# Poll: Do you like the smoothness of high refresh gaming and/or 60 FPS YouTube videos?

## Do you like the smoothness of high refresh gaming and/or 60 FPS YouTube videos?

• ### No

Results are only viewable after voting.

#### Rithsom

Heck, if our eyes worked at 60Hz driving at highway speeds would be pretty dangerous, and you'd have moved 4-5 meters between each time your eyes "refreshed". If that was the case, highway fatalities would be staggeringly high.

4-5 meters multiplied by 60 Hz is equal to 240-300 m/s, which is roughly the speed of a jet liner. Highway speeds are much slower, around 30 m/s.

But I get your point. Having split-second response time is essential to being a safe driver.

#### Ferather

Well 75% of Google searching says 60hz-60 fps, but in many cases it does say they don't fully understand, maybe I am wrong but I am going by the larger amount of 60fps I see in searches.
Most of the sites that say 60fps is not enough don't actually give any details as to how they found 60fps to be wrong, maybe I missed something.

Im also sure some lights are on-off rapidly, at the speed they do it the eye just see's on, never off.

----

Should be less than 100fps or on-off 100 times per second. Somewhere around 50-60hz, below this should flicker to the eye.

Why Do LED Lights Flicker On Video? - LED & Lighting Info (ledlightinginfo.com)

Either way you can measure they eye in Hz or FPS, when it stops seeing a difference.

Last edited:

#### Valantar

4-5 meters multiplied by 60 Hz is equal to 240-300 m/s, which is roughly the speed of a jet liner. Highway speeds are much slower, around 30 m/s.

But I get your point. Having split-second response time is essential to being a safe driver.
Lol, that was supposed to be ".4-5", not "4-5". Guess that's what I get for typing too fast.

Well 75% of Google searching says 60hz-60 fps, but in many cases it does say they don't fully understand, maybe I am wrong but I am going by the larger amount of 60fps I see in searches.
Most of the sites that say 60fps is not enough don't actually give any details as to how they found 60fps to be wrong, maybe I missed something.

Im also sure some lights are on-off rapidly, at the speed they do it the eye just see's on, never off.

----

Should be less than 100fps or on-off 100 times per second. Somewhere around 50-60hz, below this should flicker to the eye.

Why Do LED Lights Flicker On Video? - LED & Lighting Info (ledlightinginfo.com)

Either way you can measure they eye in Hz or FPS, when it stops seeing a difference.
"Most google searching" is quite often not a particularly good source, especially as oft-repeated sourceless truisms tend to score well in terms of SEO. Most people repeating this from my experience have heard it from some unnamed source who in turn did not provide any trustworthy sources for their data.

As for that LED flicker thing, again, remember that we don't even know if the human eye has something equivalent to a "refresh rate" or "fps" at all. For example, flickering lights are much more easily spotted if you're moving than if you're standing still. Most likely human vision functions in a far more flexible way - remember, our brains do huge amounts of processing on what our eyes see before we even actually perceive it, such as filling in blind spots (there's one per eye after all), stitching together two eyes into one field of view, interpolating imagery while the eye is moving, and a bunch more. Precisely what the "raw input data" from our eyes is, whether it's somehow divided into distinct "images" or if it's a more blended-together continuous stream of signals? And how does processing affect this; what is the "output" that is available to our consciousness from the visual cortex? From what I've seen, we really have no idea. What we do know is that there are measurable differences in reaction times between even 240Hz and 360Hz displays - though quite possibly not for everyone. Vision is also highly individual, after all. It's the same thing with "resolution" - human vision isn't comparable to a grid of pixels, as we can make out far higher amounts of detail in some scenarios than others (we can for example spot jaggies and unevenness in extremely fine diagonal lines, while grids or larger shapes like letters or symbols are perceived at far lower detail levels. And so on, and so on.

The desire to attempt to quantify the immensely complex and nuanced workings of the human sensory apparatus - which far outstrips anything we can produce technologically - is a really, really bad habit, and it tries to apply standards for human-made creations onto complex biological and neurological functions that we barely understand at all. Trying to understand the body as if it were a human-made technology brings with it a ton of biases and uncommunicated implications that will inevitably skew any findings and limit our possibilities for achieving a functional and useful understanding of it, and will inevitably be both misleading and reductive.

Last edited:

#### Ferather

Well I'm not going to debate you know more about it than I do, Google is a perfectly fine source for info as long as you filter crap blogs and go for documented info (same as reading a book).

I do have a question, why is it if you wave back and forth your hand, with your fingers spread, your fingers are more ghostly, until they slow down to change direction.
Surely this is to do with the rate the human eye draws an image (or a frame in computer terms), it doesn't seem very high.

