some truth about 'human eye cant see more than 24fps' (nope) View previous topic :: View next topic  


NFOHump.com Forum Index - General chatter
Page 1 of 1
Nui
VIP Member



Posts: 5720
Location: in a place with fluffy towels
PostPosted: Fri, 9th Oct 2015 19:54    Post subject: some truth about 'human eye cant see more than 24fps' (nope)
Unfortunately this isn't some funny troll post, but go ahead and turn the thread into a mess, because while interesting, this post is going to be mostly inconsequential Laughing


If you care to look at the testufo which nicely demonstrates a variety of monitor-eye effects depending on the display type.
This is an image of pattern used by that site. This pattern would just move to the right at an adjustable speed.

Here is my point. In the default settings of 12 px/s I am unable to see the checkerboard unless I follow its motion! Instead I see vertical lines that go all the way down. So at least 2 consecutive motion phases merge together for me. This should mean, that the maximal possible (!) temporal resolution of my eyes in this test is 30 fps! Probably lower, possibly 24fps Razz

edit: Actually I realized this just a flicker test: http://www.nfohump.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2798502#2798502


edit: the following I still consider true

All problems related with motion (stutter, blurring) only occurs when we follow movement with our eyes! Which makes this knowledge almost pointless, because we automatically follow motion Laughing

Btw, while I'm at it, for stutter and blurring the most important factor is the frame display duration, not really the frame rate. A 30 fps video with black frames inserted (BFI) on a display that already has dark phases shows pretty good looking motion as far as im concerned, however it flickers like mad. So you basically need a somewhat high frame rate to reduce the frame display duration. More useless information Laughing

Motion blur is what this Ufo test is actually about. It shows motion blur and makes it measureable by eye. If anyone is interested. Btw, experience with this made me realize that in extreme cases I should be able to see the difference between 200 and 400 fps in a game. Although that would be extreme nitpicking.

Side note: for gaming you would want a high frame rate anyway, because of input lag. Making this even more useless for us, so hooray Laughing


Last edited by Nui on Sat, 10th Oct 2015 13:44; edited 6 times in total
Back to top
Bob Barnsen




Posts: 31974
Location: Germoney
PostPosted: Fri, 9th Oct 2015 19:56    Post subject:
nonononononononono

Enthoo Evolv ATX TG // Asus Prime x370 // Ryzen 1700 // Gainward GTX 1080 // 16GB DDR4-3200
Back to top
Nui
VIP Member



Posts: 5720
Location: in a place with fluffy towels
PostPosted: Fri, 9th Oct 2015 19:59    Post subject:
bahb bahrnsen, stahp!

kogel mogel
Back to top
Morphineus
VIP Member



Posts: 24883
Location: Sweden
PostPosted: Fri, 9th Oct 2015 20:42    Post subject:
It's rather daft to express our sight in FPS. Our eyes are way more advanced to put it in derp terms! Razz
Back to top
Kaltern




Posts: 5859
Location: Lockerbie, Scotland
PostPosted: Fri, 9th Oct 2015 20:43    Post subject:
http://www.testufo.com/#test=framerates

Playing Valheim every weekday at 10pm GMT - twitch.tv/kaltern

Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it... @kaltern

My system: Ryzen 7 3700x|Gigabyte RTX 2080 Super Windforce OC|Vengeance 3000Mz 16Gb RAM|2x 500Gb Samsung EVO 970 M.2 SSD |SanDisk SSD PLUS 240 GB + OCZ Vertex 2 60Gb SSD|EVA Supernova 650W PSU|Logitech G27 Wheel|Logitech G19 Gaming Pad|SteelSeries Arctis 7|Logitech G502 Proteus Spectrum Mouse + Logitech MX Master Mouse|Razer Blackwidow Chroma X Keyboard|Oculus Quest 2 + Link|Pixio PX7 Prime 165hz HDR & 1x Samsung 24FG70FQUEN 144Hz curved monitor

-= Word to the wise: Having a higher forum post does not mean you are right. =-
Back to top
Morphineus
VIP Member



Posts: 24883
Location: Sweden
PostPosted: Fri, 9th Oct 2015 20:58    Post subject:
fuck sake, those tests gave me a headache. Lousy 30fps Troll Dad
Back to top
MinderMast




Posts: 6172
PostPosted: Fri, 9th Oct 2015 21:08    Post subject:
Nui wrote:
Unfortunately this isn't some funny troll post, but go ahead and turn the thread into a mess, because while interesting, this post is going to be mostly inconsequential Laughing

If you care to look at the testufo which nicely demonstrates a variety of monitor-eye effects depending on the display type.
This is an image of pattern used by that site. This pattern would just move to the right at an adjustable speed.

