You're in an airplane flying looking down at all the tiny cars and buildings. You are in a fast moving object, but distance and speed place you above the objects below. Now, lets pretend that a plane going 100 times as fast quickly flys below you, it was a blur wasn't it?

Regardless of any objects speed, it maintains a fixed position in space time. If the plane that just flew by was only going say, 1 times faster than you, you probably would have been able to see it. Since your incredible auto focus eye had been concentrated on the ground before it flew below, your visual cortex made the decision that it was there, but well, moving really fast, and not as important. A really fast camera with a really fast shutter speed would have been able to capture the plane in full detail. Not to limit our eyes ability, since we did see the plane, but we didn't issolate the frame, we streamed it relative to the last object we were looking at, the ground, moving slowing below.

Our eyes, technically, are the most advanced auto focus system around - they even make the cameras look weak. Using the same scenario with an Eagle in the passenger seat, the Eagle, due to its eyes only using Rods, and its distance to its visual cortex being 1/16 of ours wouldn't have seen as much blur in the plane. However, from what we understand of the Visual Cortex, and Rods and Cones, even Eagles can see dizzy blurry objects at times.

What is often called motion blur, is really how our unique vision handles motion, in a stream, not in a frame by frame. If our eyes only saw frames (IE: 30 images a second), like a single lens reflex camera, we'd see images pop in and out of existance and that would really be annoying and not as advantagous to us in our three dimensional space and bodies.

So how can you test how many Frames Per Second we as Humans can see?
My favorite test to mention to people is simply to look around their environment, then back at their TV, or monitor. How much more detail do you see vs your monitors? You see depth, shading, a wider array of colors, and its all streamed to you. Sure, we're smart enough to use a 24 frame movie and piece it together, and sure we can make real of video footage filmed in NTSC or PAL, but can you imagine the devices in the future?

You can also do the more technical and less imaginative tests above, including the star gazing, and this tv/monitor test. A TV running at only 30 FPS is picking up a Computer monitor in the background in its view, and with the 30 FPS TV Output you see the screen refreshes on the computer monitor running at 60 FPS. This actually leads to eyestrain with computer monitors but has everything to do with lower refresh rates, and not higher.

Don't underestimate your own eyes Buddy...
We as humans have a very advanced visual system, please understand that a computer with all it's processor strength still doesn't match our own brain, or the complexity of a single Deoxyribonucleic Acid strand. While some animals out there have sharper vision than us humans, there is usually something given up with it - for eagles there is color, and for owls it is the inability to move the eye in its socket. With our outstanding human visual, we can see in billions of colors (although it has been tested that women see as much as 30% more colors than men do. Our eyes can indeed perceive well over 200 frames per second from a simple little display device (mainly so low because of current hardware, not our own limits). Our eyes are also highly movable, able to focus in as close as an inch, or as far as infinity, and have the ability to change focus faster than the most complex and expensive high speed auto focus cameras. Our Human Visual system receives data constantly and is able to decode it nearly instantaneously. With our field of view being 170 degrees, and our fine focus being nearly 30 degrees, our eyes are still more advanced than even the most advanced visual technology in existance today.

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.

This article was updated: 7/27/2002 due to its popularity and to reflect in more detail the science involved with our eyes and their ability to interpret more than 60 FPS. 

Would you like Pt's 6,7 and 8? 

You can drag up information to back up any story/argument, the best way is to see for yourself, you may not be able to do high end scientific experiments etc, but you can do what you can do. I know for a fact that I can see/feel/percieve a difference (and a large difference) going from, in Quake,72FPS to 150FPS and higher. I know for a fact that I can see/feel/percieve a difference in QuakeIII, going from 85FPS to 125FPS and higher. I will never believe that there is not any gain in going above 60FPS or such, because in my experience, I know different. People can quote articles, figures, results till they are blue in the face, if it doesn't match my personal experience, I would be a fool to accept it. Check it out yourself, come to your own conclusions, remember, the experts once said the World was flat. 

too long, didn't read.

just link to the fucking article you're quoting. 

here or there, not my point though 

Post a URL, not the whole fucking article.

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html 

quit being a smartass. it's just framerate, you don't need to post 50 millions times to try and prove you're right. 

Smartass, look who's talking 

go map. 

