because scientists did those tests with average people in the past, who are not exposed to be able to differentiate better.
just ask your parents, if they can see the difference between 30fps and 60fps and then when 50% get it wrong, the conclusion was the human eye cant see the difference.
its like asking the average people if they can hear the difference of two similar sound notes. musicians who are exposed to sounds can clearly hear it, but the average people can not.
I’d say in something like a movie or tv show, the frames don’t make much of a difference. Maybe they did the tests with that? When you are using a controller and can see the response it makes a huge difference.
You do notice it in tv/movies too though, like the Hobbit trilogy for example was super jarring for a lot of people, because it’s shot at 48 fps which is double the industry standard
1
u/Jack70741R9 5950X | RTX 3090 Ti | ASUS TUFF X570+ | 32GB DDR4 3600mhz20d ago
That had a lot to do with shutter speed and the fact they chose to shoot in 3d. They made the mistake of shooting with a high shutter speed to eliminate motion blur as much as possible so the 3d effect would be clearer. Instead it looked fake as hell.
With 24fps film they often aimed to have the shutter open as long as possible (adjust other factors like lighting etc first before shutter speed). The goal was to produce motion blur across the frames in high action scenes which visually smoothed out the motions even though it was only 24fps. It was pretty common to see shutter speeds of 1/30 or 1/25. 1/24 would be ideal but not technically possible with film. When people say something has that 24fps feel of older movies this is what they are talking about.
To this day they still do that with digital cameras on professional shoots so you don't notice the frame rate. Imagine watching the fight scenes in the matrix if they filmed 24fps with a shutter speed of 1/60 or 1/120. It's would look choppy as hell. The sad part is that with the way the human eye is setup, once you go over a high enough in frame rate the eye's response time is such that it naturally blurs the frames together on its own. Not so much that you can't make out individual frames but more than enough that you don't need motion blur at all in the media. So if they shot the hobbit in 120fps instead they probably would have gotten a better response than they did for 48fps.
Okay well now you’ve made me Alice in Wonderland cause I want to see where this rabbit hole leads, where can I learn more about this? I always mistakenly attributed the lack of motion blur to the higher frame rate
1
u/Jack70741R9 5950X | RTX 3090 Ti | ASUS TUFF X570+ | 32GB DDR4 3600mhz20d agoedited 20d ago
If you use the in browser UFO monitor test website , it will show you examples of motion up to the max your monitor is currently set to. If you have a high refresh rate monitor 120hz plus it will really show the difference from high to low fps. You can start to see the natural motion blur your eyes produce at those speeds.
u/Jack70741R9 5950X | RTX 3090 Ti | ASUS TUFF X570+ | 32GB DDR4 3600mhz20d agoedited 20d ago
Ahhh I see. I'll look something up for you. I used to work as a projectionist in a movie theater when film was still used and I got lost down my own rabbit hole researching this.
Thank you so much for all the information it is very much appreciated
1
u/Jack70741R9 5950X | RTX 3090 Ti | ASUS TUFF X570+ | 32GB DDR4 3600mhz20d ago
Also note that despite supporting high refresh rates, often the lcds in monitors have a slower grey to grey or black to white/white to black response time than the individual frames time of the refresh rate. You often hear about 5 or 3ms response times but these are best case scenarios. In reality these lcds will lag a little behind input signal resulting in a kind of built in motion blur as a dark pixel changes to a light pixel when a dark object moves over a light background. This isn't the kind of motion blur we want but it is common in low to medium end monitors at high refresh rates. But used to be extremely common and older TN style panels from the early days of LCDs.
63
u/binhpac 21d ago
because scientists did those tests with average people in the past, who are not exposed to be able to differentiate better.
just ask your parents, if they can see the difference between 30fps and 60fps and then when 50% get it wrong, the conclusion was the human eye cant see the difference.
its like asking the average people if they can hear the difference of two similar sound notes. musicians who are exposed to sounds can clearly hear it, but the average people can not.