The eye can physically see much more like 1500+fps but your eye doesn't have a refresh rate. It shouldn't be calculated in fps because our eyes see more of a constant image. Most brains can only see 45~fps and different parts of your eyes see faster than others. Even the corners of your eyes don't see in complete colour and I know this for sure because I mix and sell paint for a living. I deal with colour matching every day. The corners of your eyes also tend to see faster with less detail.
144fps, 75fps, and 60fps isn't a waste though. Your technically getting a smoother image with more fps if your monitor and gaming rig supports it. The problem is that most TV's don't support this or have more than 5ms input lag. Especially 4k displays, they tend to have more input lag because of the intense amount of pixels. So really 4k is only good for movies at 24fps IMO and should be fine because 24fps still looks smooth to the human eye.
As I have said before in this thread is that frame jumps or lags when frames jump from 60 to 40 to 20 to 60 fps is when it's truly noticeable. This is usually when there is an explosion in the game or a lot of items in the game need to be rendered.
If Sony and the game developers can get at least 30fps all the time and 60 fps on titles like Furi, CoD, or any other fast paced action game then there shouldnt be any complaints.
If someone is still complaining about not getting 4k 60fps then obviously the $400 ps4 pro isn't for them and I'd recommend spending $1200 on a nice custom 4k gaming rig. It's not something you can get with $400 console.
My biggest complaint is no 4k blueray player but the console does have 4k streaming capabilities so it may be good enough. I think the PS4 slim is a better buy than the pro being cheaper, smaller and less stupid looking. I'm not a big fan of the design that Sony chose for the new consoles and the Gloss and matte finish from the OPS4 is much more pleasing to look at.
Yes, you are far more consciously aware of framerates when there's a difference, as our brain is a lot better at distinguishing between active changes rather than detached comparisons.
I worry you seem to conflate the ability to consciously distinguish between frames and the effect of higher frame rates has on your eye/brain. Your brain recognizes a certain frame-per-second as movement. This is roughly where movies do their thing (24, more or less), and why we see that frame-rate as "cinematic".The higher the frame-rate, the closer to "real" your brain understands it. Yes, there's a diminishing return, but you shouldn't confuse diminishing returns with "eh, doesn't matter".
If we're talking about frame-rate as being a means to increase your reaction time, as part of your post suggest, then that's a huge distinction that needs to be made. Your reaction time needs consistency and minimum requirements (30fps? 60fps?) more than it needs higher frame-rate. If that's your point, I agree...but you should probably have mentioned that's what your talking about
And I agree, the weakest link of the chain determines the FPS, etc (content, device, cables, tv, receiver). But if you have all the things, then you're going to see a qualitative difference, even if you can't quite place your finger on it.
tl;dr: fps makes movement look smoother and more real. More legit. beyond 30-60fps and consistency, I don't expect higher frames per second has any effect on reaction time.
edit: It looks like some research shows 240fps is "around the limits" to perception of smoothness. So 300fps is the upper limit of conceivable usability in tech
@
Xdqwerty:
