pepe2907 :
@bystander
What I believe is that it was scientifically proven /for quite long time/ people are unable to see what is drawn in a picture, shown for up to 1/24 sec between other frames.
Meaning - if you are able to notice a frame with such a problem, it's presented to you for a time, longer than enough to notice it. Meaning what you see is stuttering in mid-frame /and I don't know of a particular reason stuttering to happen on full frames only/.
Meaning the problem you have is with stuttering and this won't help much with it /may even make it worse/, but at least you'll be able to enjoy a perfect frame /although for a bit longer/ when that happens /and then it will jump more/.
Should also mention that I had a few years of experience in RT visual presentation&simulation of events - mostly for safety&hazards management and training /at least part of it provable/.
And also - do I believe in advertising - yes, I do; do I believe in /accuracy of/ everything, what's being advertised - no, I don't, but I also believe there are people who do /believe/ - I usually call those people idiots /:sarcasm/, but that's a personal opinion.
Ah, and just cant miss to mention, I remember how I watched how W Vista was mass advertised /and "tested"/ before release /and the same again with the new magic W8 Metro UI/ - at the time I even was banned from a "tech" site /it's extremetech/ for opposing the advertised opinion.
😉
I agree that humans vision is more complicated than most thing.
I think both you and bystander is right, because things measured different aspects of human vision:
- FACT: Most human eyes CAN'T tell 30Hz versus 60Hz flicker when staring stationary at it (no eye movement), in a darkened room. Scientifically proven.
- FACT: Most human eyes CAN tell apart 500fps@500Hz versus 1000fps@1000Hz indirectly, during motion tests in ideal circumstances, via indirect effects such as motion blur effects & the stroboscopic effects (e.g. wagonwheel effect, mousedropping effect). Scientifically proven. There are people who see DLP rainbows, PWM dimming artifacts, wagonwheel effects, motion blur effects (1ms persistence = 1 pixel of motion blurring during 1000 pixels/second), and many indirect side effects of of finite-refresh-rate displays.
Sounds contradictory? No -- the two above facts measure completely separate things. They are multiple separate scientific effects, which means you are correct & I am correct -- But for very different reasons. Humans ceases to see the stop-motion effect above around 30fps (approximately); everything above roughly around there (give or take; the number varies depending on science paper) -- looks like real motion instead of stop-motion. That's why a lot people think playing at less than 30fps is "unplayable" while playing at 30fps-and-above is "playable" (but obviously, higher the better!). However, there are other effects that going well above 30fps, even well above 120fps@120Hz, still continues to benefit human vision in different ways, for different reasons.
Let's consider the very extreme theoretical holodeck turing test ("I can't believe I was actually standing in Holodeck!") in attempting to distinguish virtual imagery from real-life imagery. In such a test, you really need refreshrateless displays or ultrahigh-refresh-rate displays. Frame rates and refresh rates are human inventions, as there is no other real way to display motion on a screen. Human eyes do not operate with a refresh rate, and real life does not have a frame rate -- objects in continuous motion are never static at any different instant.