Avowed Will Be 30FPS On Xbox Series X, Allowing For "Juicier" Visual Effects

@Ohaidere: I get motion sickness quite easily. Always have - except for when playing video games. I had to quit martial arts training because I would fall flat on my face from vertigo after doing a roll. Can't be in a vehicle unless I'm the driver or I get sick. If I get motion sickness this easily, why have I never had an issue playing games back then or now? The only problem I've ever heard of remotely close to this is when a small minority of people upscale very old games. People who got motion sickness in the 70s & 80s from video games still get motion sickness today and it has nothing to do with framerate. Its a conflict with information between the brain and sensory input where your brain is telling you you're not moving but your eyes are telling you that you are. Absolutely nothing to do with framerate. Have you ever been sitting in multilane traffic and your lane is stopped and the lane next to you starts moving? For a few seconds, you can get dizzy because sensory input says you're moving when you're not. Happens to me all the time.

@Utnayan: I'm sure a sternly worded letter will do the trick.

@hardwenzen: Go go gadget geekout:

I cringe when it's talked about that way because that's not really how it works and people love to talk about it in the wrong terms. Because the screen is producing the number of images per second associated with the framerate (for example, when moving your mouse to check for how many ghost images it leaves), it is only producing "apparent motion", not actual motion. Your eyes can absolutely tell the difference between moving your mouse around at 60fps and 144fps, but so can a camera that can only capture a maximum of 24fps. Being able to perceive the difference produced by a difference in framerate is actually not evidence that the perception tool in question, in this case your eyes (and visual cortex), are capable of perceiving at the higher framerate.

Same is true with respect to the myth that "because a fighter pilot can perceive a flash with a duration of 1/220ths of a second, this proves the human eye can perceive 220fps". Nope. Not a proper conclusion to draw.

Then, you have to factor in the speed at which the frames are moving across the screen, because the perception of smoothness requires that each frame move no more than the smallest angular change our eyes can perceive. The larger the leaps between frames, the worse the smoothness of the apparent motion, so this brings into play the manner in which the images in a game are coded to be produced in the first place.

THEN, you have to factor in that our eyes don't actually "pan" linearly.

THEN, you have to factor in that visual acuity is only at its finest in the fovea, the central part of your visual field, and degrades moving outward towards the periphery.

THEN, you even have to factor in things like how quickly pixels are able to change and other artifacts introduced by the tech producing the images. OLEDs become very interesting here, because the pixels can shut off, like if you want a white dot to move across the blackness smoothly, but there is still a miniscule lag for the "prior" pixel to go from on to off.

Everyone likes to talk about it all as a matter of what "framerate" the eyes and brain can perceive/process together, but that is actually reductionist nonsense. Our eyes can capture them all and then process them as aesthetically different, so to speak, but the line is curved and diminishing returns come into play. For example, under the right conditions, studies have shown people reacting at 500Hz, but that's "the right conditions" (and they were pretty unnatural, deliberately created images with extremely high contrast and highly defined edges, etc.). Chances of you perceiving 500Hz in the real world are pretty slim. So is there a limit? In a way, there's a "soft cap" and it is a moving target...its location is not fixed, but fluctuates based on the particular characteristics of the stimulus.

Higher framerate is generally better/smoother as a matter of the law of averages applied across a huge spectrum of variables, not the "framerate of the human eye".

/end geekout