Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.5K

fighter pilots can see at 1/220 to as high as 1/255

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

from link...

"With our outstanding human visual, we can see in billions of colors (although it has been tested that women see as much as 30% more colors than men do. Our eyes can indeed perceive well over 200 frames per second from a simple little display device (mainly so low because of current hardware, not our own limits)."

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.

From the above I go into the world of gaming (the above was just to show - nothing professional). It's possible to see 1/220th or even up to 1/255th (as high as I've heard myself) of a second on a screen from what I understand myself.

240 Hz (up to 240 frames per second)

Max I want to say is around 1/300th to 1/350th the human eye can see to me personally, but IDK. That would also probably be someone kind of rare for the most part to me personally or might just have that ability themselves while others struggle to do this especially as you get more frames per second or go into the 300+ realm alone.

I'm not a professional or anything like that. This is my theory alone. People say 240 Hz monitors are useless for the most part or many do at least, but I think in a video game situation especially a sniper situation the human eye might pick a frame at 1/240th of a second or 1 frame from 240 in a second on a 240 Hz monitor that helps them to get a perfect (basically) snipe on someone or to be able to snipe someone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ynOxHDFXx0

I think though 120 Hz / 144 Hz works just fine for gaming, but if you wanted to be in the 240 Hz realm for gaming it might help you out one day in a video game (I'd figure it's rare though if not extremely rare).

This is just a theory to as well. It's not meant to be professional just my video game theory and that's it.

Figure it could easily help me in rocket league especially when it comes to the ball updating as fast as possible for my eye (human eye) to be able to see it in the air so I can hit it with my car or vehicle. I don't play many shooters myself anymore or it's rare usually. The one shooter I could of used a 240 Hz monitor for would be PUBG (trying to see the invisible bumps while driving the car at max speed). So I can see the invisible bump and don't flip my car and have it explode after driving for 2 minutes to make the next circle as well as being close to the next circle after that (joking). Why the bikes with the bathtub (1940s slang for sidecar) on the side were always the best.

This is due to how important the time factor is since hitting the ball wrong could easily mess up the entire play while in the air is how I view it myself personally.

My rocket league montage (again). I'm not the best at rocket league (obviously), but I don't have the time to play rocket league for the most part or to play rocket league all the time. Also I forgot to mute the sound while making the video.

https://streamable.com/1yprx

Side note:

I'm at 60 Hz or 60 Frames per second basically with my 4k monitor, but I bought this a year ago when 120 Hz / 144 Hz were really rare for the most part or expensive for that matter. First one didn't come out until May of 2018 and that had a $1,500 price tag or so from what I understand. I bought my monitor in oct / nov of 2018.

I'll probably upgrade to a 5k 120 Hz / 5k 144 Hz at some point and stay with that for a while. Probably can get a decent 5k - 120 Hz or 5k 144 Hz monitor / gaming monitor for under $500 that's 32-34 inch in 2 years or so time frame or around here. Might be longer than that, but I'm just waiting until then. I don't have a 5k camera though myself so there's really no point.