Here is my point. In the default settings of 12 px/s I am unable to see the checkerboard unless I follow its motion! Instead I see vertical lines that go all the way down. So at least 2 consecutive motion phases merge together for me. This should mean, that the maximal possible (!) temporal resolution of my eyes in this test is 30 fps! Probably lower, possibly 24fps Razz

You just make a leap from motion resolution to framerate and come up with numbers that are not connected - there is no relation between how fast the object is moving and FPS, so you can't make any claims on what your eyes can see in terms of framerate even if the term was applicable to human sight Razz

If you set it to 1 pixel per frame it will still run at 60 FPS (or whatever your refresh rate is), but will move much slower. At that speed, if it was running at lower FPS the motion would not look as smooth. What would be your math then? Smile
Back to top
TSR69
Banned



Posts: 14962
Location: Republic of the Seven United Provinces
PostPosted: Fri, 9th Oct 2015 21:17    Post subject:
There is a difference between distinction between separate frames and being able to see fluency of motion with higher FPS.

Formerly known as iconized
Back to top
Nui
VIP Member



Posts: 5720
Location: in a place with fluffy towels
PostPosted: Fri, 9th Oct 2015 23:21    Post subject:
Morphineus wrote:
It's rather daft to express our sight in FPS. Our eyes are way more advanced to put it in derp terms! Razz

Im not saying we should in general Razz.
But for a very specific example like this I dont see why not, which is why explicitely wrote "in this test". I tried not to generalize. After I do understand, that my peripheral vision is much better a detecting flicker for example.
I just found it interesting, that "eyes can see more than 24fps" bullshit isn't complete nonsense, just mostly Laughing


MinderMast wrote:
You just make a leap from motion resolution to framerate and come up with numbers that are not connected - there is no relation between how fast the object is moving and FPS, so you can't make any claims on what your eyes can see in terms of framerate even if the term was applicable to human sight Razz

That is not what I tried to do. Its always 60 fps, true, but given this particular speed Im unable to see each 60 frames per sec individually. At least (!) two merge together, hence why I believe I can see at most (!) 30 images (of this kind) per second. I could for example produce a 30 fps video that has the same visual result, though actually I could produce a still image with the same visual result Razz

MinderMast wrote:
If you set it to 1 pixel per frame it will still run at 60 FPS (or whatever your refresh rate is), but will move much slower. At that speed, if it was running at lower FPS the motion would not look as smooth. What would be your math then? Smile

I wouldn't deduce anything from that, because the collapse of two or more frame doesnt appear visually Smile


TSR69 wrote:
There is a difference between distinction between separate frames and being able to see fluency of motion with higher FPS.

Which is why I said so in the first post Razz

Even 24p can appear pretty smooth, when you don't move your eyes at all, which is pretty hard to do though.
Back to top
MinderMast




Posts: 6172
PostPosted: Fri, 9th Oct 2015 23:29    Post subject:
Okay fine, I get your point Mad
In this case it's hard to do proper approximations. The lines are only 100% solid for me at 120 FPS, at 100 FPS/100Hz it has a fairly obvious flicker already. Somehow it's less obvious at 60 FPS/60 Hz, so I have my monitor skewing the results even at this point. In both cases it could pass for a solid line if you don't look too closely, but it's pretty clear that your eyes can still catch some glimpses of separation between frames.

This is all skewed by other characteristics of your monitor as well - response times, image persistence and all that, but what I can glean from this is that the point of where my eyes "can't tell" any more is somewhere between 60+ and 120 FPS. And even then, the lines are gray and not white, so technically you still "see" the other frame Razz
Back to top
Nui
VIP Member



Posts: 5720
Location: in a place with fluffy towels
PostPosted: Fri, 9th Oct 2015 23:53    Post subject:
MinderMast wrote:
The lines are only 100% solid for me at 120 FPS. Somehow it's less obvious at 60 FPS/60 Hz, so I have my monitor skewing the results even at this point. In both cases it could pass for a solid line if you don't look too closely, but it's pretty clear that your eyes can still catch some glimpses of separation between frames.

Interesting. As long as I dont move my eye or head and don't blink, Its perfectly solid for me. Omg am I a console player at heart?

