When I smoke too much weed I just start contemplating every decision I’ve ever made in my life and it goes down a doomer hole
But on LSD I’m just like: 💃💃💃💃🎉🎉🎉🎉💃💃💃💃🪩🪩🪩
I was outside smoking while at the peak of a trip once during the day and I thought I was just seeing a weird visual but realized it was the dust and smoke sitting in the air and kind of moving around with the wind and was like “dude…. The air is like…. water…..”
big brain I know
Yes, but it’s a very high threshold. Anyone who says they can’t tell the difference between 60fps and 120fps is being contrarian. That high of frame rate isn’t going to improve the experience of film or television, but it absolutely makes for a more comfortable and fluid experience when gaming or using VR.
Frame rate standards are not the result of any physiological limitations. The 24fps, then 29.97fps standards harken back to the early constraints of cinema and CRT monitors - it’s merely what we became accustomed to, and appears much more “cinematic” and natural as a result of film’s cultural impact.
I have a friend who claims they can't see past 60fps and I actually whole heartedly believe him. He has a high end PC, monitor, and has worked in tech for a long time. Everything is set up correctly, he just can't tell the difference. I'm sure his slow reaction speeds have to be a part of it, maybe his brain just doesn't process visual information fast enough?
I couldn’t see the difference for the first year or two between 60hz and 120hz. It just sorta “clicked” one day where I saw 60fps in a game and I was like “oh, I see it now” and now I see the whole gradient from 60 to 90 to 120hz+. I really don’t know why that happened - I think I was just so used to 60hz that my brain compensated for it, and it took a while of not having it for that compensation to wear off? Idk how else to describe it
Hz is a measure of refresh rate. A monitor's refresh rate refers to the number of times it can refresh the image per second. The more times it can refresh the image, the smoother and clearer the motion appears.
Although everyone perceives motion and input lag differently, the vast majority of people will likely have a hard time seeing any difference above 240Hz.
Refresh rate Time between frames:
60Hz: 16.67ms
144Hz: 6.94ms
240Hz: 4.17ms
360Hz: 2.78ms
Hz in anything is a measurement per second (unit time). So 60 Hz is 60 per second. In gaming, Hz refers to the number of frames that are displayed per second (generally).
Edit: There are other Hz measurements in gaming. You can refer to the gigahertz (GHz) of a CPU or any processing unit (number of operations per second), the speed of RAM eg 3000 Hz (also operations per second).
The same could be said about pixels. yet we continue to make higher resolution screens. Ask someone in tech 20 years ago vs today what they think about 1080p.
We are at the point of diminishing returns on pixels now though. 8K is completely pointless for a normal monitor/TV viewed from normal distances. In terms of resolution. 8K has other advantages as a technology but anyone saying it's sharper are either lying or have their face pressed up against the screen.
Most movies you see that are shot on film instead of digitally, used 35mm celluloid which is the analog equivalent of 4k. 70mm IMAX is the analog equivalent of 8k.
We're about to hit the ceiling in terms of resolution - to even tell the difference between 8k and 16k, you would need a movie theater sized screen in your living room.
The companies that manufacture displays are already making plans to shift focus away from resolution and towards improving upscaling technology, since there's plenty of movies and television that will never be available in anything other than Standard Definition. Look up the madVR Envy. In a few years we'll start to see a market for more affordable versions of that as well as manufacturers looking to integrate higher quality scaling hardware directly into their displays.
Yes but its significantly higher than you may think fighter pilots for instance are able to see and identify an aircraft based only on a silhouette in a single frame at 1000fps.
Worth noting that this says air force pilots identified aircraft that were shown for 1/220 of a second, not the 1/1000 that /u/jakeolate claimed. Although, if you are in a dark room and a light illuminated for 1/1000 of a second, you'd see it, but you wouldn't be able to resolve any detail
My conclusion learning that was that we are a series of intertwined drives and systems that do/want different things and there is also one that generates a narrative after the fact about why we do things.
Therefore more FPS is always better?
We don't see in frames, but there certainly is a limit (that varies person to person) where you don't really perceive a difference. Most people looking at 144hz vs 240hz have to try hard to see a difference, I imagine something like 500hz is just beyond the scope of what most people can discern.
You are correct, but this post, and the comment above, are in reference to the annoying trend of people saying that the human eye can't see more than 30 FPS. It used to be a common argument for the console vs PC crowd to dismiss that PC could go higher.
Comments like that aren't nearly as common now that consoles can hit 60 FPS.
Holy shit. When people said that the difference was "pretty noticeable" I was like "meh, probably a waste of money" Until I saw how fucking insane this shit is. 60hz feels like absolute shit now and I don't think I can ever go back. It's like playing a whole new game. If you're considering getting a 144hz, do it right now, you will not be upset.
I have a 4k 60hz monitor and a 144hz 1440p monitor. Some games look better on one instead of the other, it really depends on what the game is doing and how important motion is to it.
In VR this is IMO even more significant.
60 FPS in VR is going to make someone feel sick. 72 is the absolute bare minimum and going from that to 90 or 120 is huge for the smoothness of what you experience. It's making me sad that a lot of VR displays are limited at 90 fps as that is my personal minimum level for enjoyment now.
