How many frames per second can the human eye really see?

In this PAX 2018 video sponsored by ASUS ROG, we break down the science behind one of PC gaming's endless debates: what FPS can the eye really see?

[@aftertheshowmoviepodcast]

The real question that should be asked is "Can a human hear what a guy is saying over dumb loud music on a youtube video?"

[@TransCatgirlPegger]

I get that the music is loud but you can clearly understand him

[@alilali4282]

kinda

[@DeviousHabie]

this made me laugh way harder than it should have

[@bumpyapex]

yesn't

[@DeviousHabie]

@@bumpyapex yes'm

[@dylana6244]

who thought it was a good idea to play the music this loud

[@angelikazimmer3932]

Music too loud.

[@davilsdavila]

Angelika Zimmer OMG yes! I'm not the only one.

[@Yantonio7]

dam right :S

[@LukeLunn]

beat me to it

[@toreyjones5715]

@@LukeLunn Volume slider?

[@Elad3000]

Complain too much.

[@wertygol125]

I don't know how many frames sees the human eye, but I know that the music is very loud and annoying.

[@justin-uf7xo]

"I read its around 240 lmfao " that guy was so confident in his bs

[@ShaaaShine]

Around 285 fps at max.

[@JD-jl4yy]

he is right you dipshit.

[@fahadsacrifice]

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

[@justin-uf7xo]

@@fahadsacrifice its like it dont matter how much science prove theres always gonna be that idiot trying to link irrelevant information...u cant see more then 60 fps just like u cant see infrared light spectrum take it or leave it

[@GoldeneyeDoubleO7]

Anyone who says they can't see the difference in frames is a liar

[@RPG_Bro]

alphamike Idiot gamer^

[@eyecoordination6876]

RPG Bro funny gamer^

[@JonJaded]

Or they really can't because their eyes aren't trained to see that fast.

[@pim1943]

Jade[d] If you can't even tell the difference between say, 40 and 90fps, there's something wrong with you. Now, trained military pilots need to have a quick reaction so they are trained to improve reflexes, maybe they can see up to 500 fps or something, I don't know. How such a test actually works is using a clip with a set time, with an object appearing on the screen for only one frame. The higher the refrwsh rate, the shorter that object is displayed. Eventually it will become too fast for humans to see. But no, just no. People that claim to not see over 60 fps, or even worse, saying there's no difference between 30 and 60, are just lying to comfort themselves maybe? No idea.

[@googol1664]

@@pim1943 reflexes are not the same as seeing at higher "FPS"

[@Adamski707A]

I actually find it hard to hear what this dude is saying. That background music is too high...

[@TyrranosVmV]

Good video but you fucked it up with such high background music volume. It was a struggle to hear what the dude was saying

[@volo7]

why is there a distractingly loud rap beat in the background while the guy is trying to explain a question scientifically?

[@revmaillet]

Your editor needs a talk... Can barely hear you over the music.

[@Scholar90]

the music too loud its impossiable to hear what the guy saying about FPS

[@jonathanpeck5743]

Whoever was responsible for mixing this audio should try harder.

[@Bossman.official]

This video is basically music with dialogue as the background noise. Turn that shit down.

[@pdaphuulz8219]

this is like studying in the club house.

[@brendanleach8971]

Eyes dont see in frames

[@jtktomb8598]

thank you, it's more about when we see the difference between a good and a bad framerate

[@Dribbleondo]

That's not what the video implies.

[@Kcimor78]

Brendan Leach Of course we do. If something is passing too fast you wont see all detail, theres a limit to what you can see, theres the range limit and the speed limit

[@Kcimor78]

Brendan Leach Yeah ur eyea must be absolute, you must be able to read a sign 1km away and must be able to read the sponsors on a f1 car passing by you

[@jtktomb8598]

do time happen in frames ? nope

[@Matthew1234567890m]

The real question is at what point will you defently see no difference

[@Kcimor78]

Matthew7991 Yeah there is a limit for sure

[@YaBoiFetz]

I own a 165hz monitor. I can clearly see the difference between 120hz and 144hz. The difference between 144hz and 165hz is nearly impossible to see. At least for me

[@Kcimor78]

DerMetzFetz Well the highest it gets the hardest it is to see a difference, o dont know how high it is byt our eyes must have a limit

[@YaBoiFetz]

Romick Vieira there is a limit but eyes don't work like "frames per second". So we can't give that limit a number

[@DatGrunt]

The US Airforce did a test on this and I believe they concluded the human eye can perceive things at upwards of 200FPS. Of course it also depends on the person. But there's a difference for sure.

