of the living dead

9001

you'll only ever find out the average speed, stoopid people see slower then the average iq

what would make you assume that all the receptors in your eyes are clocked

1) with the same frequency

2) in the same phase

and what makes you think that all the receptors in your eyes only take impulse type "pics" and don't
illuminate the information they get for a certain period of time (not necessarely the same amount of time for each sensor).

and why would you assume that you can find something out like that by making that thing spin?
sure you'll see some sort of change in the picture after reachign a certain speed.

but that speed is certainly dependant on alot of different factors:
- how bright is the environment you're in?
- what background color does the image you are spinning have?

and maybe even:
- how tired is the obvserving person?


im not stating this as facts, just some random questions i came up with on the fly, some might be bullshit, didnt really think much about it.

Yep.

I also don't think everyone can see the difference between 100 and 125 fps, basically this is quite the pointless thread, and the OP will not get a good answer.

"I also don't think everyone can see the difference between 100 and 125 fps"
at least one person here is convinced otherwise ("more fps = smoother game")

"basically this is quite the pointless thread"
baw, not cool
the pointless thread ? the chosen one ? cool actually

"and the OP will not get a good answer"
so far you're right

I'm serious, I know several people that can't see the difference even between an lcd screen or 120hz CRT:P They're probably blind.

This thread being pointless is what makes it awesome.
Will be lots of flaming here:D

is there even one esr thread without trolling/flaming ?

depends

it's like a standard rip that's a 720p scene release. upon first (on a normal sized lcd/crt) viewing I never noticed much of a difference, but once I swithced back after a while then you really notice the difference.

probably works the same with FPS settings and display refresh settings etc

it applies to other senses as well.

Based on studies, you only technically can. Your eyes become trained to whatever you are used to seeing. Someone who specifically looks at a 60hz screen all day will not see a difference between 60hz and 120hz. Let them use 120hz for a few hours, and they will be able to see the difference. This same thing can be illustrated with a 30hz refresh for someone used to 60hz.

The highest that has been tested is somewhere in the realm of 200hz, and the eyes were still able to keep up.

I don't assume anything, and anyway if I did (cba to check what I wrote atm) I don't really care about making mistakes in the process of understanding the optic phenomenon I'm describing ("why would you assume that you can find something out like that by making that thing spin?"
there is an optic phenomenon, I'd like it explained), which so far I bet could give our eyes a motion awardness limit (but I could be wrong ofc)

oh, sorry i just read this in the original post:

"can't we find our own eye fps limit using this and settle this shit once and for all ?"

must have misinterpreted

it's a question, I'm not assuming "we can find our own eye fps limit using this", you've misinterpreted idd

why dont you just go ahead and interpret my initial post correctly as the answer "no" toyour question, with a little bit of elaboration, since simple writing "no" would have probably provoked some flame/whine from your part

me too dumb I guess, cba concentrate to understand your message, too much haedhack
I even feel writing like russian, way more laid back
told you don't care mistake me, only explanation optic phenom care

ok, sec. i'll start over:

"can't we find our own eye fps limit using this and settle this shit once and for all ?"

no

outstanding arguments there

somehow i predicted that...

what are you?some kind of genius?

ffs you're a weak troll

"since simple writing "no" would have probably provoked some flame/whine from your part "

lulz, i see what you did there :D

wata on the other hand did not!

watajoke!!!

It depends on how much processing time is needed to produce a percept for each change in image. This time varies depending on what is being viewed, that is its color/geometry, since the number of rods and cones for each task varies.

What increases the processing time is the time it takes for the photons to produce a nerve response from the rods/cones, and this nerve response to be processed by the visual cortex generating a percept. A low end speed of neuronal firing would be 200 firings/sec.

What decreases the processing time is the fact that there are many rods/cones that can each produce nerve firings, and of course that the visual cortex is prepared to handle many, many signals at once (two nerve cells each reading 200 fps, but picking up different frames could theoretically produce 400 fps).

So, I think it is very very high compared to the framerates we are often exposed to (<200). Considering that most people's CRT's max out at about 160 hz, most people have no idea what >160 hz even looks like unfortunately.

As for how many fps the eye can see, I strongly believe that this figure is _at least_ 200 fps, if not 1000 or even much more depending on what is being viewed, and eventually on the individual because number of rods and cones actually varies a bit from person to person, as does conditioning to stimuli (visual cortex may be able to adjust its wiring to decrease processing time, at the very least with myelination).

It depends on how much processing time is needed to produce a percept for each change in image. This time varies depending on what is being viewed, that is its color/geometry, since the number of rods and cones for each task varies.

I guess yes, but anyway I'm looking for limits (if our eyes have limitations ; this said, personnaly I would bet they have) , be it the higher limit or the lower limit or anywhere in between

What decreases the processing time is the fact that there are many rods/cones that can each produce nerve firings, and of course that the visual cortex is prepared to handle many, many signals at once (two nerve cells each reading 200 fps, but picking up different frames could theoretically produce 400 fps).

but each rod cell/cone only process one photon from the scene, nope ? so we can't add up fps as we add up the number of rod/cone, since they don't process the same part of the image then perceived by the brain

I think it is very very high compared to the framerates we are often exposed

got the same opinion ; about video games I guess quite some time will pass before we finally create a monitor technology which could compete with our eyes limitations

13hz! But still feel 160 hz is way better than 125.. When is ql going to remove the stupid 125fps limit so i can run my monitor on max


"Some of the first hints that we may perceive the world through discrete "frames" arrived with studies of the well-known "wagon wheel illusion", in which the wheels of a forward-moving vehicle appear to slow down or even roll backwards.
....
So in 2006, Rufin VanRullen, a neuroscientist at the University of Toulouse in France, decided to recreate the illusion in his lab. Sure enough, when he span a wheel at certain speeds, all subjects reported seeing it turn the "wrong" way. "The continuity of our perception is an illusion," he concludes.