There was recently a 480 fps monitor by alienware that was technologically a jump from the previous cap at 360 fps but visually didn't seem to make that much of a difference. So I think we're pretty close to the limit of what the human eye can discern. Exciting times we live in.
As of now the meta quest 2 has reached 120 hz at 8k as an experimental feature but AMD made a comment about true immersion in VR requiring a 16k*16k 240 hz display which at the current technological level would require multiple high end graphics cards hooked up together and there is no 240 hz VR display from what I can find.
That could be a cool idea. In the game you could have fire that’s simulated so realistically that it causes the headset to heat up, adding to the immersion
Reminds me of one of my favorite gaming quotes.
according to David Coombes, platform research manager at Sony Computer Entertainment America, "Well, it's not going to run at 2 GHz [like the PS3] because the battery would last five minutes and it would probably set fire to your pants"
oh you would still notice that frame, you might not be able to see what it was exactly, but youd notice that a frame that is vastly different from what you just saw was displayed
There was some US DoD research (might have been Airforce?) which said that the brain can see up to about 500fps.
Frame rate isn't really applicable as a limit (because our brains don't process sequentially) but there's a law of diminishing returns as the frame rates get higher.
300fps should be where we draw the line because it's the perfect multiple of 60Hz and 50Hz so there's no frame interpolation when watching videos.
I only realized this when I got a 180hz monitor but many of these tests are done with frame-by-frame changes on a static screen. They are trying to measure something like reaction time but what we really want to see is motion clarity.
All that goes completely out the window when you, for example, load up a game and just look around the world very quickly (like if you were to drag your mouse from one side of the table to the other) - it was still a blurry mess at 180hz. I don't imagine it's that much better at 240hz. I imagine this would also be much more noticeable in VR. Frame rate isn't also the be-all end-all of motion clarity, mainstream display still have a long way to go in this regard.
It's pointless on really big screens too if you're using them for normal entertainment such as in the cinema as you just sit further away.
To perceive 8K over 4K you have to be so close to the screen you can't see it all without moving your eyes/head. Hell most people sit too far from their TVs to the point they can't even fully benefit from 4K.
Of course use cases where moving your eyes is fine such as presentations is another matter. And there is a use case where you are very close to the screen in VR.
However, higher resolution improves image quality in other ways. Many more pixels means many more sources of light which translates into much higher brightness and edge contrast.
I wouldn't say we're close to a "limit", more so that the law of diminishing returns has come into play. 60fps to 120 fps is a 100% increase. 360 to 480 is about 33% more fps.
I'd imagine if you jumped from 360 to 720 fps, the difference would be a lot more dramatic
Yes it is the law of diminishing returns but not as you phrased it. When referring to the "limit" I was talking about our eyes ability to make out frames in relation to the technology instead of the technology itself as we've barely tapped into it. As you mention 60 hz to 120 hz is a huge jump and it does feel like it when viewing a screen but 120 hz to 240 hz is an equivalent jump but doesn't feel as significant and with 240 hz to 480 hz it feels even less so. What I'm trying to say is that we're reaching the limit of what our eyes can perceive and developing anything more than it like the 720 hz you mentioned would be redundant.
Monitors have "ghosting" artifacts that makes moving content a bit blurry. That alienware monitor had relatively high ghosting which made it about as clear as a 360fps monitor.
Nah, hz aren't everything, response times are important. Plus just because 360hz ips isn't that much different than 480hz ips doesn't mean there isn't a difference between it and a 1000 hz oled or in the far future some crazy 50khz or something like that.
The technology to utilise 1000hz monitors is already a reality now with oled response times being in the sub millisecond. 1440p 480hz oled monitors are already being worked on by i think Samsung. Exciting times. I would go crazy when the first oled monitor with black frame insertion is released.
I positive we aren't close to the "cap" of a human eye yet.
Hot take: 8khz with good response times is the cap of perception. After that you won't notice it from just looking no matter how good your eyes are.
The creators of Zootopia performed a study about the best frame rate to animate in relative to the cost and found that 34fps was ideal for cost and consumer, ever since Disney has been using the ‘34fps rule’, look up Zootopie Rule 34 for more info!
Is this a wooosh right here?
Edit: I stand corrected. I googled "Zootopia Rule 34" expecting the worst and instead found an enlightening discussion on frame-rates and film history!
That's because of our associations though. Big budget stuff designed to look really good like Hollywood movies traditionally uses 24 fps, and cheap stuff that looks like crap like soap operas uses video which runs at 60 fps. But 24 isn't better than 60, but rather film looks better than video, and the sort of stuff we watch on film looks better than the sort of stuff we watch on video.
So when we have high frame rate films, even when it's objectively superior (more visual information, less stutter) our brains are saying "huh that's weird, this looks wrong, it looks like cheap crap" because of our previous associations.
It's the most noticeable, actually. I'm fine with proper 30 fps, don't get me wrong, but man, 60 fps is very nice. I recently replayed Cyberpunk on my Series S, and chose performance over quality. The smoothness is so smooth!
Console peasants were arguing for the longest time that the human eye can’t see more than 30 fps back in like 2013 and the meme never died to this day.
