what's the maximum FPS the human eyes can distinguish?
I see like 30 faggots per second when browsing /v/
>>736226472fpbp
>>736226249It doesn't matter, it's retarded that consoomers fell for the >60fps meme and those on the hardware/ software side keep enabling itGaming was perfectly fine before bending over backwards to appeal to the >UR POOR AND BROWN LOLdemographic, and honestly has been in a rut since then, but it's got plenty of other visual gimmicks and open world realistic slop, so nobody says anything about it
>>736226472
>>736226767You should be more concerned about consoomers that settle for 30fps slop games
I'll never change my stance that guys who are like "yeah I can see the difference between 100 and 120 fps" are massive lying fags
>>736226249You only actively see in around 60 fps, but you can see rapid movements at higher fps but its not a crisp continuous vision like regular vision, just the recognition of rapid movements occurring. Also you can blast uppers and raise both visual fps limits some, unless you have adhd then youll just become a normie temporarily
>>736226249human vision plateaus around 90hz and falls off hard beyond that; most improvements from higher hz monitors are about mitigating the limitations of sample and hold display tech (motion blur and latency primarily). CRT displays really do not benefit much from those retarded 240-480hz refresh rates like LCD does.
>>736226249for me its 90FPS using a VR headset, I cant see any ghosting effect like I can with 60 FPS
>>73622624994
>>736226959I do agree to an extent, those games only like that to enable grafixfags and immersiontards, which are a huge part of the problem Tech never should've been pushed beyond gen 6 specs.
>>736226964I can tell the difference between 30 and 60, but not 60 and 120.
>>736226767I'm not sure how to tell you this, but 60 FPS games have been around since NES days. Maybe even earlier.So instead you should say>it's retarded that consoomers fell for the 25fps is cinematic meme
>>736226249flicker-wise, 50 up to 60 something is commonThat's consciously, unconsciously, you probably process it faster and in many contexts, but it's not granted to you as a conscious experience; your brain just makes use of that.In video games, your brain makes use mostly of the reduced end-to-end latency from the system when you have low frame time, and the FPS, higher and higher as it goes, gets translated into a feeling that's better and better.
>>736226871
>>736227424How so? Move your mouse to 60 fps, then move it again to 120. I don't believe anyone is incapable of spotting the difference.
>>736226249If human eyes are so great, then why does this become a circle when it spins? Why do the blades stop and start spinning backwards after a while?
>>736227803Imagine having an apple in your head couldn't be me
>>736226249actually it's the brain that does everything, not the eyefuckface
>>736226249I got my first 4k monitor yesterday that is also 160 fps and the difference is wild. It's a whole new world of clarity from 1080p 60fps. I will say that around 150-160 it's hard to tell the difference but it's still there if I try to spot it.
Its not your eyes that matter, its your brain that picks up on minute details. There is a huge difference in even 100FPS vs 200 FPS. There is a reason pros play on the highest level their PC allows
>>736226249>A human>small brain and a pair of eyes>meanwhile pic relI bet t hese guys can distinguish at least 6000 fps
Are there any proper research?There has to be limit somewhere due to nerves and chemical reaction speed
>>736228209>>736228335gouge your eyes out then, see if your brain does everything
>>736228335pros play on high refresh rate monitors because it lowers the latency, it has nothing to do with picture quality
>>736228396IIRC the US military found that humans can notice flashes of light as small as 1ms. That said, most games don't need the player to react to anything like that.
>>736228396there has been, the sweet spot is around 85-100hz which is why old monitors used to aim for that.
>>736228032you're pretty funny anon
i read somewhere that a human fingertip can detect aberrations in a smooth surface that are 4 atoms thick, which blew my mind
>>736228396>>736228620you don't see in "frames per second" because your vision is an "image" composited from the signals sent by the photoreceptors in your eyes which directly correlate with how many photons they're absorbing, it has nothing to do with how fast the color of the image is changing. you'll notice a powerful burst of light that lasts nanoseconds but probably not notice a faint and short lived (but still thousands of times longer than the nanosecond flash) light source
>>736227927Idk you should probably get the fan fixed if its doing that.
>>736226249Humans can notice flickers over 6 kHz quite easily without effort. We're not even close to diminishing returns. All arguments against going for higher refresh rates come from reddit reasoning. For example redditors think they're very smart when they convert hz to ms, then say you can't notice 10 ms because that's small. This is also where the redditarded diminishing returns argument comes from. Retarded redditors compared 60 hz, 120 hz and 180 hz and converted them to ms, then claimed that's diminishing returns because there's less of a time difference between 120 hz and 180 hz compared to 60 hz and 120 hz. Redditors straight up do not get the concept of frequency, they don't have the IQ to be able to comprehend it no matter how much you explain it to them. They think that because our eyes can have a delay in seeing things, that means that the eye operates at that frequency and the idea that it's a buffered but continuous experience is completely out of the window.
