+60Hz monitors. Myth or Reality ?

[Shihab]

Just as the title says, do games or programs or any other form of motion picture play/run smoother at a framerate higher than 60fps ? Or is the the popular opinion that says the human eye can't notice any difference in framerates higher than 60fps is tactually a fact ?

 

[robal]

do games or programs or any other form of motion picture play/run smoother at a framerate higher than 60fps ?

The whole affair is way more complicated than just fps.
We've got screen actual refresh rate, fps, tearing, v-sync, v-sync buffering type, microstutter, and a whole bucket of things that people can see or can't see.

I recommend this article: http://techreport.com/articles.x/21516/1
It's about microstuttering in multi-GPU solutions, but also give a wealth of information on the subject of perception.

The short answer is:
People wouldn't be able to see more than 60 fps.
However, there are good reasons to go above 60 Hz on displays.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

One phrase: 3D.


3D requires a frame rate of 120 Hz. The human eye is, generally speaking, accepted to be unable to perceive the difference between motion at 30 full frames per second (TV used to be 60 half frames in the US). You can generally perceive the motion difference between 60 Hz and 30 Hz with a little help, but I have yet to read any study stating that the average human can perceive a difference between 60 and 120 Hz using normal transmission methodology.

That said, I have to stipulate two things. The term "average human" is an oxymoron. Average rarely exists, so you may be able to perceive more or less than a supposed average. Two, 3D is a unique beast. It requires 120 frames per second because each eye must perceive slightly different full images. It is, effectively the only instance where a substantial increase in frame rate, beyond 60 Hz, will make a visual difference for most people.


All of this said, marketting will never stop. An extra 4th pixel color, higher frame rate, unique visual processing, and size sells TVs and monitors. Whether there is an influence or not, someone will trumpet theirs as "the best" because of something....

 

[Millennium]

I love refresh rates as high as possible, goes back to my quake days. My 21" CRT used to do 100hz in some resolutions and it looked really good. So I say don't believe the hype, at least upto 100hz more hertz is better.

 

[uuuaaaaaa]

i play quake live and it is an immense difference between 60 and 120Hz (samsung 2233RZ), the game feels way smoother, and when you are aiming moving in game, you can clearly see the difference, also it is way easier on the eyes.

 

[exodusprime1337]

The whole affair is way more complicated than just fps.
We've got screen actual refresh rate, fps, tearing, v-sync, v-sync buffering type, microstutter, and a whole bucket of things that people can see or can't see.

I recommend this article: http://techreport.com/articles.x/21516/1
It's about microstuttering in multi-GPU solutions, but also give a wealth of information on the subject of perception.

The short answer is:
People wouldn't be able to see more than 60 fps.
However, there are good reasons to go above 60 Hz on displays.

This isn't actually true, the human eye is capable of far more than 60hz

this article fps and the human eye explains in better detail how exactly it applies to the human eye. Tyipcally what is accepted as a proper explanation is that 60 hz is the good rate at which the human eye can discern the image or video being displayed as fluid. In terms of gaming, i can definately tell the difference between 60 and 125 when playing games like cod. The play is much smoother. The last part of this article involves the usaf testing a pilots percievable image detection when showing them an image at 1/220th of a second. It is possible if the increase is linear that that someone could detect image changes at 220 times a second giving them possibly a 220hz refresh rate of their eyes

 

[MatTheCat]

The human eye is, generally speaking, accepted to be unable to perceive the difference between motion at 30 full frames per second (TV used to be 60 half frames in the US).

Why dont you stop spouting mis-info and go read the article posted above?

I quote:

"If you don't want to read it all, then the short answer is, the human eye / brain combination can see well over 100 frames per second and thus far the limits have not thoroughly been tested yet. Suffice it to say, IT IS NOTHING LIKE THE 24, 30, 60 or even 100 fps crap, that gets spouted on the Internet. "

I am sick of retards (normally console gamers or crappy gfx card owners) telling me that I cant tell the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS, or even that I cant tell the difference (on my monitor) between 55 and 60, cos I can and I dare say that I could tell the difference at way higher frames than that, it is just that 60FPS seems to be when a threshold of smoothness is hit.