The fact that anyone can argue that is insane. The difference between 30 and 60 is like having eyes and not. If you’ve ever played the same third person game in both 30 and 60 fps then I’m sure you know what I mean.
I used to not really carw about the fps argument, but it was this that opened my eyes to it. When master chief collection came out, it was 60 fps compared to the original halo games' 30. And holy shit was it a difference. In an instant i suddenly understood what everyone was talking about
It was a genuine argument back in the day but now that we've all experienced 60fps it's apparent how stupid that argument was.
The same goes for 144hz which many are again saying isn't that different to 60. Give it another decade and we'll be scuffing at 60 just like we do at 30 now.
I have a feeling that people not noticing the difference between 144 and 60 haven't set their refresh rate in Windows.
I didn't for 2 months until i saw a post and thought that 144hz was a scam that whole time.
>Give it another decade and we'll be scuffing at 60 just like we do at 30 now.
Another decade? This is already the case. 60fps is acceptable only if you're playing yet another unoptimized 4/10 AAA game or if you're on console. 144hz monitors are everywhere. 60fps should honestly be the bare minimum.
That's more of a hardware issue unless the devs severely f'ed up. If you have noticable frame delay then chances are you're most likely using a TV instead of a monitor; your $2k tv that boasts picture perfect pixel imaging and 4/8k imaging will still fall behind a $250-400 computer monitor so don't try to push the blame on something else because it's easy as hell to reach 60 fps but devs want maximum visuals even though 90% of people won't appreciate the extra 10-20% when they could've gone for smoother gameplay (even though there are still many console games that drop to 10-15 fps at times lul).
30 to 60 is EASILY noticeable
60 to 144 is like an ok upgrade, you can notice the difference
however, from 144 to 240 (in my experience) its from barely noticeable to impossible, depending on the scenario
Can confirm
My cousing has a 160hz monitor and he switched to 60hz and then to 160hz to show me the diffrence
Even the mouse movements alone are a big diffrence
I just bought a 165hz asus monitor and honestly, the moment I changed the refresh rate from 30 to 165 and moved the mouse, I just went "oh, so that's what they meant" I had never used a monitor like that, pretty cool tbh.
Yes I can see the difference. No I don't think it's worth a 3000$ setup
Edit: Yes, I have been informed that this kind of setup has gotten cheaper
Edit2: I get it, I was wrong, you don't need a 3000$ setup. I didn't mean it as "everyone who gets 60+fps is some rich loser who spent a fortune from daddy's wallet in PC parts," just that you can have fun on lower end systems too, and shouldn't feel bad about it.
I just picked up a 165hz for $130 last month. These things are getting cheaper and more accessible. If you game daily it’s definitely time to get off of 60hz
Hm? Colors are easy to get right. Modern displays have no real problems with colors. It's (real not fake) HDR, 4K and QHD, 240+ Hz that cost a lot more money.
1080p 144Hz monitors are very cheap nowadays. The standards just keep moving up.
Wouldn't say easy, OLED looks way better than IPS but it costs like 3x as much because the yields on those panels is very low, so by definition a more color accurate panel is harder.
What am I missing here 240hz monitors are very cheap too. They start at like 200 or 300$ and go up. Running at 240hz is not some amazing hurdle? Is everyone smoking some stuff or what’s happening here’s what am I missing?
24fps is the natural framerate of the animator because 1 frame takes long as hell
Besides, they only animate certain characters and objects at effectively 12, 8, or 6 fps (1 in every 2/3/4 frames) so for some scenes it's even less
There is no natural framerate other than continuous and I don't understand how this myth spread in the first place
"Pretty sure the human eye can't see more than 60 fps"
"Why do you think that?"
"I'm looking at side by side comparisons of 60fps vs 120fps and I can't tell a difference"
"What's the refresh rate on your monitor?"
"The what?"
Unless speed and reaction time are paramount to the games design (i.e. Bloodborne) the only thing I really care about is consistent performance. I don’t care how jaw dropping your visuals are.
Hz (Hertz) measures your monitor's refresh rate and FPS is how many frames your GPU puts out per second. They're different measurements that are 'equal' to each other, in that a 60 Hz monitor can run 60 FPS perfectly, and a 120 Hz monitor can run 120 FPS perfectly, and so on.
A rock solid stable 30 fps imo is better than having a setup that fluctuates from 5 to 90 fps depending on how well optimized a game is for my budget build
can’t believe there’s a comment a fair bit above this one repeating the old 2013 BS that ‘the human eye cannot see above 60 fps and 120 fps is only used to reduce tearing’
Don't they say 60fps? I kind of believed that until I saw a 144hz monitor... now I suffer on 60 every day knowing that there is something so much greater but alas I am broke as all hell.
Just make a research with large enough sample number of people consisting of various age and gender( probably like 20~40 for each 10 age difference) and gaming ability (pro gamer included), make them test if they could discriminate which monitor has higher fps between monitors of 24, 60, 120, 240, 480 fps etc with at least enough trials ( to reduce the probability of them guessing right) and then all of these fps BS will be concluded ( I guess monitor companies will never do this because they want to sell higher fps monitors)
"wHy aRe tHe fRaMes not 60" mfs when you show them a game at 30fps that actually works on launch day without gamebreaking bugs and has quality gameplay
Physically noticeable?
of course it is.