[@xwaltranx]

Wtf the music can't even hear the man talking. Damn who edited that shit?

[@xwaltranx]

Oh and go and ask how many frames the F1 drivers see. Yeah.

[@Fogcitycine]

Anyone can absolutely see the difference between 24fps and 60fps. If you ever watch a movie or show at 60 fps, it would feel unnatural and hyper realistic. You wouldn't know why but you would definitely feel it. Telenovelas (Spanish soap operas) are filmed at 60fps so they can slow down dramatic moments if they need to without getting that choppy slow-mo look from 24fps and it gives it an iconic look that everyone is familiar with. You know right away it's a soap opera just by the look and feel.

[@markeldik7057]

In haven't finished this video yet, but at school I learned that up to about a 120 fps, depends a little per individual, we can see a difference after that we can't translate the images fast enough with or brains to keep up. (As our eyes don't see in FPS)

[@russellreeves202]

Brilliant, totally explains why when in a very fast accelerating vehicle your vision continually jumps rather than a smooth view.

[@Blav2]

i fucking love the blasting music lmao

[@ReactJSX]

one year old... weird that I just found this...

[@ClemmyGames]

As mentioned, music to way too loud. Adding subtitles will help!

[@vedomedo]

We're still having this conversation huh ?

[@Checkthisontube]

Most studies I came along showed people don't see/react to pictures that are exposed less then 10-15 ms. Therefore you should not be able to see above 100 fps with out missing some frames.

[@mememem]

those people at the beginning wew

[@mythicalsnake8656]

meme the last two gave me hope though

[@Inderastein]

Your profile tho

[@Conorp77]

You should rey-load this with the audio fixed

[@Thecupboardsareempty]

so basically, it depends on the stimuli. what you're looking at sets the number of "frames" your eyes take in.

[@yusky03]

It depends on the person just like some people for whatever reason can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. But gamers are not the best at detecting frame rates, fighter pilots are. That is were the 240fps limit some people refer to comes from. "The USAF, in testing their pilots for visual response time, used a simple test to see if the pilots could distinguish small changes in light. In their experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. Pilots were consistently able to "see" the afterimage as well as identify the aircraft. This simple and specific situation not only proves the ability to percieve 1 image within 1/220 of a second, but the ability to interpret higher FPS."

[@elimalinsky7069]

ChaosBlades you could get the same effect with successive flashes of the same image even at 1/500th of a second if the room is dark enough and the image is bright enough. Theoretically our eyes can detect even 1/1000th of a second, but our brains regard this as unimportant information and discards the image.

[@hmangaihaa3026]

Background music isn't a "background "music at all

[@erfanrahmani]

Why the music is too loud? I cant hear what he says!

[@markgreywolf642]

We couldn't hear your music. You should make the music's volume higher.

[@DozifJuggles]

The real question (since this question is kinda lame if it can have a "correct" answer of 13 or 500...) is how much does the number of FPS affect gameplay. The difference between 0 and 10 is easy to detect, the jump from 10 to 30 also very obvious, 30-60 is noticeable and obvious if you know what FPS even is, 60-120 is less pretty damn obvious and from 120-300 you can tell by the input latency approaching 1:1 despite getting diminishing returns on perceivable visual "smoothness". Anyone that argues that a limited framerate is better than a higher number is just plain wrong as input latency gets smaller and visual judder and choppiness decreases. The golden rule is the higher the better but also keeping in mind that consistency is key and having no torn frames, frame skipping, doubling etc. is very important. As long as we're talking about a perfectly synced repeated refresh rate of the same time frame (e.g. every frame is exactly 1ms not jumping between different frame times) the higher the better. In an ideal world, all games would run at 1000fps with no vsync and no screen tearing on a 1000hz screen. The argument of how resources are used in regards to visual quality vs performance is another thing however as sometimes your computer has to really degrade the visuals too much to look good to maintain a higher framerate (depending on your hardware.) personally I think the sweet spot is whatever allows you to play with a sharp, low level of aliasing image with as high of a framerate as your CPU and GPU will allow to maintain consistently. That's why in some games I will lock to 30, 45 or 60 to balance out how much resolution and graphics settings I can push and in other cases I will completely unlock and target anything above 100 even unlocked as it still feels better than a locked 60fps to me. The screen tearing is a big deal though as I don't have an adaptive sync monitor. The whole thing is personal taste as some people can't stand low res shadows, reflections, textures, screen resolution etc. and others do mind. Personally I will sacrifice framerate for graphics such as more realistic looking ambient occlusions like VXAO or HBAO over SSAO because I find the latter ugly looking and sometimes worse than none at all. Sometimes I don't mind playing at 900p if there's a good form of AA like TSSAA with sharpening and other times 1080p just doesn't cut it for me. TL;DR: the "how many fps can the human eye see?" debate is stupid, more interesting is what sacrifices are worth making quality-wise to achieve the desired balanced framerate. That's personal taste entirely so developers should give players as many options as possible in regards to tweaking this. Looking at you, Consoles.