If we used the light frames (on-off), at 100-120 times per second, this is seen as always on, If my eyes could do 240fps, I should see flicker, and off frames?

Also if you where moving away from an object at the speed of light, whilst looking at it, you should see nothing right? Given the light doesn't reach your eye.
Any previous image should be hitting the back of my head, which will probably kill me with heat, if I was facing the other direction, probably blind then dead.

Last edited:

#### dirtyferret

I prefer the calm beauty of watching a video at .000001 FPS

#### Valantar

Well I'm not going to debate you know more about it than I do, Google is a perfectly fine source for info as long as you filter crap blogs and go for documented info (same as reading a book).

I do have a question, why is it if you wave back and forth your hand, with your fingers spread, your fingers are more ghostly, until they slow down to change direction.
Surely this is to do with the rate the human eye draws an image (or a frame in computer terms), it doesn't seem very high.

If we used the light frames (on-off), at 100-120 times per second, this is seen as always on, If my eyes could do 240fps, I should see flicker, and off frames?

Also if you where moving away from an object at the speed of light, whilst looking at it, you should see nothing right? Given the light doesn't reach your eye.
Any previous image should be hitting the back of my head, which will probably kill me with heat, if I was facing the other direction, probably blind then dead.
You're still thinking of this from a digital, human-made technology frame of mind. The "if I can't see flicker at X Hz, then the eye must be slower than that" test only applies if a) the eye captures distinct and whole frames, b) captures them at an even cadence, c) has no smoohting/blending/etc. applied, d) has synced "framerates" for both eyes, e) reacts with equal sensitivity to extreme brightness changes to all other stimuli, and likely a whole heap of other caveats. Once you start treating this as what it is - an analog system with tons of complex processing steps and unknown modes of operation - then the weaknesses of such a test become apparent, as you can't control for variables and thus can't know if the answers you are getting are actually demonstrating what you want them to. There's nothing saying your eyes couldn't, for example, (and this is assuming a bunch of unknowns such as discrete "frames" captured) be capturing thousands of images a second but blending many of them together to incrase light sensitivity, motion smoothness, etc. - and might also prioritize differently based on contextual clues (such as sudden movement propting faster signalling rather than better processing). That's just as possible as the eye having some fixed discrete maximum frame rate.

#### Ferather

Indeed, very informative again.

#### lexluthermiester

I'll be the outlier(as usual...). I voted no and have blocked them since day one with h264ify. Why? Health reasons. They make me sick.

How sick? The same nausea(from motion sickness) you feel when a video game doesn't agree with you, just throw in some dizziness, the urge to vomit and a splitting headache...and there you go.

Best Regards,

Liquid Cool
I knew that conditions like this existed. Had no idea it could be that severe..

#### Mussels

##### Moderprator
Staff member
One of the best examples i read on this years ago was airforce pilots being able to see one frame different out of 400, and identify the aircraft in that frame

just because we cant see the ENTIRE image and process it, doesnt mean we cant notice one small part of movement, one flicker, one flash *faster*

#### Ferather

Was the result consistent? Or was there an overlap based on when the frames started, or any order? Would be interesting if the result was always frame 350.
I remember seeing flicker if a low frequency LED was at the corner of my eye (Old PC indicator LED), if I looked strait at it, it was solid on.

I agree the eye and brain work in different manors, in some cases dumping visual info, or even delaying it.
If you look at a clock, at times the second hand will pause, due to delay, with no updates.

Subliminal messages in video – Do they really work? - BBC R&D

Last edited:

#### lynx29

One of the best examples i read on this years ago was airforce pilots being able to see one frame different out of 400, and identify the aircraft in that frame

just because we cant see the ENTIRE image and process it, doesnt mean we cant notice one small part of movement, one flicker, one flash *faster*

480hz monitors to the moon!!!

#### Vayra86

Supporter
I have no idea why this question needs to be asked.

Soap opera effect. Its not new. But everyone figures it out at some point...

Same stuff as we saw when The Hobbit was released with an odd framerate...

As with everything visual and in motion... our brain needs to adjust in processong the information. The actual amount of FPS can vary... 24 to 30 or 50 or 60... remember how gamers now (myself included) perceive 60 as pretty slow now that high refresh is more common. Its even preferable on the desktop.

Maybe its even better to feed your brain varying FPS so you stay nimble? An interesting experiment...

#### Ferather

Well AMD FreeSync Premium is a minimum of 120hz, so I guess we are still at the 100-120 light bulb area.