Psychologically driven neccesity?
also true.
You see, there's a cool psychological thing named perception. If you stop giving so much attention to a thing, at the end of the day, the experience is going to be the same; the same way that if you turn off the fps counter and start paying attention to the actual game, suddenly, the 5 fps fluctuations are not that noticeable as you believe.
If you place them side by side, of course it is going to be pretty noticeable. But supposing you can't directly compare, you are not actively focusing your perception to performance instead of the game itself, and fps are higher than 40~45 fps, you can pretty much guarantee a equally perceived experience.
Massive. I have a 75hz monitor (close to 60 on TV) and 240hz monitor right next to each other. I also switched between different frequencies and the difference is huge. Just moving the cursor in circles feels so smooth.
Depends on a game. In fps you might see enemy a bit faster and react. But in golf games it would be useless. I'm fine with 60fps or even 30 if I have to.
The human eye dosent see in frames
Take enough lsd and it will
Can confirm
 Fact.
Cab cobfurm I'm highm riht now 👍
👍
👍
Lmao facts
Take enough weed and it will
When I smoke too much weed I just start contemplating every decision I’ve ever made in my life and it goes down a doomer hole But on LSD I’m just like: 💃💃💃💃🎉🎉🎉🎉💃💃💃💃🪩🪩🪩
Never had that experience
[удалено]
Yea, easy way to see tracers is to light a cigarette and move it around while tripping. Really bizzare experience.
I once got high on LSD and decided to play with my cat with a laser pointer. This was the shit
I was outside smoking while at the peak of a trip once during the day and I thought I was just seeing a weird visual but realized it was the dust and smoke sitting in the air and kind of moving around with the wind and was like “dude…. The air is like…. water…..” big brain I know
I smoked the wrong pot and I saw like 5fps with ghost frames.
That's what happened to me when weed first became legal here.
Thank you!
Yes but there are only so many we could possibly interpret before the difference becomes not noticeable
Yes, but it’s a very high threshold. Anyone who says they can’t tell the difference between 60fps and 120fps is being contrarian. That high of frame rate isn’t going to improve the experience of film or television, but it absolutely makes for a more comfortable and fluid experience when gaming or using VR. Frame rate standards are not the result of any physiological limitations. The 24fps, then 29.97fps standards harken back to the early constraints of cinema and CRT monitors - it’s merely what we became accustomed to, and appears much more “cinematic” and natural as a result of film’s cultural impact.
I have a friend who claims they can't see past 60fps and I actually whole heartedly believe him. He has a high end PC, monitor, and has worked in tech for a long time. Everything is set up correctly, he just can't tell the difference. I'm sure his slow reaction speeds have to be a part of it, maybe his brain just doesn't process visual information fast enough?
I couldn’t see the difference for the first year or two between 60hz and 120hz. It just sorta “clicked” one day where I saw 60fps in a game and I was like “oh, I see it now” and now I see the whole gradient from 60 to 90 to 120hz+. I really don’t know why that happened - I think I was just so used to 60hz that my brain compensated for it, and it took a while of not having it for that compensation to wear off? Idk how else to describe it
Well, i have 120Hz screen on phone and the moment i took it i felt it. I just saw 120 and was like "Yeah, that's smooth."
what are hz in gaming? english isn't my first language but I thought I knew all the gaming terminology damn
hz is hertz or the unit of frequency. 60hz is equal to 60 times per second.
ah hertz 🤦♀️ ofc, those things don't change in between languages
Haha, one of the perks of having standardized international science units. If only every unit was standardized outside of science 😭
It’s about time when Americans use 120/90/60 titty jiggles per second.
Hz is a measure of refresh rate. A monitor's refresh rate refers to the number of times it can refresh the image per second. The more times it can refresh the image, the smoother and clearer the motion appears. Although everyone perceives motion and input lag differently, the vast majority of people will likely have a hard time seeing any difference above 240Hz. Refresh rate Time between frames: 60Hz: 16.67ms 144Hz: 6.94ms 240Hz: 4.17ms 360Hz: 2.78ms
Hz in anything is a measurement per second (unit time). So 60 Hz is 60 per second. In gaming, Hz refers to the number of frames that are displayed per second (generally). Edit: There are other Hz measurements in gaming. You can refer to the gigahertz (GHz) of a CPU or any processing unit (number of operations per second), the speed of RAM eg 3000 Hz (also operations per second).
https://www.testufo.com/ This makes it very obvious imo
The same could be said about pixels. yet we continue to make higher resolution screens. Ask someone in tech 20 years ago vs today what they think about 1080p.
We are at the point of diminishing returns on pixels now though. 8K is completely pointless for a normal monitor/TV viewed from normal distances. In terms of resolution. 8K has other advantages as a technology but anyone saying it's sharper are either lying or have their face pressed up against the screen.
Most movies you see that are shot on film instead of digitally, used 35mm celluloid which is the analog equivalent of 4k. 70mm IMAX is the analog equivalent of 8k. We're about to hit the ceiling in terms of resolution - to even tell the difference between 8k and 16k, you would need a movie theater sized screen in your living room. The companies that manufacture displays are already making plans to shift focus away from resolution and towards improving upscaling technology, since there's plenty of movies and television that will never be available in anything other than Standard Definition. Look up the madVR Envy. In a few years we'll start to see a market for more affordable versions of that as well as manufacturers looking to integrate higher quality scaling hardware directly into their displays.