[@gloriosatierra]

How many frames do my eyes have?

[@cheetopuffs2580]

How many frame rate we can see but how many frame rate in the real world

[@gemball8343]

Next up : How much decibel can the human ear really managed?

[@XL0RM]

Everyone complaining that the music is too loud to hear him must have a problem, I could hear him no problem on my phone.

[@JeanEstevez]

I got curious because i saw an helicopter blade and as it started spinning and gaining speed humans eye will see the blade spinning the other way and that would be the limit to motion we can see thats good way to do the test

[@Bazingagmd]

I can see the difference between 75fps and 60fps, however subtle it is

[@Steve-nu9op]

MIT says the brain can detect an image shown for 13ms (about 77 fps)

[@alegz.1319]

I can’t be the only one who is looking everywhere now

[@syLntscream]

yall obvs never been in the studio xD

[@TheMensCurlingChamp]

I've personally noticed a difference between 120 and 60 fps. I think we can see a pretty high fps.

[@someoneyoudontknowtrades]

Above 260hz theres nothing u can see

[@codebeat4192]

Interesting question. Have another: "How many frames do humans miss when blinking the eyes?" We almost do this constantly and we are not aware it happens so many times every minute of the day. The framerate doesn't have to be that fast because when blinking we doesn't seem to notice missing any information. I don't know how many milliseconds a blink takes and how many time we do it on a regular day however that could be an indicator how fast we can see things. Interesting, right?

[@booradleyfromthemovietokil1582]

code beat the reason you're not aware of it every time you blink is because of persistence of vision, which is the principle that when an image is shown to the eye for a very short time and then disappears, the retina retains the image for a very short time. This is also why movies don't appear to flicker, as our eyes fill in the gaps between frames, making them seem like completely fluid motions when in reality half the time we sit in a theatre we're staring at a completely dark screen.

[@ramzimoraliofficial7296]

i guess its the shutterspeed

[@unacomn]

Looking forward to the sequel to this. A show about sound quality in games, with lots of charts, where the image is overblown and nothing is actually visible.

[@sulaiman1630]

Did anyone even watch the video before uploading it?

[@futlongbaby8127]

The human eye can see in the thousands, if not infinite fps. If you can use a low intensity light or monitor that uses pulse width modulation, you can typically see multiples of your hand if you wave it in front of the monitor. Also, if you wave the light, you can see when the light pulses on and off, and the frequency it blinks at is essentially the fps. The limiting factor of percieved fps is essentially the processing hardware, i.e. the brain.

[@codyw1023]

i dont know if infinte fps is physicaly possible because of the dual particle/wave stuff. if you think of light as being made of distinct particles there would be a finite amount of information reaching your eye between any two moments. im no physisist, but infinite fps seems improbable.

[@futlongbaby8127]

@@codyw1023 infinite is an exaggeration of course, implying that we should be able to see whatever the maximum fps is. But it sure as hell isn't limited to monitor refresh rates. If anything, our fps perception would be limited by the amount of information our brains can process.

[@sonario6489]

Just curious, are you people perhaps just focusing on the music more than the words? Because I can hear everything very clearly. The music isn't too loud and it's not drowning out what he is talking about.