MinderMast wrote:
This is all skewed by other characteristics of your monitor as well - response times, image persistence and all that, but what I can glean from this is that the point of where my eyes "can't tell" any more is somewhere between 60+ and 120 FPS. And even then, the lines are gray and not white, so technically you still "see" the other frame Razz

I would count that as "seeing".
Now im interested what you would see on my monitor and I on yours... oh well Razz

Thank you for testing Very Happy

edit:
I see flickering when I increase the width of lines.
With 1 or 2 px width I see no difference for different brightness values and at 25% white and see no motion blur on my device and I can say that the display duration for 25% white is quite a bit shorter than 4ms.
Back to top
MinderMast




Posts: 6172
PostPosted: Sat, 10th Oct 2015 00:49    Post subject:
Well I would assume the difference comes from displays, but on my 60 Hz IPS and on my HDTV flicker is visible, even if it's quite subtle. If I increase the line width then it becomes very visible indeed. The listed response time on that monitor is 8ms, so it's not exactly a high-performance display.

On the 120Hz display running at 60Hz the flicker is more visible than on others, but it could be some timing quirk as well, since there is definitely something off with its 100Hz mode, seeing how it flickers more than when running at 60Hz.

In any case, at 120 FPS the lines are absolutely solid and flicker free regardless of the width or other settings, even when I enable the "240 Hz" backlight scanning/strobing mode (this kills the motion blur).
Back to top
scaramonga




Posts: 9800
PostPosted: Sat, 10th Oct 2015 02:53    Post subject:
144Hz and 144fps on witcher 3, my eyes are fine.

O RLY?
Back to top
Nui
VIP Member



Posts: 5720
Location: in a place with fluffy towels
PostPosted: Sat, 10th Oct 2015 02:59    Post subject:
MinderMast wrote:
In any case, at 120 FPS the lines are absolutely solid and flicker free regardless of the width or other settings, even when I enable the "240 Hz" backlight scanning/strobing mode (this kills the motion blur).

That makes sense due to higher flicker frequency Smile

Took me a while, but this really is nothing but a flickertest for a small element. Laughing
So the only real realisation for me is, that I cant detect flicker for small elements well. I already know how badly fullscreen 30Hz looks on my display, which as I said already flickers. Usually I see the flicker at 60Hz, when I switch from its 96Hz mode but my eyes seem to adapt rather quickly so I dont notice it much normally Smile

So ... making this a bit more ridiculous, I have now discredited my own starting post as I know I can detect at much higher rates than 24fps or 30fps. That 24fps statement is just bullshit after all. Laughing

Thanks guys Laughing

scaramonga wrote:
144Hz and 144fps on witcher 3, my eyes are fine.

That must be awesome
Back to top
AmpegV4




Posts: 6248
PostPosted: Sat, 10th Oct 2015 04:22    Post subject:
The site where you took that image / tests from are huge advocates of 120+hz backlight strobe monitors, gsync and high fps so i'm not sure where you are drawing this conclusion from?

I'm using a 27" strobe back-light monitor with the blur-busters tool to adjust frequency, when i show anyone i know games at stock standard then games with strobe back-lit they say "night and day difference regards blur or fluidity" -> not all games benefit but anything first or third person i would say is drastically improved with strobe eliminating lcd cool-down.

I don't think i could run a standard monitor for gaming without gsync or strobe after making this switch.
Back to top
Nui
VIP Member



Posts: 5720
Location: in a place with fluffy towels
PostPosted: Sat, 10th Oct 2015 11:31    Post subject:
AmpegV4 wrote:
The site where you took that image / tests from are huge advocates of 120+hz backlight strobe monitors, gsync and high fps so i'm not sure where you are drawing this conclusion from?

I actually stated that high frame rates and dark phases (e.g. via backlight strobe) are necessary.

I explained what I drew my conclusions from however I retracted that statement already (and editet that in the first post now).

AmpegV4 wrote:
not all games benefit but anything first or third person i would say is drastically improved with strobe eliminating lcd cool-down.

To me everything where something not so small moves profits from it. What do you mean by lcd cool-down? While strobing could hide some lcd motion defects, it most importantly reduces the sample & hold effect, the frame display duration.

AmpegV4 wrote:
I don't think i could run a standard monitor for gaming without gsync or strobe after making this switch.

I understand that. Does the strobing and gsync work together?
Back to top
Page 1 of 1 All times are GMT + 1 Hour
NFOHump.com Forum Index - General chatter
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)  


Display posts from previous:   

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group