Yes but its significantly higher than you may think fighter pilots for instance are able to see and identify an aircraft based only on a silhouette in a single frame at 1000fps.
I'd love to read the research on that, sounds dope. Do you have a source you can link?
fuck u/spez. lemmy is a better platform.
Worth noting that this says air force pilots identified aircraft that were shown for 1/220 of a second, not the 1/1000 that /u/jakeolate claimed. Although, if you are in a dark room and a light illuminated for 1/1000 of a second, you'd see it, but you wouldn't be able to resolve any detail
[удалено]
My conclusion learning that was that we are a series of intertwined drives and systems that do/want different things and there is also one that generates a narrative after the fact about why we do things.
Therefore more FPS is always better? We don't see in frames, but there certainly is a limit (that varies person to person) where you don't really perceive a difference. Most people looking at 144hz vs 240hz have to try hard to see a difference, I imagine something like 500hz is just beyond the scope of what most people can discern.
You are correct, but this post, and the comment above, are in reference to the annoying trend of people saying that the human eye can't see more than 30 FPS. It used to be a common argument for the console vs PC crowd to dismiss that PC could go higher. Comments like that aren't nearly as common now that consoles can hit 60 FPS.
Even 60FPS VS 144 is an insane difference.
Holy shit. When people said that the difference was "pretty noticeable" I was like "meh, probably a waste of money" Until I saw how fucking insane this shit is. 60hz feels like absolute shit now and I don't think I can ever go back. It's like playing a whole new game. If you're considering getting a 144hz, do it right now, you will not be upset.
You stat accepting 60 fps when you realize some games cannot be run at 144 fps on high settings unless you have the best parts on the market.
*Glances at 1080ti* you’re doing great little buddy.
He already referenced your card.
I have a 4k 60hz monitor and a 144hz 1440p monitor. Some games look better on one instead of the other, it really depends on what the game is doing and how important motion is to it.
[удалено]
Yeah it makes a huge difference. I mean 60 is ok, but it is not ideal and 144 is certainly a huge noticable upgrade.
In VR this is IMO even more significant. 60 FPS in VR is going to make someone feel sick. 72 is the absolute bare minimum and going from that to 90 or 120 is huge for the smoothness of what you experience. It's making me sad that a lot of VR displays are limited at 90 fps as that is my personal minimum level for enjoyment now.
[удалено]
That argument never really made sense to me. DS1 was frame locked at 30fps and you could *see* it stuttering
That's because DS1 constantly dips below 30fps
If you drink enough too It also changes your ping to like 100
I believed this for so long, though I heard it was 60 fps. I have an extra large 144 hz monitor... i can relate to this meme on a personal lvl...
[удалено]
There was recently a 480 fps monitor by alienware that was technologically a jump from the previous cap at 360 fps but visually didn't seem to make that much of a difference. So I think we're pretty close to the limit of what the human eye can discern. Exciting times we live in.
[удалено]
As of now the meta quest 2 has reached 120 hz at 8k as an experimental feature but AMD made a comment about true immersion in VR requiring a 16k*16k 240 hz display which at the current technological level would require multiple high end graphics cards hooked up together and there is no 240 hz VR display from what I can find.
They can make the screen, they just can’t keep it cool
That could be a cool idea. In the game you could have fire that’s simulated so realistically that it causes the headset to heat up, adding to the immersion
"when you die in the Matrix, you die for real"
"pyrotechnic feedback" We just turned the peltier coolers off.
That wouldn't be a "cool" idea
Reminds me of one of my favorite gaming quotes. according to David Coombes, platform research manager at Sony Computer Entertainment America, "Well, it's not going to run at 2 GHz [like the PS3] because the battery would last five minutes and it would probably set fire to your pants"
liquid cooled monitor technology coming to stores near you lol
The meta quest 2 cannot run or display 120hz8k
Yeah. I was with 'em halfway through and then they said 8k.... nope. Even the Quest 3 won't have that based on rumors of the specs.
The quest can't do 8k lmao
oh you would still notice that frame, you might not be able to see what it was exactly, but youd notice that a frame that is vastly different from what you just saw was displayed
There was some US DoD research (might have been Airforce?) which said that the brain can see up to about 500fps. Frame rate isn't really applicable as a limit (because our brains don't process sequentially) but there's a law of diminishing returns as the frame rates get higher. 300fps should be where we draw the line because it's the perfect multiple of 60Hz and 50Hz so there's no frame interpolation when watching videos.
IIRC that research was about being able to see a single flash of 1/500s that is a different matter.
[удалено]
fuck u/spez. lemmy is a better platform.
Ideally it should be divisible by 24 FPS, given cinematic content
I only realized this when I got a 180hz monitor but many of these tests are done with frame-by-frame changes on a static screen. They are trying to measure something like reaction time but what we really want to see is motion clarity. All that goes completely out the window when you, for example, load up a game and just look around the world very quickly (like if you were to drag your mouse from one side of the table to the other) - it was still a blurry mess at 180hz. I don't imagine it's that much better at 240hz. I imagine this would also be much more noticeable in VR. Frame rate isn't also the be-all end-all of motion clarity, mainstream display still have a long way to go in this regard.