The experiment even put a number on our visual frame rate - around 13 frames per second. But what within our brain sets this particular rate? When VanRullen measured his subjects' brain waves through electroencephalogram (EEG) electrodes on the scalp, he found a specific rhythm in the right inferior parietal lobe (RPL) - which is normally associated with our perception of visual location - that rises and falls at about the right frequency. It seemed plausible that as this 13-hertz wave oscillates, the RPL's receptivity to new visual information also shifts up and down, leading to something akin to discrete visual frames."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2042731...tml?page=1

interesting, thanks
I wonder what kind of lighting Rufin VanRullen used, I hope it's the sunlight ; this 13Hz result is weird
it seems the analysis of this phenomenon is going on ; well I guess I can only wait that they find out what's going on for sure

why is ql caped at 125fps btw ? is there any reason left since the physics engine isn't fps related anymore, same as cpma (or am I wrong ?)

Well if you try the bridge to rail jump on dm6 with 30 FPS you will find out that it's neary impossible, but on 125 FPS its pretty easy.

BTW, a normal human eye can register a maximum of 29,5 FPS. All under it will be registred as a little laggy, all over it won't be registred at all. So it has nothing to do with iq or training.

ProoF?!

wtf are you on

But because the eye frames (which vary alot from person to person) can never be in sync with the computer frames, games must have a higher frame rate in order to let it look smoothly. That's why you DO see a difference between 90 FPS and 120 FPS.

c/p from wiki: The human visual system does not see in terms of frames; it works with a continuous flow of light/information.[citation needed] A related question is, "how many frames per second are needed for an observer to not see artifacts?" However, this question too does not have single straightforward answer. If the image is switching between black and white each frame, then this image will appear to flicker when the pattern is shown at rates slower than 60 frames per second. In other words, the flicker-fusion point, where the eyes sees gray instead of flickering tends to be around 60 Hz. However, for fast moving objects, frame rates may need to be even higher to avoid judder (non-smooth motion) artifacts. And the retinal fusion point can vary in different people, as well as depending on lighting conditions.

/e: Also, it's all about motion blur, dude. Games like Quake usually don't have motion blur, so you need alot more frames.

Well, I obviously don't see so much difference between 120 and 90, but you are right if i play quake at 30 it feels laggy as hell even my eye should not register lags because of >29,5 FPS (If you watch a movie you have 27 FPS and it's not laggy at all).

But in a slower game like CS:S with 30FPS the game feels smooth so its a matter of the actual "normal-speed" in the game.

But it's fact that in quake you need at least 120 FPS to make some jumps which are pretty much impossible with lower FPS-rates.

ProoF?!

no.

double no.

Triple no.

The fuck are you on about. 30fps in any game is going to feel like wading through shit without a snorkel.

a movie with 27 fps?

wat ?

next question:

which processing rate doest the world have and at what rate does the world create frames?
at what rate does the sun emit "chances" for us to see a glimpse of whats going on? is it f=v_c/halflifesign???

Over 9000!!!!!!!!!

That rotary experiment is related to the wavelength of light, the same reason car wheels can seem to stop turning or turn backwards when they are going forwards at certain speeds. It happens at both low speeds and high speeds. It even happens with the wheels on a horse-drawn-cart. Frames have nothing to do with it.

"That rotary experiment is related to the wavelength of light"
as any human vision related experiment. so ?

"the same reason car wheels can seem to stop turning or turn backwards when they are going forwards at certain speeds"
no.shit.sherlock. so ?

"It happens at both low speeds and high speeds"
at all integer multiples of the lowest speed that effect occurs, ofc. so ?

""It even happens with the wheels on a horse-drawn-cart."
haha. so ?

"Frames have nothing to do with it."
not demonstrated.

Frames have nothing to do with the wavelength of light. A frame is a still image. Video or animation works by combining a series of still images together to give the illusion of movement. The vision of an eye is not the same as the vision of a camera, as an eye works continuosly, whereas a camera records several still images in succession to give the illusion of movement. Neither the eye or brain work by recording things as still images. That method is the trick of how a camera works. For you to view things as still images you would have to blink at the frequency of the light you were looking at.

Try saying "so ?" a few more times (instead of doing some research or studying on the subject), it makes you look clever.

""That rotary experiment is related to the wavelength of light"
as any human vision related experiment. so ?"

you did not get the sarcasm there, didn't you ?


anyway all you've said still doesn't explain the optical effect I'm describing in the OP, off topic powa

i scrolled past this post at 12000 fps

ask cyclops

Airplane on a giant treadmill: will it take off?

Does 0.99...=1?

sure thang