fighter pilots can see at 1/220 to as high as 1/255 http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html from link... "With our outstanding human visual, we can see in billions of colors (although it has been tested that women see as much as 30% more colors than men do. Our eyes can indeed perceive well over 200 frames per second from a simple little display device (mainly so low because of current hardware, not our own limits)." 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. ----- From the above I go into the world of gaming (the above was just to show - nothing professional). It's possible to see 1/220th or even up to 1/255th (as high as I've heard myself) of a second on a screen from what I understand myself. 240 Hz (up to 240 frames per second) Max I want to say is around 1/300th to 1/350th the human eye can see to me personally, but IDK. That would also probably be someone kind of rare for the most part to me personally or might just have that ability themselves while others struggle to do this especially as you get more frames per second or go into the 300+ realm alone. I'm not a professional or anything like that. This is my theory alone. People say 240 Hz monitors are useless for the most part or many do at least, but I think in a video game situation especially a sniper situation the human eye might pick a frame at 1/240th of a second or 1 frame from 240 in a second on a 240 Hz monitor that helps them to get a perfect (basically) snipe on someone or to be able to snipe someone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ynOxHDFXx0 ----- I think though 120 Hz / 144 Hz works just fine for gaming, but if you wanted to be in the 240 Hz realm for gaming it might help you out one day in a video game (I'd figure it's rare though if not extremely rare). This is just a theory to as well. It's not meant to be professional just my video game theory and that's it. Figure it could easily help me in rocket league especially when it comes to the ball updating as fast as possible for my eye (human eye) to be able to see it in the air so I can hit it with my car or vehicle. I don't play many shooters myself anymore or it's rare usually. The one shooter I could of used a 240 Hz monitor for would be PUBG (trying to see the invisible bumps while driving the car at max speed). So I can see the invisible bump and don't flip my car and have it explode after driving for 2 minutes to make the next circle as well as being close to the next circle after that (joking). Why the bikes with the bathtub (1940s slang for sidecar) on the side were always the best. This is due to how important the time factor is since hitting the ball wrong could easily mess up the entire play while in the air is how I view it myself personally. My rocket league montage (again). I'm not the best at rocket league (obviously), but I don't have the time to play rocket league for the most part or to play rocket league all the time. Also I forgot to mute the sound while making the video. https://streamable.com/1yprx ----- Side note: I'm at 60 Hz or 60 Frames per second basically with my 4k monitor, but I bought this a year ago when 120 Hz / 144 Hz were really rare for the most part or expensive for that matter. First one didn't come out until May of 2018 and that had a $1,500 price tag or so from what I understand. I bought my monitor in oct / nov of 2018. I'll probably upgrade to a 5k 120 Hz / 5k 144 Hz at some point and stay with that for a while. Probably can get a decent 5k - 120 Hz or 5k 144 Hz monitor / gaming monitor for under $500 that's 32-34 inch in 2 years or so time frame or around here. Might be longer than that, but I'm just waiting until then. I don't have a 5k camera though myself so there's really no point.

(post is archived)

[–] • 2 pts
[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

Someone finally made a video about this type of stuff.

I've been wondering about this the last 4 years or so.

[–] • 2 pts

I’m not a fan of LTT clickbait, but they do post interesting stuff, from time to time.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt (edited )

LTT is gambling to me personally. He's gotten it severely wrong before by saying there's no difference (basically) between 60 Hz and 120 Hz / 144Hz.

LTT is gambling, but he redeems himself or does eventually usually though if he gets it wrong. As time plays out odds are in your favor usually.

I don't think he's not capable to do what he does, but I have trust issues with him. He's definitely capable of doing tech videos and such, but he does get it wrong.

Back when he worked for NCIX...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWEpIwNDeCA

It might prove that it was NCIX holding him back a bit since they might of set this up, but I don't know myself.

People like to attack him (I usually don't care enough to do so), but I don't watch him that much myself to really know. I'm neutral to him usually anyways. At least he can usually point me in the right direction though if I do check out any of his content and it usually gets me to where I need to go.

[–] • 2 pts

First FPS and Hz are not the same thing.

Frames per second are what the GPU can produce.

Hz is what the monitor can display. Hertz being one cycle a 240hz monitor can cycle 240 times per second.

Can you see the difference in FPS on a 240/144/60 Hz monitor with only 30fps from GPU? Yes, and it will come in the form of a scan line effect and ghosting. Obviously higher Hz will eliminate the scan line effect.

**Also response time in pixels eliminates ghosting but if you’re using 120hz and above monitors almost all have 1ms response time.

Can you tell the difference at 60FPs Vs 30FPS at 60Hz yes you can.

If the GPU could theoretically produce 240FPS and run on a 240Hz screen would you rather have that than 60FPS and 60Hz? What if the FPS varies could the screen vary (Gsync,FreeSync)

Could you say exactly what FPS you were playing with and what Hz the screen was without any indication? no probably not, but you could tell something was lower after having the experience. That is the true issue. Having higher refresh isn’t noticeably better if you haven’t had the experience.

For a normal singer player game with maxed settings it doesn’t really matter. FPS varies, motion blur and other tricks stop you from noticing artifacts. No modern game with the latest video card is going to hit 240FPS. And for that reason for casual gaming it doesn’t matter unless you want it to look the best...

For competitive multiplayer? It absolutely matters. That is why all professional FPS (first person shooter) gamers play on low settings, with maxed FPS. They want the least artifacting with the most amount of information to their eyes so that they can stop on the exact pixel the enemy player is on.

Mouse position is also updated by Hz and FPS and the less you are able to tell where your mouse is, the less accurate you will be. Imagine playing Marco Polo and someone calls out 30 times in one hour vs 60 times in one hour vs 240 times in one hour (bad example for sight, good example for amount of information)

I played Cal-I and Cal-O way back in the CS days. I played CSS competitively. This was all a while ago, I game for fun but I can sit down at a screen and move the mouse and instantly tell it’s not 120/144hz. The mu we trails, screens have scan lines when moved.