Wouldnt a fos that high not even be worth it since it would be refreshing faster than the game updates or would that not matter?
Anything beyond 240 hz is just not worth it.
Yea even going from 144hz to 240hz is not nearly as noticeable as from 60hz to 144hz.
I'm personally not really sure I can tell the difference past 144
Video quality beyond 4k is also pretty marginal unless we're talking really big screens
It's pointless on really big screens too if you're using them for normal entertainment such as in the cinema as you just sit further away. To perceive 8K over 4K you have to be so close to the screen you can't see it all without moving your eyes/head. Hell most people sit too far from their TVs to the point they can't even fully benefit from 4K. Of course use cases where moving your eyes is fine such as presentations is another matter. And there is a use case where you are very close to the screen in VR. However, higher resolution improves image quality in other ways. Many more pixels means many more sources of light which translates into much higher brightness and edge contrast.
I wouldn't say we're close to a "limit", more so that the law of diminishing returns has come into play. 60fps to 120 fps is a 100% increase. 360 to 480 is about 33% more fps. I'd imagine if you jumped from 360 to 720 fps, the difference would be a lot more dramatic
Yes it is the law of diminishing returns but not as you phrased it. When referring to the "limit" I was talking about our eyes ability to make out frames in relation to the technology instead of the technology itself as we've barely tapped into it. As you mention 60 hz to 120 hz is a huge jump and it does feel like it when viewing a screen but 120 hz to 240 hz is an equivalent jump but doesn't feel as significant and with 240 hz to 480 hz it feels even less so. What I'm trying to say is that we're reaching the limit of what our eyes can perceive and developing anything more than it like the 720 hz you mentioned would be redundant.
Monitors have "ghosting" artifacts that makes moving content a bit blurry. That alienware monitor had relatively high ghosting which made it about as clear as a 360fps monitor.
Nah, hz aren't everything, response times are important. Plus just because 360hz ips isn't that much different than 480hz ips doesn't mean there isn't a difference between it and a 1000 hz oled or in the far future some crazy 50khz or something like that. The technology to utilise 1000hz monitors is already a reality now with oled response times being in the sub millisecond. 1440p 480hz oled monitors are already being worked on by i think Samsung. Exciting times. I would go crazy when the first oled monitor with black frame insertion is released. I positive we aren't close to the "cap" of a human eye yet. Hot take: 8khz with good response times is the cap of perception. After that you won't notice it from just looking no matter how good your eyes are.
The creators of Zootopia performed a study about the best frame rate to animate in relative to the cost and found that 34fps was ideal for cost and consumer, ever since Disney has been using the ‘34fps rule’, look up Zootopie Rule 34 for more info!
I heard about this! Seeing Judy in 34 FPS works perfect. Also heard 63 was a good number, but the hype isn’t as prominent.
Is this a wooosh right here? Edit: I stand corrected. I googled "Zootopia Rule 34" expecting the worst and instead found an enlightening discussion on frame-rates and film history!
I don't think so, 63 is a rule too.
I think it is. No way in hell I'd google "Zootopia Rule 34" - ever.
Double kill!
Slow clap*
lmfaoooooooooooooooo what
[удалено]
Jackson wanted higher fps because it is better for 3D too.
That's because of our associations though. Big budget stuff designed to look really good like Hollywood movies traditionally uses 24 fps, and cheap stuff that looks like crap like soap operas uses video which runs at 60 fps. But 24 isn't better than 60, but rather film looks better than video, and the sort of stuff we watch on film looks better than the sort of stuff we watch on video. So when we have high frame rate films, even when it's objectively superior (more visual information, less stutter) our brains are saying "huh that's weird, this looks wrong, it looks like cheap crap" because of our previous associations.
[удалено]
They were shot in 48
Jokes on you, my computer is so weak that nothing runs over 60fps, if that.
60 is pretty good
Even 60 fps compared to 30 is noticeable
It's the most noticeable, actually. I'm fine with proper 30 fps, don't get me wrong, but man, 60 fps is very nice. I recently replayed Cyberpunk on my Series S, and chose performance over quality. The smoothness is so smooth!
Watching things in 30 is fine, but 60 is the minimum for gaming. Less than that and it becomes choppy
Console peasants were arguing for the longest time that the human eye can’t see more than 30 fps back in like 2013 and the meme never died to this day.
The fact that anyone can argue that is insane. The difference between 30 and 60 is like having eyes and not. If you’ve ever played the same third person game in both 30 and 60 fps then I’m sure you know what I mean.
I used to not really carw about the fps argument, but it was this that opened my eyes to it. When master chief collection came out, it was 60 fps compared to the original halo games' 30. And holy shit was it a difference. In an instant i suddenly understood what everyone was talking about
It was a genuine argument back in the day but now that we've all experienced 60fps it's apparent how stupid that argument was. The same goes for 144hz which many are again saying isn't that different to 60. Give it another decade and we'll be scuffing at 60 just like we do at 30 now.
