You clearly didn't read the entire article. The entire point of the article was to show that the "FPS war" was ridiculous. They key being this statement... Please, show me a single scientific study that shows that humans can process full images at over 80fps... and I'll shut up. I've shown two separate studies, and a handful of blog posts. How am I supposed to know what you mean? You evidently think you have super-human eyes that can see over 80fps.
Nowhere in that article does it state a person can't perceive above 80fps. Again, you're just posting **** to post. Like I said...I'm over it, last post from me. In fact on the contrary it states things like this:
Actually, the human eye will typically top out in the mid-30s to 40s. Look at the graph. Your point of focus and sharpest vision is within the 1-2 degree radius, where it shows a sub-40 Hz. It'll reach higher when the light is super intense, but nothing really does and that's all for threshold testing purposes anyway. Keep in mind that TV is filmed at 24 fps. That is far below threshold but we don't see it as stop-motion. But, whatever, you guys are clearly just arguing because you're in a pissing match.
He linked one image, and you think that people all of a sudden can't discern a 60hz refresh rate? His own article clearly states flicker at 120hz can affect a person. Wow and wow. Again, why are we even talking about television? This entire conversation arose out of a discussion of refresh rate for VIDEO GAMES, which is COMPLETELY different.
This link which I posted earlier - http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/User:Eugene_M._Izhikevich/Proposed/Flicker_fusion and which is referenced by the article you have an issue with sources several scientific laws, that show that the "average human observer" can distinguish between 50 and 60fps. The Ferry-Porter law and the Granit-Harper law. I can't help you read, sorry. DUDE! It is scientific law.
Let's go TitanFall! (my futile attempt to get this thread back on track and less awkward) I hope I get selected for the beta, but I haven't heard anything as of yet.
I'm with you, done talking about the other drivel. There's a lot of people playing on twitch right now. One person said he believes some invites will go out tonight. Most of the players I've seen are seriously awful. http://www.twitch.tv/sombrero19 Watch some of this guy's VODs. He's actually got a grasp of the game. He's playing from singapore with 400ping at points and still ripping it up.
Blah blah blah blah. So you don't even know what a scientific law is, but you're still going? You're discussing theories, not law. Here, let me help you: A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspect of the world. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements. Factual and well-confirmed statements like "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered too specific to qualify as scientific laws.
You brought up refresh rates quite a few times before our little back and forth went down... Then there was a comparison from another post about console gamers... The bottom line is, you can live in a fantasy world where you can utilize all 120hz of a monitor in a 2D game - because scientifically and biologically it isn't possible. The human eye can't discern past 80fps, and the average human can't distinguish past 60fps. So stop spewing BS about inferior 60hz monitors and displays when they are more than ample for the vast majority of the people on the planet. Maybe you're a pigeon and can see 100fps?
Those scientific laws I posted make it impossible for you to see over 80fps. It's math, so it may be hard to you. As I asked earlier... find me one single scientific study or fact that says humans can see over 80fps. Just one.
That last quote isn't even from me, dumbass. I stand by everything else that I said. I said nothing about console gaming in comparison to PC. And again you have yet to post a "scientific law" you've posted theories. None of which you actually read, you simply googled and said oh here's an article about human perception of flicker or motion processing. I'm just going to put you on ignore, you're wasting my time.
I didn't say it was from you, I said "then there was..." It even lists the guy's name. My posts weren't only meant for you. I replied to the other guy twice as well. You asked why were were discussing it, I provided an answer. You can stand by what you said, but you're wrong. Go for it. I'll be the "dumbass" whose argument is backed by scientific study, that is taught in freaking textbooks.
Look, it's not about how many frames your damn eyes can see, it is the perceived smoothness that entails from having a high frame rate as opposed to a lower frame rate. 120 frames on your screen is SMOOTHER than that of 30 frames on your screen. FACT. I can see the difference. I can see the difference between 120 and 60. I can see the difference between 20 and 40. Everything is smoother at higher frame rates, period.
Don't bother. Your eyes are completely wrong, this guy is a genius and knows everything about every subject. It's scientific law, bro.
As I said earlier, what you are seeing in choppiness isn't a direct effect of the FPS. You have another variable in the mix. A setting, a driver or system performance from the CPU, memory or hard drive - or network. Check this out... Still waiting on you to point me to anything that actually supports your argument. Other than "I CAN TELL!"
The issue has never been human vision, simply how LCD monitors display images. I'm not going to expound further, if you have a problem with it that's your business. http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/motion_blur.htm 60 Hz Refresh rate: Each refresh is displayed continuously for a full 1/60 second (16.7ms) 120 Hz Refresh rate: Each refresh is displayed continuously for a full 1/120 second (8.3ms) This creates 50% less motion blur. This includes regular and overclocked 120Hz. 120 Hz with LightBoost The backlight is strobed briefly, once per refresh, eliminating sample-and-hold. With LightBoost, 120fps @ 120Hz has 85% to 92% less motion blur than 60Hz.
http://us.hardware.info/reviews/459...s-prefers-120-hz-monitors-conclusion#comments Don't worry dude, no one can tell the difference, god you're dumb.
404 bro. And I never said you can't distinquish the difference between 60, 120 and 240hz. You can tell the difference between 120-240hz TVs as it gives it a "surreal" look - which I mentioned above. That doesn't change the fact that you can't see more than 80fps. You can skip around the main argument all you want, but you haven't given me any proof to the contrary. And you won't. Hardware.info is a great source by the way. Can't wait for you to pull something from a .US domain next. I've provided a government funded study, technological white papers, pieces from scientists and two mathematical and scientific laws that prove my argument. You gave me WikiPedia and Hardware.info dead link.
