Interesting read on FPS between Movies, video, and games and the science of it all

This is a very interesting read on the science behind how we perceive and use frame rates in movies and games. Well worth the read if it’s something you’re intrigued by.

Happy Holidays everyone! :slight_smile:


But eyes can only see at 30 FPS.

30! Hethen! It’s 24! :stuck_out_tongue:

Hm, only read half through (got no time left) and it is really interesting, but my english isn’t well enough to understand everything on the fly, so i need to reread it with a dictionary open :smiley:

Thanks, Tim. It was a good read, and now the usage of Grain in post process makes more sense to me.

It’s interesting that the eyes can’t register above 24 (or 30, depending on which articles you read :p) , yet I certainly feel drops in the range between 30 and 60 when not locked.

I’m guilty of not reading the full article, so sorry in advance if this has been covered or dis-proven by it (doubt that).

It’s my understanding that 24fps is the point at which we get ‘fooled’ into perceiving fluid motion. It is not an upper cap, but a lower cap and actually represents the lowest possible playback speed without losing the illusion of fluid motion. We can, as you attest Chance, obviously see at much higher rates.

A companion piece to the one above… Maybe a Moderator could make this a sticky thread…?

**"There are some signs that the film and TV industries are waking up to this modern understanding of moving pictures. Some movies are being shot at raised frame rates, generally to audience approval. But the full potential is not being reached. Where movies are shot at 48fps, the shutter time may deliberately be kept long so that a 24fps version can be released by discarding every other frame. If the short shutter times that 48fps allows were used, the 24fps version would strobe.

Early work on a replacement for HDTV, called UHDTV, is considering 100 or 120 fps. But the static resolution fixation is still there. There is talk of broadcasting 4000 pixels across the screen at only 50/60Hz, which has to be the dumbest format ever."**

There is a VERY clear difference for me between 60 & 30 fps. 30 is unbearable IMO. Here is a video testing whether or not gamers can see the difference between 60 & 120:

Agreed. I can definitely tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps.

There’s a group of people on steam forums that trolll every game forum on release based on whether it is 30 fps locked or not. They bash and insult anything 30 fps locked, no matter how good it is.
So, regardless of your opinion on the subject of framerate, try not to do something like that.

At cursory glance, article makes some really far-fetched conclusions:

Which reminds me of “correlation does not mean causation”](Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia). That sentence compares Uncanny Valley graph with center-surround receptive graph. Which looks like a bad idea to me.

Also, multiple: “I suspect” statements aren’t helping.

I haven’t read the article, but i will. Thanks for sharing. Happy holidays.

What annoys the hell out of me is, when people say eye and fps in the same sentence. An eye is not a camera, therefore doesn’t see in FPS. Vision is not that simple. It isn’t just light registering on an object, the brain has to process the data and it constructs the picture of reality.

the brain has to process the data and it constructs the picture


This is a Frame.

The reason i said its not a frame is because a frame suggests is a single point in time, eyes do not view the world in a single fixed point of time. they don’t take snapshots. They rather track something and gather light continuously over time. the view your brain creates and that you “see” doesn’t make sense as a flipbook of single picture snapshots.

Some good related videos
What is Video? (vsauce)
What is the Resolution of the Eye? (vsauce)
You won’t beleive your eyes! (SmarterEveryDay)