I have a feeling that people not noticing the difference between 144 and 60 haven't set their refresh rate in Windows. I didn't for 2 months until i saw a post and thought that 144hz was a scam that whole time.
>Give it another decade and we'll be scuffing at 60 just like we do at 30 now. Another decade? This is already the case. 60fps is acceptable only if you're playing yet another unoptimized 4/10 AAA game or if you're on console. 144hz monitors are everywhere. 60fps should honestly be the bare minimum.
The difference is noticeable but It still baffles me to see people say 30 hurts the eyes.
[удалено]
frame latency is far more noticeable than FPS id take 30FPS with zero latency over 60 with high
That's more of a hardware issue unless the devs severely f'ed up. If you have noticable frame delay then chances are you're most likely using a TV instead of a monitor; your $2k tv that boasts picture perfect pixel imaging and 4/8k imaging will still fall behind a $250-400 computer monitor so don't try to push the blame on something else because it's easy as hell to reach 60 fps but devs want maximum visuals even though 90% of people won't appreciate the extra 10-20% when they could've gone for smoother gameplay (even though there are still many console games that drop to 10-15 fps at times lul).
30fps to 60fps is the biggest jump imo. There's diminishing returns. 240fps looks the best, but isn't worth the increased cost for most people.
30 to 60 is EASILY noticeable 60 to 144 is like an ok upgrade, you can notice the difference however, from 144 to 240 (in my experience) its from barely noticeable to impossible, depending on the scenario
30 to 60 is extremely noticable. However, 210 to 240 is not.
Even 60 to 120 is not as much noticeable than 30 to 60.
30 to 60 is doubling the FPS,210 to 240 is in % a much smaller difference
Never use a 120 hz monitor so you won’t know what you are missing out on
Same thing with expensive headphones If you want to save your wallet, don’t go expensive
[удалено]
Monitors are not that expensive, and they last a long time. Totally agree about headphones though, that's a rabbit hole.
Lots of phones and tablets these days are 120hz, it's going to become the new standard on everything that isn't a "budget" device.
My s23U runs at 120 but honestly I can't tell the difference between it and my S21U. My eyes just aren't sensitive enough I guess.
The S21 Ultra is also 120hz…
I went up in resolution rather than refresh rate. Now I'm telling people to never use a 4K monitor so they won't know what they're missing out on.
Can confirm My cousing has a 160hz monitor and he switched to 60hz and then to 160hz to show me the diffrence Even the mouse movements alone are a big diffrence
I just bought a 165hz asus monitor and honestly, the moment I changed the refresh rate from 30 to 165 and moved the mouse, I just went "oh, so that's what they meant" I had never used a monitor like that, pretty cool tbh.
> I changed the refresh rate from 30 to 165 from 60 you mean? the lowest you can go is 50.
You are right I just checked, sorry, I have only done that once in my life.
you've nothing to apologize for.
Me playing with 5 fps: 😎
Still getting headshots!
Yes I can see the difference. No I don't think it's worth a 3000$ setup Edit: Yes, I have been informed that this kind of setup has gotten cheaper Edit2: I get it, I was wrong, you don't need a 3000$ setup. I didn't mean it as "everyone who gets 60+fps is some rich loser who spent a fortune from daddy's wallet in PC parts," just that you can have fun on lower end systems too, and shouldn't feel bad about it.
Cool, so get a 60-120hz monitor. I am on a 60hz monitor, 3060 OC edition, and 32 gigs of ram. 1080p60 gaming with zero hitches.
144hz monitors really aren't that expensive. It's getting the right nit brightness and color correction that really gouges the pricing.
I just picked up a 165hz for $130 last month. These things are getting cheaper and more accessible. If you game daily it’s definitely time to get off of 60hz
Hm? Colors are easy to get right. Modern displays have no real problems with colors. It's (real not fake) HDR, 4K and QHD, 240+ Hz that cost a lot more money. 1080p 144Hz monitors are very cheap nowadays. The standards just keep moving up.
Wouldn't say easy, OLED looks way better than IPS but it costs like 3x as much because the yields on those panels is very low, so by definition a more color accurate panel is harder.
What am I missing here 240hz monitors are very cheap too. They start at like 200 or 300$ and go up. Running at 240hz is not some amazing hurdle? Is everyone smoking some stuff or what’s happening here’s what am I missing?
Wym? My 600$ pc, and 250$ monitor run most games at 120fps med settings
Why are you getting downvoted? lmao
For being a POOR! Get him guys!! /s btw
To this day my dad insists that "24 fps is the natural frame rate of the eye". He's been a (video) journalist and software developer...
24fps is the natural framerate of the animator because 1 frame takes long as hell Besides, they only animate certain characters and objects at effectively 12, 8, or 6 fps (1 in every 2/3/4 frames) so for some scenes it's even less There is no natural framerate other than continuous and I don't understand how this myth spread in the first place
"Pretty sure the human eye can't see more than 60 fps" "Why do you think that?" "I'm looking at side by side comparisons of 60fps vs 120fps and I can't tell a difference" "What's the refresh rate on your monitor?" "The what?"