[@jockeyfield1954]

"at least 7"

[@joshualapuz1219]

So things lag in real life if there's an explosion? Coz you have 45 fps

[@wayneswirl]

You should play the background music even louder.

[@easter-nmgr4086]

I came here for solution but endedup being more confused🙄

[@Regiampiero1]

I can't tell the difference past 60sh fps. I can definitely tell when it drops to the 30s, so somewhere between 30 and 60 sounds right.

[@_mark_3814]

Giampiero Serra r u sure it's not just cuz you have a 60 hz monitor lol.

[@Regiampiero1]

@@_mark_3814 I have a 144hz monitor and play around 120 fps.

[@_mark_3814]

Giampiero Serra you are blind if you can't see past 60. When I play valorant with 80 fps it looks way more choppy than 120

[@Regiampiero1]

@@_mark_3814 notice I said I don't notice the difference and you replied you do. Ever heard of prospective and subjectivity you doorknob?

[@_mark_3814]

Giampiero Serra notice I said you are blind if you cant

[@gameoverjit5565]

Your eyes are capped at a number but it’s it’s hertz is infinite

[@ayush9407]

Nice music video

[@LilSheeep]

he didnt answer it lol

[@sayresyDevino]

Interesting but spoiled by the background music being too high in volume - thus detracting from what the dude was explaining.

[@wabelal7433]

Nice music piece. But the talking guy in the background ruined it for me.

[@lemonas332]

Jesus F****** Crist, where's the sound design? XD

[@AlexanderTheBest]

3:51 that kid might be me in 5/18/2020

[@hayabusa09]

Liked for Jarred w/ two R's :D

[@Mboy556]

Above 100fps for shure :P but depends if your monitor can display more then 60 😂

[@TemenosL]

Could barely hear you over the music.

[@timodhdesilva1438]

Music is too load

[@obsidiansnow3790]

Why run 1440 on a 1080 monitor? Because the monitor will take the average of all the pixels it can't show resulting in a clearer more color accurate image (in essence). With more frames being displayed at once the brain will make a more fluid estimate of what that movement looks like. For me, it's not about who is right. If you give an exact number, you're already wrong. "How many FPS can the human eye see" is the wrong question to ask if you want to have a rudimentary understanding of how we physiologically process visuals. Also someone tell whoever edited the audio that the music is way too loud if they haven't already been told a hundred times.

[@dragon_warrior_]

4:17 is what you want to know

[@estb-ip6en]

How many decibels of distractingly beats can the human ear differentiate from speech?

[@FINALB]

Ask to the console peasants.

[@someoneyoudontknowtrades]

Lol 😂😂😂

[@racinguniverse]

i can notice the difference between 59 hertz and 60 but past 60 hertz there's no difference for me

[@AndrewB23]

No you can't that's way too close of hz bud

[@robyfaraa4105]

you are lying

[@FloppyDobbys]

The answer is that the question is a shitty question. Here is my reason why... There is a massive difference between ["noticing" something CONSCIOUSLY] vs. [UNCONSCIOUS data processing]. You may not be able to tell someone why something looks different (possibly due to the frame time delta), but it "feels" different. Being able to correctly [identify object types] (like noticing the thing you are looking at is a dog) is going to be FAR FAR SLOWER than being able to correctly [identify whether an object is stationary or not] (obviously we NOT talking about quantum or relativistic masses or times). These distinct tasks will require excitation of distinct sets of nervous tissue that evolved at different times in the history of our ancestors. Certain types of processing may require more / less time. This diagram can show how data transmission can "short-circuit" in order to communicate more quickly with other tissues. A better question is: Given a specific task, what is the frame-rate with which performance no longer increases due to increase in frame-rate.

[@SuarSatya]

when music guy, hate hardware guy

[@Nekminute]

500 FPS DUHHHHH monitors need to catch up

[@rudolphsteiner6797]

Yeah... totally.. why not push it up to 10,000 frames per second? I mean just push the tech so far past anything you can ever detect right? I mean your sound card should be about to output 700khz too right?? with like .000004 THD... Who cares that only your dog might hear it...

[@RafaelFerlugaNeseriinerealno]

Theres already 360hz

[@Nekminute]

@@RafaelFerlugaNeseriinerealno bought a G9 oddysey couple weeks ago im happy at 120 hz with HDR it can push 240Hz though but will need a beefy gpu to run at that

[@RafaelFerlugaNeseriinerealno]

@@Nekminute noice

[@willd.8040]

Wow. Who edited this video? A slightly deaf intern? Holy crap the background music is loud.

