5 ms·

> You know that argument that people used to have about 30 fps versus 60 fps? “The human eye can’t see the difference” and you don’t need more than 30 frames pe

> You know that argument that people used to have about 30 fps versus 60 fps? “The human eye can’t see the difference” and you don’t need more than 30 frames per second. By now you know better. What a weird opener; if there's a topic that's plagued by anecdotal evidence it's this.

milkey_mouse 5y ago
I think that's the author's point. They aren't endorsing the "human eye can't see the difference" thing, it's just become a myth gamers love to debunk. I've heard more people mention it mockingly/sarcastically than I've ever seen claim there is no difference between 30 and 60 fps unironically.
smoldesu 5y ago
Maybe, but it sounds like this article is written more for a discerning competitive gamer than someone interested in the internals of a keyboard. To that point, you'd have a pretty hard time arguing that they'd be at a competitive disadvantage for playing at a higher refresh rate.
munchbunny 5y ago
The paragraph immediately following what you quoted gives links to the papers and analysis that support these conclusions. Bit of an odd opener, but at least the author backs it up.
NoPicklez 5y ago
I don't think it's an odd opener at all as it assumes the reader knows the argument and that by now they should know better (that its not true). It's probably a fairly fitting opener given that it then dives into perception of input latency, which is a less common or discussed topic.
GuB-42 5y ago
While 60 fps is definitely better than 30 it is actually a complex subject and in some cases, it doesn't makes that much of a difference. The big reason why gaming may look terrible at 30 fps mostly has to do with temporal aliasing, in other words, the lack of proper motion blur. For example if you look at a car going quickly from left to right in most games, you will see multiple copies of the car instead of a smooth trail, as if it was shot with a strobe light. Modern graphics engines can do motion blur but it is a hack. As an experiment, I tried doing it properly with very simple objects and it definitely looked smooth even at low FPS. But there is a caveat. While it may look good if you are just staring at the screen, things start to fall apart when you start tracking objects with your eyes. The blur becomes apparent. You then have the option to trade blurriness for smoothness by adjusting shutter speed. It is the same kind of trade-off you can have when resizing an image: blurry or pixelated. And then, there are jitter, tearing, artistic considerations, etc...

milkey_mouse 5y ago

I think that's the author's point. They aren't endorsing the "human eye can't see the difference" thing, it's just become a myth gamers love to debunk. I've heard more people mention it mockingly/sarcastically than I've ever seen claim there is no difference between 30 and 60 fps unironically.

smoldesu 5y ago

Maybe, but it sounds like this article is written more for a discerning competitive gamer than someone interested in the internals of a keyboard. To that point, you'd have a pretty hard time arguing that they'd be at a competitive disadvantage for playing at a higher refresh rate.

munchbunny 5y ago

The paragraph immediately following what you quoted gives links to the papers and analysis that support these conclusions. Bit of an odd opener, but at least the author backs it up.

NoPicklez 5y ago

I don't think it's an odd opener at all as it assumes the reader knows the argument and that by now they should know better (that its not true). It's probably a fairly fitting opener given that it then dives into perception of input latency, which is a less common or discussed topic.

GuB-42 5y ago

While 60 fps is definitely better than 30 it is actually a complex subject and in some cases, it doesn't makes that much of a difference. The big reason why gaming may look terrible at 30 fps mostly has to do with temporal aliasing, in other words, the lack of proper motion blur. For example if you look at a car going quickly from left to right in most games, you will see multiple copies of the car instead of a smooth trail, as if it was shot with a strobe light. Modern graphics engines can do motion blur but it is a hack. As an experiment, I tried doing it properly with very simple objects and it definitely looked smooth even at low FPS. But there is a caveat. While it may look good if you are just staring at the screen, things start to fall apart when you start tracking objects with your eyes. The blur becomes apparent. You then have the option to trade blurriness for smoothness by adjusting shutter speed. It is the same kind of trade-off you can have when resizing an image: blurry or pixelated. And then, there are jitter, tearing, artistic considerations, etc...