Comment by 867-5309
5 years ago
the rate of persistence of the human eye is around 25Hz, hence PAL and NTSC framerates. the upper bound for those hypersensitive is around 50Hz, hence the later generation monitors. anything above this is nothing more than marketing hype. it seeming smoother is merely a placebo to justify the extra cost
Countless blind tests have shown a noticeable difference up to refresh rates over 100hz (and potentially greater). This is the first of many examples that I found: https://techreport.com/news/25051/blind-test-suggests-gamers...
"The human eye can't tell the difference past 30 FPS" was literally just a thought-killing cliche repeated by console gamers getting into internet slapfights with PC gamers.
You can see the difference for yourself here on any 60hz monitor: http://www.30vs60fps.com/
While the difference is noticeable in that 30 vs 60 Hz example, high-contrast foreground/background scrolling is an even starker example: https://www.testufo.com/framerates-text. Just be warned high contrast examples like that can have confounding factors on some displays due to ghosting.
Corridor Crew did a fun and interesting video[1] on how good the eye is.
In it, they have a segment on frame rate[2], where he mentions that the neurons can only fire about every 13ms, or about 75 FPS. But, the important point, they're not in sync like a computer screen is. This means the effective update rate for a group of neurons can be much less.
[1]: https://youtu.be/sPpAXMH5Upo
[2]: https://youtu.be/sPpAXMH5Upo?t=252
This is not correct. Let's not dispute and go with your claim of 25Hz.
Even then, the problem is that eyes don't work like cameras or monitors. Our eyes don't work with "frames". Each receptor updates on its own time. It's easy to see that, if the updates are staggered, multiple sensors could perceive higher frame-rates, even if they can't individually.
However, there's another angle to this. Disregarding input lag, which is a very real phenomenon and is greatly shortened by higher refresh, higher refresh rate monitors are able to show more 'discrete' steps for anything that's in motion. Our eyes (and brains) perceive this as movement 'smoothness', even if they can't quite make out every single frame that's displayed.
You should try that yourself. Do a blind test.
This is very incorrect. With video, every person can tell the difference between 30hz and 60hz, if they at least know what to look for.
The easiest way to show this is by wiggling your mouse around quickly on a computer screen.
At 30hz - you'll see the mouse teleporting around - hopping from spot to spot, but not moving. For example, if you stare in the middle, and jerk the mouse quickly to the right, you'll see the 4 or 5 spots where it rendered.
With 60hz, you'll see the 9 or 10 spots - and have a stronger illusion of movement.
With 120hz, it might even look as smooth as a real object flying across your screen.
I'm wondering if this is why I find 120hz so jarring. It's almost as if I can't perceive the 'hopping' consciously, but I can subconsciously. It feels like my brain is asking "Wait, how did you get over there?" where "over there" is a fraction of a millimeter. I think maybe there is an uncanny valley for motion.
Sorry you're wrong.
It's as absurd as saying it's impossible to tell the difference between a 55" 720p display compared to a 4k one at a distance of 1 foot away.
Are you claiming humans would fail an ABX test between a 60Hz and a 120Hz monitor? That sounds like a pretty extraordinary claim.
So does it seem smoother or does it not? I definitely notice the difference with 60fps video and 120Hz+ monitors.
Additionally, another thing I've noticed in the last decade is the very badly PWM-frequency-tuned LED headlights on some cars. Those engineers selected the wrong LED brightness and tuned it to terrible frequencies which leave flicker-trails when you look at or away from them.
Get those PWM frequencies above 500Hz please! Especially get above 200Hz with your LED frequencies at the very least.
~25Hz is the _lower bound_ for video* to appear smooth, _as long as there is motion blur_. But user interfaces do not add motion blur to moving objects. A computer monitor at 25Hz would be horrendous to use.
Lower framerates are less noticeable in low light, which is another reason why films look acceptable.
*Talented animators/cartoonists can get away with lower framerates