Go 

you're getting into a fight just becuase you think you're 100% correct about something that really doesn't matter. You're crazily posting full content's of articles that no one really cares about rather than just linking them for the few that do. You're just being arogant and stupid, so seriously, go lay off and map for awhile. 

j00 r both t3h dumb

It's not 60fps as in the 'visual framerate', it's the refresh rate on the physics/movement/etc.

You could still run at 6,385fps if you wanted (or could), but it means you won't be able to jump further (a la Q3 where you jumped further at 72, 90, 125 & 333 fps), because the refresh rate (that's not your monitor refresh rate either) will be locked at 60. 

I couldn't care less if I am 100% correct or not. Your just shitty cause youre 100% wrong. You AREarogant and stupid, so serriously, go fuck yourself for a while, I'm sure you've had plenty of practice!!
BTW, it was only half the article 

I actually find the subject quite interesting. Visual perception has always been one of my pet fascinations; it could be because of my interest in visual design, psychology and biology. But it's more likely to do with my interest in Predators ( <#wAnT soME CanDy?#> )
Anyway, couldn't the difference in 'feel' be related to the movement as well as the visuals?
I dunno, I can barely set my railgun color at the console :P 

All I know is the difference is there, and is real, and is good. And the difference is brought about by the increase in FPS. Other than that I don't know, I don't really delve in to deep in this stuff. 

so if you don't know, how can you POSSIBLY say scampie is 100% wrong? if he was 100% wrong, that would make you 100% right, and you said you couldn't care less about being 100% right. . .

so it appears that not only did you admit you don't know what you're talkin about, but you're a liar too.

so take 100% of your dick and stick it 100% up your half ass.

you make me yawn.

/me quietly goes back to his well paying job and his own abode. 

so if you don't know, how can you POSSIBLY say scampie is 100% wrong? if he was 100% wrong, that would make you 100% right, and you said you couldn't care less about being 100% right. . .

so it appears that not only did you admit you don't know what you're talkin about, but you're a liar too.

so take 100% of your dick and stick it 100% up your half ass.

you make me yawn.

/me quietly goes back to his well paying job and his own abode. 

LOL!! 

Me quietly sits here at least being willing to be registered on the board.

Me goes back to do what I do, see, unlike you, I am fortunate enough to be filthy rich, I do not need to work, not today, not ever, and I own my own 'abode' as you put it, several actually. And I couldn't give a rats ass what you think.

Have a nice day 

I got that figure from the first lecture of my 3d graphics class. Right now I'm finishing off a raycaster for assignment 4. Ray-triangle intersection is a pain in the ass.

Abyss:
How Quake1 feels at higher framerates has nothing to do with Doom3's framerate given that the physics framerate is capped. Nada. Zilch. 

Nada. Zilch 

 

Say you were given 5 seconds to watch 5 different things on the TV: Sitcom, Soap Opera, Movie, Live News, British tv series. It's hard to explain, but you can see the difference between each of these showings. You can easily (to me) differentiate a live viewing from a film, a sitcom or drama series (which both have different appearance.)

I was told this has to do with refresh rates, and about the British TV shows - they have different standards with their TV's and such. I wonder what these differences are called though, if there is any such designation to them. 

one of the differences between the types of programme ( we Brits call them programmes, not shows ) is the film/camera with which they are recorded. An example of the difference this makes was the Brit soap Brookside, which was the first to be filmed using a-type-of-film-I-can't-remember-the-name-of; it was basically the same stuff that TV news is filmed on and gave the soap a fresh 'realistic' feel not seen before. I don't know if that is actually to do with refresh rates.
The difference between British and US TV footage is apparent, and an old flatmate and I once commented on it watching a series of rock vids together. While it's clear from comparing any Brit sitcom to an American one, the difference was clearest because we could watch segments of the same promo vid processed differently - in this case it was 'Sumerland'. On the same compilation, the full promo is shown and at the end of the tape there's an artfully produced interview made specifically for NY MTV ( this is also obvious from comments the vocalist makes regarding 'our own country' ). Intersperced with the interview midshots are bits from the previous vids, clearly 'glossier' looking than before. My flatmate suggested this may be related to the interlacing mechanisms of TVs manufactured for different countries. I don't know though, but it's an effect that can apparently be applied in post production, regardless of the original footage. So I don't think it's related to framerate.

2/-