 

[Benetanegia]

Refresh rate and fps is not the same. fps is related with the sense of "fluid" motion, which already happens at 24 fps (theaters). However the human eye can see "changes" at a much higher pace, so the higher the refresh rate the better. I can say first hand that the eye can see flickering up to at least 150 Hz (my CRTs maximum), but there's usually a lower rate that you can tolerate. On LCDs you don't get flickering, but there's ghosting, shimmering, etc. In that case a higher refresh rate is not really the cure (technically), but it does help a lot (just look at 120 Hz monitors and you'll understand).

However, while gaming the most important advantage of a higher refresh rate is a lower response time. When people say they need 60 fps in order to play, it's not because of te sense of fluid motion, but because of how responsive the game is.

All in all, higher refresh rate == better.

 

[Shihab]

So the human eye (or brain?) can see faster than 60 frames per second. Interesting ! But to what extent ? And How many frames would it make a difference for an average human ? I mean, it's clearly impossible to tell the difference between 55fps and 60fps (with the little percentage of our brain's processing power we are using at least), so what's the minimum fps difference can our eyes (brains?) notice ? I can tell you can notice small differences at small frame rates (i.e 3fps vs 7fps).

 

[catnipkiller]

I dont know if this will help but watching a 60 hertz tv vs a real 120+ you can see a diff.

 

[The Witcher]

Why dont you stop spouting mis-info and go read the article posted above?

I quote:

"If you don't want to read it all, then the short answer is, the human eye / brain combination can see well over 100 frames per second and thus far the limits have not thoroughly been tested yet. Suffice it to say, IT IS NOTHING LIKE THE 24, 30, 60 or even 100 fps crap, that gets spouted on the Internet. "

I am sick of retards (normally console gamers or crappy gfx card owners) telling me that I cant tell the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS, or even that I cant tell the difference (on my monitor) between 55 and 60, cos I can and I dare say that I could tell the difference at way higher frames than that, it is just that 60FPS seems to be when a threshold of smoothness is hit.

Finally someone who shares the same opinion with me, and I thought I was the only one who is getting sick of this myth.....

I really hate pseudo-science BS, plus people should start learning how to evaluate supposed "studies" or "researches" just because some people published something using the scientific method doesn't make it necessarily true, you have to evaluate how did they reach that conclusion.

Anyway, I wouldn't care even if they published a million study about how the human eyes can't distinguish the difference between 30fps and 60fps or 60fps+ BECAUSE I CAN SEE THE DAMN DIFFERENCE CLEARLY !!! Buy a high-end PC or lower your settings then tell me that you don't see the difference between a constant 60fps and a constant 120fps....

 

[cadaveca]

So the human eye (or brain?) can see faster than 60 frames per second. Interesting ! But to what extent ? And How many frames would it make a difference for an average human ? I mean, it's clearly impossible to tell the difference between 55fps and 60fps (with the little percentage of our brain's processing power we are using at least), so what's the minimum fps difference can our eyes (brains?) notice ? I can tell you can notice small differences at small frame rates (i.e 3fps vs 7fps).

I can very easily tell the difference between 55 and 60. For me, there is an actual effect on how "3D" a game appears, and lighting takes on a different quality.

Of course, this depends on the app, some engines I cannot tell, but in like 95% of all games, I can.

 

[temp02]

On LCDs there is "almost" no change, now on good ol' CRTs (RIP Phillips 107E4) there is a huge difference (I would quickly get eye strain/fatigue if I didn't had the screen on 75Hz).
In fact on LCDs, I believe, more Hz might be worse, due to quicker pixel shifting, leading to trails, well at least on lesser quality screens.

 

[Benetanegia]

Buy a high-end PC or lower your settings then tell me that you don't see the difference between a constant 60fps and a constant 120fps....