>>7362262491000 fps or thereabouts
>>736229915Not even close.
>>736229660see >>736228904the fact that you can kinda distinguish a really fast flashing light does not mean you would benefit at all from a 6khz image display
>>736226249was this claim ever even substantiated by anything? people can literally see in slow motion while in danger
>>736229974Ok, I will take the 6000 fps, deliver it.
>>736230027see >>736229660 and picrel.
>low fps is dogshit kill yourself>LOL WHY ARE YOU MAD CHUDDIE THR HUMAN EYE CAN'T PERCEIVE OVER 8 FRAMES OF LIGHT SHAFTING TRANNIES IN MY ASSHOLE DURRRRRR>I don't like your dogshit moviegames and pozzed slop>LOL WHAT ARE YOU CHUDDIE, POOR? I HAVE ANTIWOKE FATIGUE THE BROKIES ARE AT IT AGAIN LMAOInteresting pattern, wouldn't you agree? My last 69 braincells are telling me people should worry about the poors and the brokes when it comes to poor imagine quality and bad performance, but instead it's only an issue when it comes to modern audience UE5 slop and Snoy movies. Hmmmm, my recognition is patterning.
>>736226249Second part is right but refuses to acknowledge the cones & rods of your eyes are susceptible to this thing called human limitation & by hyper focusing on taking in more images per second in media you are actually damaging your ability to take in real information. Its the same shit as how reading a screen can damage your ability to read a book which is a proven phenomenon
>>736230401literally fighting strawmen
>>736226249US navy already tested this and pilots could spot movement in one frame at 2000fps
>>736226871green is my apple
Fighter pilots can and need to accurately correctly identify aircraft at 1/300th of a second and have detected images up to 1ms or 1/1000th of a second.
>>736226249What a retarded post. It's not that your eyes don't see at 60 fps. It's that your brain can't process the images fast enough for anything beyond 60 fps to make a tangible difference.
>>736230690That's wrong I can identify tits at over 9000 frames per second
>>736230690see >>736230197
>>736230690>It's that your brain can't process the images fast enough for anything beyond 60 fps to make a tangible difference.If true, you have brain damage. Along the same lines as people who can't see anything but number 1 when they close their eyes.
>>736227424I was just playing re7 at 144 fps, and when i capped the frames to 60 i was getting a headache before bumping it back up
i've capped my gpu to 75 fpsthat means smooth fps, it can dip a bit without me noticing and not tax the system too much
Whatever your reaction time is
>>736226249It used to be your eyes can only see 24 fps then 30 and now 60. Soon our eyes will be able to see in 200 fps.
>>736229660>>736230197most autistic post ITT. NOTHING will ever get rid of that, you will never be able to have digital media rendering at 1000fps or more.
>>7362331401440p 540 hz OLEDs just came out. Won't be long until we have kHz monitors and the hardware to support it.
>>736227927The shape itself changes, and the eyes can pick up on that change.
A typical human can distinguish about 12 discrete images per second. Around 17 frames per second is when the average person perceives something as motion instead of a series of images.People can detect changes in frame rate as high as 240fps, some people even higher than that.
>>736227927Your monitor's refresh rate isn't high enough to display its motion accurately.
the annoying part is you can easily see it for yourself if you have two monitors with different refresh rates
>>736226871Hello Magritte.
>>736226472Turn on the monitor
>>736226249I cap out at 240 fps, then no matter how hard I tried I can't see. When we talking low fps, it would seem that, for example, the ps experience where FPS drops from 30 to 25 is like heaven and earth. Before, when we had the 60 fps standard, the standard also was that the 60fps was extremely stable. If it wasn't stable we didn't even count it. Now, I have a 360hz monitor, and the only game where it would seem to matter to go over the 200 fps is warframe to my eye. In games like CoD or battlefield and other modern pvp shooter, playing under 140 fps is, in opinion, should considered to be a handicap because of how high standards are now and how twitchy games become in general.
>>736226249For me it's around 500fps. If you have a camera with a physical shutter, you can take the lens off and watch the shutter close. Set it to 1/500 of a second exposure time and the shutter's movement is almost invisible. At 1/1000 of a second it's completely imperceptible by sight.