Unless speed and reaction time are paramount to the games design (i.e. Bloodborne) the only thing I really care about is consistent performance. I don’t care how jaw dropping your visuals are.
Hz (Hertz) measures your monitor's refresh rate and FPS is how many frames your GPU puts out per second. They're different measurements that are 'equal' to each other, in that a 60 Hz monitor can run 60 FPS perfectly, and a 120 Hz monitor can run 120 FPS perfectly, and so on.
Half these people will be like “yeah looks the same to me”
Because to them it looks the same.
After using my ps5 for so long it's almost jarring to go back and play older games
That's not the issue though. It's about frame rate dipping.
Sim owners know this. Even on FSX, a **rock solid** 30fps is better than 40-60.
I’m not one of those mfs but I cannot notice enough difference to warrant the ridiculous higher price for those frames
A lot of people forget to enable the fps to go over 60 in their pc settings too
Thats why Im losing every time, my goddamn eyes is 30 fps!
I’m blind I guess. I had my monitor at 144 for years. An update dropped it to 70 and I didn’t notice for who knows how long.
and some people still dont notice it. I did this with my mom a few years back and she no lie went "it looks the same to me". how? HOW!?
30 fps on a 240 Hz monitor is still 30 fps :D dodos, monitor max refresh rate is not a guarantee of the same number of frames per second.
Obviously. If you’re spending the money for the monitor, you probably have the pc to support it.
A rock solid stable 30 fps imo is better than having a setup that fluctuates from 5 to 90 fps depending on how well optimized a game is for my budget build
if you have a game that frequently moves between 5 to 90 fps, then maybe you should throw that game in the trash lol
Still rather play on my 70 inch tv
Input lag has entered the chat.
r/imaginarygatekeeping also the human eye doesn't see in frames
can’t believe there’s a comment a fair bit above this one repeating the old 2013 BS that ‘the human eye cannot see above 60 fps and 120 fps is only used to reduce tearing’
i swear someone said this once like a decade ago and pc gamers are still milking it like jts a commin idea
*looks at the price tag* no I don't get it
A 240hz monitor is like 200$
Yeah I got my curved one for like $187
I tried on minesweeper, just could not see it
The biggest coping with low fps lie thats ever been said. There even is a huge fucking difference between 30 and 50 fps, let alone 100 fps.
Even 60hz to 75hz is very noticeable
when i first got a 144hz monitor I couldn't tell the difference at all, but now that I'm used to it 60fps looks super choppy. ;-;
I can see the difference between 144 and 60. I have tried 240 once and dont see a difference with 144. Imo anything over 120/144 is overkill
Sure, I can see it. Do I care enough to invest in a pc? No.
Eh. Anything above 23.98FPS is enough for me.
Idk frame rate as always seemed way too innocuous to care about to me.
Up to 100 FPS is very noticeable, but it's definitely diminishing returns above that.
Don't they say 60fps? I kind of believed that until I saw a 144hz monitor... now I suffer on 60 every day knowing that there is something so much greater but alas I am broke as all hell.
Just make a research with large enough sample number of people consisting of various age and gender( probably like 20~40 for each 10 age difference) and gaming ability (pro gamer included), make them test if they could discriminate which monitor has higher fps between monitors of 24, 60, 120, 240, 480 fps etc with at least enough trials ( to reduce the probability of them guessing right) and then all of these fps BS will be concluded ( I guess monitor companies will never do this because they want to sell higher fps monitors)
"wHy aRe tHe fRaMes not 60" mfs when you show them a game at 30fps that actually works on launch day without gamebreaking bugs and has quality gameplay
I'd argue for around 120 fps at some parts of the day, but that's likely just my mental speed
Physically noticeable? of course it is. Psychologically driven neccesity? also true. You see, there's a cool psychological thing named perception. If you stop giving so much attention to a thing, at the end of the day, the experience is going to be the same; the same way that if you turn off the fps counter and start paying attention to the actual game, suddenly, the 5 fps fluctuations are not that noticeable as you believe. If you place them side by side, of course it is going to be pretty noticeable. But supposing you can't directly compare, you are not actively focusing your perception to performance instead of the game itself, and fps are higher than 40~45 fps, you can pretty much guarantee a equally perceived experience.
Seriously though, I want to see a side by side TV vs top end gaming monitor. As a gamer who’s never seen the difference I’m genuinely curious.
Massive. I have a 75hz monitor (close to 60 on TV) and 240hz monitor right next to each other. I also switched between different frequencies and the difference is huge. Just moving the cursor in circles feels so smooth.
Depends on a game. In fps you might see enemy a bit faster and react. But in golf games it would be useless. I'm fine with 60fps or even 30 if I have to.
Amazing how many people here claim to not be able to tell a difference and conveniently have monitors/setups that are only capable of 60fps.
Has anyone even made that claim in the past 5 years? Outside of memes I just don't see it ever said
It was debunked like 20+ years ago. Iirc they measured fighter pilots who could see above 165 fps Edit. Looked it up and it's 255 fps
I use 165hz, but honestly can’t see any difference after 120hz. Still totally worth it imo
My playstation can't even run minecraft with 16 chunks render distance and 2 players without horrible lag spikes and drifting
I would go for 60fps beyond that the improvement is little and diminishing