🛈 Announcement
Greetings! The Division forums are now archived and accessible in read-only mode, please go to the new platform to discuss the game
  1. #11
    TRU-_-LY-YOURS's Avatar Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Baltimore, Maryland
    Posts
    230
    Hope you all are enjoying your experience with the Ps4. Like I said I will be getting one on September 9, I knew if I waited they would come out with a new color. Plus it would give enough time to fix any bugs.
    Share this post

  2. #12

    Wow Super human

    Originally Posted by moosestang Go to original post
    if the game wasn't downgraded because of your inferior consoles i would be getting this game for the glorious PC and play it at true 1080 and over 100 fps. while you will be playing it at downgraded graphics 30 fps and and sub HD quality. but you console noob pay 60 dollars for every crap game so have fun with it. on a side note good thing i got watch dogs for free (because pc has those kinds of deals) or i would be more pissed of for ubisoft downgrading.
    You must be one of the fastest humans on earth because from what I remember is that humans see at about 30 FPS, whereas the faster common house fly can see at 120 FPS. so unless you can actually see and react to 100 FPS you don't need to flame console users because your parents bought you a ridiculous fast computer for the basement.
    Share this post

  3. #13
    Cortexian's Avatar Volunteer Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,875
    Originally Posted by Revelation_216 Go to original post
    You must be one of the fastest humans on earth because from what I remember is that humans see at about 30 FPS, whereas the faster common house fly can see at 120 FPS. so unless you can actually see and react to 100 FPS you don't need to flame console users because your parents bought you a ridiculous fast computer for the basement.
    Humans don't see in frame rates, our eyes are not cameras. I'm gonna go ahead and quote you this:
    Myelinated nerves can fire between 300 to 1000 times per second in the human body and transmit information at 200 miles per hour. What matters here is how frequently these nerves can fire (or "send messages").

    The nerves in your eye are not exempt from this limit. Your eyes can physiologically transmit data that quickly and your eyes/brain working together can interpret up to 1000 frames per second.

    However, we know from experimenting (as well as simple anecdotal experience) that there is a diminishing return in what frames per second people are able to identify. Although the human eye and brain can interpret up to 1000 frames per second, someone sitting in a chair and actively guessing at how high a framerate is can, on average, interpet up to about 150 frames per second.

    The point: 60 fps is not a 'waste'. 120 fps is not a 'waste' (provided you have a 120hz monitor capable of such display). There IS a very noticable difference between 15 fps and 60 fps. Many will say there IS a noticeable difference between 40 and 60 fps. Lastly, the limit of the human eye is NOT as low as 30-60 fps. It's just not.

    The origin of the myth: The origin of the myth probably has to do with limitations of television and movies. Movies, when they were recorded on film reel, limited themselves to 24 frames per second for practical purposes. If there is a diminishing return in how many frames people can claim to actually notice, then the visual difference between 24 fps and 60 fps could not justify DOUBLING the amount of film reel required to film a movie.

    With the advent of easy digital storage, these limitations are mostly arbitrary anymore.

    The numbers often cited as the mythological "maximum" the eye can see are 30 fps, 40 fps, and 60 fps.

    I would guess the 60 fps "eye-seeing" limit comes from the fact that most PC monitors (and indeed many televisions now) have a maximum refresh rate of 60hz (or 60 frames per second). If a monitor has that 60 fps limit, the monitor is physically incapable of displaying more than 60 fps. This is one of the purposes of frame limiting, Vsync and adjusting refresh rate in video games.

    tl;dr: The human eye can physiologically detect up to 1000 frames per second. The average human, tasked with detecting what framerate he/she is looking at, can accurately guess up to around 150 fps. That is, they can see the difference in framerates all the way to 150 fps.
    Now, the reason they say that a human can only reasonably guess frame rates up to 150 FPS actually has nothing to due with the eye or the speed of data transmitted along nerves. It has everything to do with how fast your BRAIN can actually process that data. You could be fed 1000 FPS video but your brain effectively "filters out" the frames that it doesn't need in order to process a smooth and fluid image. So the limit to human detection when it comes to Hz and Frame Rate has nothing to do with they eye, and everything to do with how fast your brain processes the data your eye sends it.
    Share this post

  4. #14
    Originally Posted by Freelancer852 Go to original post
    Now, the reason they say that a human can only reasonably guess frame rates up to 150 FPS actually has nothing to due with the eye or the speed of data transmitted along nerves. It has everything to do with how fast your BRAIN can actually process that data. You could be fed 1000 FPS video but your brain effectively "filters out" the frames that it doesn't need in order to process a smooth and fluid image. So the limit to human detection when it comes to Hz and Frame Rate has nothing to do with they eye, and everything to do with how fast your brain processes the data your eye sends it.
    To be fair. isn't that what "seeing" really is...... Processing information in the visible light spectrum and not just the eyes capturing light and sending it to the brain. Your eyes and the nerves are just the vehicle through which data passes. Seeing is the process of taking that data and putting it into terms you understand. Considering your brain actually needs so little fps to see a fluid image, is the pursuit of higher FPS really justified? I would much rather game makers put more effort into story and gameplay mechanics than worry about the frame rate. What good is a beautiful game with super smooth video if the story is lame and the controls are awkward? I know there are people who will disagree, but I just don't "see" it.
    Share this post