60fps

[Citizen Soldier]

I read somewhere that the human eye can not process more that 60 fps. is this true?>

 

[blackhawksniper]

http://whisper.ausgamers.com/wiki/index.php/How_many_FPS_human_eye_can_see

the Human Eye can perceive much past the misconception of 30 FPS and well past 60 FPS, even surpassing 200 FPS.

So what is the answer to how many frames per second should we be looking for? If current science is a clue, its somewhere in sync with full saturation of our Visual Cortex, just like in real life. That number my friend - is - well - way up there with what we know about our eyes and brains.

It used to be, well, anything over 30 FPS is too much. (Is that why you're here, by chance?) Then, for a while it was, anything over 60 is sufficient. After even more new video cards, it became 72 FPS. Now, new monitors, new display types like organic LEDS, and FPDs offer to raise the bar even higher. Current LCD monitors response rates are nearing the microsecond barrier, much better than millisecond, and equating to even more FPS.

If this old United States Air Force study is any clue to you, we've only scratched the surface in not only knowing our FPS limits, and coming up with hardware that can match, or even approach them.

The USAF, in testing their pilots for visual response time, used a simple test to see if the pilots could distinguish small changes in light. In their experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. Pilots were consistently able to "see" the afterimage as well as identify the aircraft. This simple and specific situation not only proves the ability to percieve 1 image within 1/220 of a second, but the ability to interpret higher FPS.

 

[chapp]

This is what I always quote when this topic is brought up:

Though animated media works on distinct frames sampled at discrete points in time, there is no evidence suggesting that the human visual system works in the same way. Therefore, it is impossible to express the limitations of human perception as a given maximum frame rate.

It may be possible, however, to investigate the consequences of changes in frame rate for human observers. The most famous example may be the wagon-wheel effect, a form of Aliasing in time, where a spinning wheel suddenly appears to change direction when its speed approaches the framerate of the image capture/reproduction system.

Different capture/playback systems may operate at the same framerate, and still give a different level of "realism" or artifacts attributed to framerate. One reason for this may be the temporal characteristics of the camera and display device.

 

[Tidus]

I read somewhere that the human eye can not process more that 60 fps. is this true?>

No.

 

[fudpeX]

its not true, some idiots in CS started that a long time ago.

 

[IceGladiator]

Well that quote is pretty true... like if you walk into best buy and look at the 120 hz tv's they look kind of odd. (it could be just me) but if you look at the 600 hz plasma's those look pretty sweet. My point is that if we can tell the difference on a tv, we can can see far greater than 60 hz.
BTW 60 hz is 60 fps same thing.

 

[Die Geheimwaffe]

I also get a chuckle out of the question, "what's the resolution of the world"? The world isn't made up of pixels and frames lol.

 

[PeZku]

You can maybe see, but the difference isnt that much.

Also your monitor may not be able to show more than 80 or something. Depends on the monitor of course.

 

[Beanie]

Thats what I've been wondering about.

 

[Sharpe]

I've always heard it was around 28-30. Guess I heard wrong.

From what I read from that article, Humans MAY have a infinite number of FPS's we can process, but hardware we create makes it seem like less, as our hardware right now, Is not as advanced as us.

To me, It seemed it was trying to say something like that.

 

[xosniper]

I had that new Lasik Fps surgery done. I now can see past 1200 fps.

 

[Saeten]

This is not true. You will be able to see a noticeable difference between 120FPS and 60 FPS.