I don’t understand the basis of the 24Hz limit rumor. My monitors are 144Hz, and if I limit them to 60Hz and move my mouse around I see fewer residual mouse cursors “after-images” than I do at 144Hz. That’s a simplified test that shows that the eye can perceive motion artifacts beyond 60Hz.
The eye can perceive LEDs that are rectified at 60Hz AC, it’s very annoying.
I could never tell if people who were claiming not seeing more than the 24 Hz/FPS thing were serious or just excusing poor game optimization. They were either fanboys defending a poor job of a product, or simply had terrible eyes. But I think even with the latter you’d still be able to tell the difference in smoothness.
It’s one of those things that once you experience a higher framerate in games it’s very hard to go back to a lower setting.
I find it hard to get used to in movies/shows though. My TV has an option to insert frames for smoother playback to make it appear a higher Hz, but it often looks unnatural. It was hard getting used to The Hobbit movie (I think it was Desolation of Smaug) that was in 48 FPS. And Avatar: Way of Water was constantly switching between lower and higher frames for regular and action scenes, it was such a jarring experience.
I believe 24Hz works in movies because the way cinemas are set up. The image projected onto canvas in a dark/dim room “burn” in (not sure what the correct term is) which can make it appear smoother. This is why they can get away with it in cinemas. Plus it’s also a consistent 24Hz, which in games (and Way of Water) isn’t.
People used this excuse for games, to make games more “cinematic”, but that was just an absolute horseshit excuse for games being poorly optimised. Especially if the framerate wasn’t locked to 24FPS, and because home monitors and TVs don’t work the same as cinema projectors.
I’m sure if all cinemas and media would move to a higher framerate/Hz it would eventually just feel normal though. It just often takes a lot of time getting used to, especially for cinema experiences.
24hz is the lower limit. People will perceive 24hz as a smooth sequence, especially with motion blur, while anything below it will start to look choppy. Of course humans can perceive higher frequencies. But 24hz became the standard because celluloid film is expensive especially in the early days of cinema. The less frames you need to shoot the less film you need to buy and develop. And film back then was probably not sensitive enough for the lower exposure times that come with higher frame rates.
Your eyes are not digital. Nothing physical really is. Think about a camera flash. They can get well under 3.33ms, meaning over 300fps, and you can still see it clearly (and painfully). Same for a monitor, it also has a “response time”. It is how long it takes for a pixel to transition color. (Usually “gray to gray”, as in one shade of gray to another. Black to white would be longer, as is for eyes.)
So ofc you would see all the mice.
It’s also why motion blur is a thing, even though it was usually implemented incorrectly. Seeing every motion on a tv or monitor in perfect sharpness feels weird, because they are pictures not actual movements.
Your brain makes movements out of it all.
Anyway:
16 is minimum, 24 is good for most movies, 30 for slower games, 60 minimum for fps (75 and above for faster fps, even though i played xonotic on 45), 120 for vr.
No it can see much more. Bonus: your brain can ‘see’ more than 100hz too. Google bundesen tva. Source i worked on programs to measure it for my gfs phd. Also i play fps :D
I won’t accept my pasta at anything lower than 120Hz.
Not sure your pasta will survive that kind of speeds…
The human eye cannot see more than 24Hz, so why bother
Sooo…just curious how you explain this?
Just another of those internet image optical illusions. You won’t be fooling anyone on here 🧐
I don’t understand the basis of the 24Hz limit rumor. My monitors are 144Hz, and if I limit them to 60Hz and move my mouse around I see fewer residual mouse cursors “after-images” than I do at 144Hz. That’s a simplified test that shows that the eye can perceive motion artifacts beyond 60Hz.
The eye can perceive LEDs that are rectified at 60Hz AC, it’s very annoying.
I could never tell if people who were claiming not seeing more than the 24 Hz/FPS thing were serious or just excusing poor game optimization. They were either fanboys defending a poor job of a product, or simply had terrible eyes. But I think even with the latter you’d still be able to tell the difference in smoothness.
It’s one of those things that once you experience a higher framerate in games it’s very hard to go back to a lower setting.
I find it hard to get used to in movies/shows though. My TV has an option to insert frames for smoother playback to make it appear a higher Hz, but it often looks unnatural. It was hard getting used to The Hobbit movie (I think it was Desolation of Smaug) that was in 48 FPS. And Avatar: Way of Water was constantly switching between lower and higher frames for regular and action scenes, it was such a jarring experience.
iirc 24hz is just the minnimum thta the movie industry found creates the illusion of a moving image.
I believe 24Hz works in movies because the way cinemas are set up. The image projected onto canvas in a dark/dim room “burn” in (not sure what the correct term is) which can make it appear smoother. This is why they can get away with it in cinemas. Plus it’s also a consistent 24Hz, which in games (and Way of Water) isn’t.
People used this excuse for games, to make games more “cinematic”, but that was just an absolute horseshit excuse for games being poorly optimised. Especially if the framerate wasn’t locked to 24FPS, and because home monitors and TVs don’t work the same as cinema projectors.
I’m sure if all cinemas and media would move to a higher framerate/Hz it would eventually just feel normal though. It just often takes a lot of time getting used to, especially for cinema experiences.
24hz is the lower limit. People will perceive 24hz as a smooth sequence, especially with motion blur, while anything below it will start to look choppy. Of course humans can perceive higher frequencies. But 24hz became the standard because celluloid film is expensive especially in the early days of cinema. The less frames you need to shoot the less film you need to buy and develop. And film back then was probably not sensitive enough for the lower exposure times that come with higher frame rates.
Your eyes are not digital. Nothing physical really is. Think about a camera flash. They can get well under 3.33ms, meaning over 300fps, and you can still see it clearly (and painfully). Same for a monitor, it also has a “response time”. It is how long it takes for a pixel to transition color. (Usually “gray to gray”, as in one shade of gray to another. Black to white would be longer, as is for eyes.)
So ofc you would see all the mice.
It’s also why motion blur is a thing, even though it was usually implemented incorrectly. Seeing every motion on a tv or monitor in perfect sharpness feels weird, because they are pictures not actual movements.
Your brain makes movements out of it all.
Anyway: 16 is minimum, 24 is good for most movies, 30 for slower games, 60 minimum for fps (75 and above for faster fps, even though i played xonotic on 45), 120 for vr.
No it can see much more. Bonus: your brain can ‘see’ more than 100hz too. Google bundesen tva. Source i worked on programs to measure it for my gfs phd. Also i play fps :D