Those who say there is no difference have no experience, tend to spend less money on PC components, and haven’t played competitively.

[–] • 1 pt

You hit the nail on the head. There's a pronounced difference between 60 FPS at 60Hz and uncapped FPS at 144Hz, but upgrading from 144Hz to 240Hz isn't as much of an improvement. should be aware of diminishing returns at exponential cost and performance, since he has a 4k/60 monitor and desires to upgrade to 5k at some point. As you said about GPUs and modern games, it's going to be hard pressed to max out 240FPS at 240Hz even with a 2080ti and 9900k at low graphics quality. But it's not impossible on some older competitive titles. Right now with a stupidly monstrous overclocking rig, the targets for both resolution and Hz would like this: 1080p/240Hz, 1440p/144Hz, 4k/60Hz.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt (edited )

I'd be looking for 120 / 144 Hz - I'm not in the realm of a professional gamer. I'd think someone who has a natural ability who also is a professional gamer or in this realm at least may or can benefit from a 120 Hz / 144 Hz upgrade to 240 Hz. Has the eye naturally plus after being a gamer (professional gaming realm) for so long in a certain game where they developed the eye for that game. That allows that person to be able to effectively use an upgrade from 120 Hz / 144 Hz to 240 Hz, but it's only minimal for the most part or might only be useful every week or so for some certain shot in all reality.

I want to do 4k at 120 Hz / 144 Hz for gaming.

5k is more or so 60 Hz (60 FPS) video recording. This wouldn't be for gaming it would be in the realm of 5k video editing.

I have the 2080ti aorus extreme version with 11 GB GDDR6 memory and the AMD R7 3700X. The regular 2080ti has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory. This could probably do 80-90 FPS (max) for many games at 4k, but many games would need tweaks and such (even if minor tweaks). Which would depend on the game itself (obviously).

If I wanted to do this for gaming I'd probably want something like a 3080ti aorus extreme version with 12-15 GB of GDDR6 (not sure) memory. That would be for 4k 120 Hz / 4k 144 Hz though and many games would need tweaks I'd imagine in the quality settings to be able to get that done.

4k tomb raider - don't play this game, but this video works as an example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aznxnYrZxKY

50-60 FPS - same exact card as mine. Some changes I could hit 80-90 FPS max, but going on beyond that or something in that realm wouldn't be worth it I want to say. I'd lose too much I'd think.

[–] • 1 pt

We've got directly comparable cards, then. 2080ti EVGA ftw3 ultra.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt (edited )

Assuming that they link together through everything being max though. The GPU can put out X frames (number of frames) per second and the screen is Y Hz or can display Y frames (number of frames) per second. Which are the same and/or are max without getting too technical in it or a more simple way of talking or assuming.

2080ti

2k (2k x 1k - rounded) - (1.92k x 1.08k - true number(s), but not true 2k or to be confused with true 2k) / 1080p - 1920x1080 - use 1080p or 2k to make this easier or simple for the most part.

X = 60 FPS

X = 120 FPS

X = 144 FPS

X = 240 FPS

X = Y - through the numbers alone - 240 FPS does not equate to 240 Hz (240 FPS ≠ 240 Hz), but 240 is equal to 240 (240 = 240). If you get technical as a start or just talk about it from the truth standpoint that doesn't work (either way). So "yes" you are right on that either way. This is more or so assuming you know that already.

Y = 60 Hz

Y = 120 Hz

Y = 144 Hz

Y = 240 Hz

X (60) = Y (60) - max settings - both line up (the numbers). "assuming", but overall general talking I figure most can get this.

X (120) = Y (120)

X (144) = Y (144)

X (240) = Y (240)

Assuming that you know the GPU can do 240 FPS (X) and that the monitor can show or display 240 FPS or is at 240 Hz for that matter. Whatever I set X to be Y equates to that same number, but FPS / Hz do not equate to be the same.

That you can max out 240 FPS (GPU can do this) on a 240 Hz monitor. Assuming to just make it easier to just talk about.

I'm talking from a max standpoint as my overall discussion of topic. You aren't wrong, but I'm assuming everything is max more or so and that it lines up.

side note I need caffeine. Haven't had any today yet really. can't think that well yet.