Most probably you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between constant 60 fps and constant 120 fps. Problem is you'll never know, because you have never seen constant 60 fps or constant 120 in a game.

Frames are never constant, because each frame takes a different ammount of time to render, even with vsync, so the result is that while the frames are constant, the movement is not. i.e Imagine a ball moving, frame nº 34 is rendered at T, frame 35 is rendered at T+1, but because of Vsync, it is displayed at T+2, and while the frames might be constant, the ball is not where it should be by T+2.

^^This is why you can "see" a difference beyond 60 fps on a 60 Hz screen, otherwise you wouldn't be able to.

Aside from that, generally people who say they can do what 99% of people can't are usually morons who would never be able to pass a blind test, just like the ones who claim to have golden ears...

 

[cadaveca]

Aside from that, generally people who say they can do what 99% of people can't are usually morons who would never be able to pass a blind test, just like the ones who claim to have golden ears...

My daughter who only has one working ear would tell you that hearing is ultimately very important and that tone and timbre of audio is the difference between hearing easily, hearing nothing at all, or a headache.

All of our eyes and ears are literally physically different, just as our personalties are. Equally, although we may all share commonailties on our body's construction, things like the quality of our nerves, and our body's natural chemistry, affects our sense's ability to react to stimulation, and the reaction, becuase it's ultimately chemical in nature, can even be affected by diet.

Personally, I enjoy the science behind this stuff.

 

[trickson]

What is the frame rate of just looking around ? I mean looking at the real world . I would like to know this .

 

[cadaveca]

What is the frame rate of just looking around ? I mean looking at the real world . I would like to know this .

There is no framerate. Light flows in your eyes at the speed of light....far faster than anything else, and as such, our eyes must distinguish and process light at the speed it enters our eyes. Becuase our nerves react constantly, and a "frame" has a distinct beginning, and an end, but light more often than not does not, it's impossible to actually correlate the two.

In a second, your eye processes a 186000 miles worth of light. When you can translate that into a "frame", let me know.

 

[trickson]

There is no framerate. Light flows in your eyes at the speed of light....far faster than anything else, and as such, our eyes must distinguish and process light at the speed it enters our eyes. Becuase our nerves react constantly, and a "frame" has a distinct beginning, and an end, but light more often than not does not, it's impossible to actually correlate the two.

Interesting . So the world around us has no real frame rate it is just artificial things like monitors and TV's and iPhones that we look at that have them .

 

[cadaveca]

Well the fact of the matter is that your brain, based on attention, will automatically discard unneeded data, and this is in part affected by your own personal perception of what is important or not. We;ve all heard of husbands that can completely ignore thier wives, and clearly we are capable of "mutli-threaded" processing, as you can hear someone talk while listening to music, and your brain will focus on what you feel is more important.

There is alot of science behind how this impacts us on a psychological level, and even how our psychology affects our perceptions.

Then, we could add in how many cones and rods your eye has, and how there are only three basis receptors, and somehow, they still manage to seperate light into its given wavelength and intensity, thanks to complementary psychophysics(yes, that is a real word).

 

[trickson]

We've all heard of husbands that can completely ignore their wives, and clearly we are capable of "mutli-threaded" processing, as you can hear someone talk while listening to music, and your brain will focus on what you feel is more important.

Amazing I do this all the time . I hear my wife talking I just don't care any more . I have the unique ability to tune every thing she says out . Thank GOD too if I had to listen to her all day I would stick hot pokers into my ears and seal them holes shut forever ! I love her yes I just hate to listen to her .

 

[Benetanegia]

My daughter who only has one working ear would tell you that hearing is ultimately very important and that tone and timbre of audio is the difference between hearing easily, hearing nothing at all, or a headache.

All of our eyes and ears are literally physically different, just as our personalties are. Equally, although we may all share commonailties on our body's construction, things like the quality of our nerves, and our body's natural chemistry, affects our sense's ability to react to stimulation, and the reaction, becuase it's ultimately chemical in nature, can even be affected by diet.