[@futlongbaby8127]

It's so blindingly loud.

[@hackzyk9210]

Music:80% Voice:20%

[@johnnyvoidgaming8824]

I can see 3000+ fps I can see my 240hz monitor flickering light on to moving objects. if you move a object across the screen at the speed of 240 fps its REALLY slow on the ufo test. if you go 3000+ its more the speed I see things in real life butt still supper slow and its super blurry on the screen. but My reaction time is quite low especially if I need to think about it.

[@johnnyvoidgaming8824]

also if you can see like this you should use your neck not just your eyes as the eye dr said my eye walls where tarring as a kid do to my eyes moving to fast.

[@fromuck5921]

Individual.

[@aceemulation4446]

We see in four different dimensions which one of them allows us to see in color. That's why we are not colorblind like animals are. Our minds are capable of fast thinking and Free Will and have almost an endless amount of storage for knowledge. Even though computer seem like they run faster that's because mechanical computers work different than our biological brains. We really don't know how many frames we can see but we know it could be over a thousand or more. In the long run we really don't know.

[@codyw1023]

i believe every claim in this comment to be incorrect.

[@RCmies]

Why did they both say 45fps in the beginning? What the fuck

[@danesmith4227]

Lies, I can tell the moment my screen drops 5fps from 60 to 55. And the moment I watch a video in 30fps and 60fps I can tell the different,it's like night and day

[@duccypod8935]

Can we see? i7 gen RTX 2080ti 32gbs of ram 240hz monitor

[@someoneyoudontknowtrades]

No but we can see 4k 120hz

[@TheTechChef420]

music is way to loud

[@Maxran50]

Some experts say 30 fps. So why we can tell the difference between 30 and 60?

[@barrythe4th]

Sense of illusion

[@elimalinsky7069]

It has nothing to do with being analog or digital. The displayed images are the same light sources refreshing at different speeds and having one analog or digital doesn't make a difference. TV analog broadcasting in 50 or 60 herz is noticeably smoother than 24fps films. While he makes a valid point about the brain processing images at lower than 20hz (don't know how he got to exactly 13hz, since neural signals are variable), our brains have this wonderful function called "vision persistence". Our eyes move rapidly across the image to collect as much information as possible at any given moment. Each two points our eyes dot across are filled up with information in between that our eyes didn't actually see in full detail, but our brain is able to complete by fusing data from every focal point our eyes focused on during the movement of our eyes. Our brain takes in data about changes in color and brightness during that less than 20hz processing time and determines which changes happened in which succession within each point we've focused on during each cycles of the rapid dotting of our eyes across the image. Then the brain decides to which extent to apply the vision persistence to make it look smoother in our brain. In other words, our brain processes the same amount of information whether we're looking at 30, 60 or 120 herz moving image, but it is how this information is perceived in our brains that different amounts of vision persistence are applied. Our eyes have no actual limit to this, but beyond 300hz this effects is progressively minimized to the point of no distinction.

[@abel7782]

the music is way too loud

[@TimmacTR]

TL;DR?

[@timothyforeverfun]

I overclocked my eye and I got ∞ fps

[@thesharky]

The answer is: Unlimited

[@eiog9628]

bruh it would be even over a million or even more who knows lol

[@n0b0dy_know]

Your production is Low quality.

[@Kurtiboy24]

i buy the new lg 32zoll wqhd 144hz amd freesync 2 600€ yay

[@eballack4697]

Whaattt ? I can't hear !

[@conesinker_4209]

1000 FPS no more no less

[@sriram97]

guess every one has vsync n in their brain which capes the mat 45

[@BigDiesel91]

have no one in the fucking office ever decided to watch the video before uploading it? holy shit... come on. that music is too fucking loud...

[@aphexon.]

Around 60

[@yeoldegamer5112]

Why is it some video editors always think it's cool to put annoying music over commentary or explanations? Is that some kind of in-joke they learn at school?

[@johnnyandrew4515]

IT's 1000 frames per second

[@JimmyStark77]

1000HZ

[@mauriciocortespersonal]

the music is annoying and too loud