Personally, I enjoy the science behind this stuff.

You know that I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about people who claim much more than they can prove.

Specifically most if not all of the so called (and selfproclaimed) golden ears have failed in blind tests that should have been easy in comparison to their claims.

On 60 Hz screens the difference between 60 fps and anything below is definitely indentifiable, mostly because of temporal aliasing and/or uneven motion.

And like I said before you can see (more like "sense") the difference in smoothness between 60 fps and much more fps, i.e 100 fps in a 60 Hz screen, because as I explained above, you have better chances of getting the one frame that best matches the "ideal" frame to be displayed at that one moment. But really, people who claim to be able to perfectly tell the difference between 120 and 150 fps on a 60 Hz screen are just morons. I'd refrain from saying the same about someone claiming t see the difference between 100 and 120 fps on a 120 Hz screen though, because yes our eyes do differ, but that's a completely different case.

 

[Play3r]

i have a BenQ 120hz and i noticed a difference the first time i moved the mouse on it, not to mention game look and feel so much smoother than on 60hz. i would whole heartedly recommend every gamer that has gfx that can hold at least 100fps to buy one.

 

[cadaveca]

You know that I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about people who claim much more than they can prove.

Sure, I was just putting that out there as the timing was ideal. Nothing in it really has any reflection on your comment other than it fit in the conversation there. I just happen to have been educated a bit by the real pros thanks to my daughter's experience. And because it concerns my little girl, you bet I was paying attention.

Imma nerd, science gets me interested, anyway. .

 

[Benetanegia]

Sure, I was just putting that out there as the timing was ideal. Nothing in it really has any reflection on your comment other than it fit in the conversation there. I just happen to have been educated a bit by the real pros thanks to my daughter's experience. And because it concerns my little girl, you bet I was paying attention.

Imma nerd, science gets me interested, anyway. .

Sure man and your post was a good opportunity for me to try further explain my point .

 

[qubit]

Just as the title says, do games or programs or any other form of motion picture play/run smoother at a framerate higher than 60fps ? Or is the the popular opinion that says the human eye can't notice any difference in framerates higher than 60fps is tactually a fact ?

Good question. No, it's not a myth and there's many aspects to this answer.

Running the monitor faster and rendering games with vsync on with no dropped frames, you get an increase in temporal resolution. Therefore, a 120Hz monitor has literally twice the timing/temporal resolution of a 60Hz one. Motion is literally twice as smooth and it is visible. 240Hz will in turn look smoother than 120Hz, but the perceived gain will be much less due to the limits of the human visual system.

On CRT monitors, increasing the scanning rate did several things, the main ones being to noticeably reduce flicker, increase temporal resolution & motion smoothness and blur the picture (you really don't want this last one, lol).

Heck, I managed to get 144Hz at 800x600 on one of my CRTs and a static picture literally looked stuck on the screen. Hard to really get across, but an amazing effect. I actually did this to try out 3D Vision on it, which surprisingly worked fine, since it's designed for 120Hz. Note that the static picture I'm talking about was a 2D one without the glasses.

On LCD monitors, you increase the temporal resolution and reduce the inherent and significant motion blur in LCD displays. There is no loss of sharpness though, especially with a digital connection and running at native resolution.

The eye is particularly sensitive to dropped rendering frames though (eg game animation) which reveals itself as unpleasant stutters and double images. However, if you lose a few frames at 120Hz, the effect is much less noticeable.

On perception, I saw something geekily interesting once. I once played a game through the 50Hz UK PAL TV out on my video card (non interlaced) with the monitor output set to 100Hz. This resulted in the game being rendered at 50fps/Hz as it was vsync locked to the TV. This resulted in each image being displayed twice on the monitor. Normally, if the monitor is being run at 50 or 60Hz and the game is rendered at half the framerate, this will be perceived as severe judder and a double image. However, because the monitor was running at 100Hz, it was perceived as a smoothly animated double image with no judder. Fascinating!