Why does Virtual Reality require so much more fps than video? Is it because of pure spatial size, new dimension to account for, or the interactability of a VR experience? (I find that VR games often feel "blocky", even at higher fps)
smsunarto
@gowenong: If I remember correctly, the reason why virtual reality needs higher fps is that we want to avoid the nauseating effect that is usually associated with virtual reality headsets. The lower the framerates, means that there might be higher latency between our movement and what see, which will lead to a disconnect between what our senses perceive and cause nausea.
bernardmc8
I don't know how true this is, but I've heard before that humans can only perceive about 60 frames per second. Looking this up, I see that this idea of the human eye only perceiving up to 60 FPS is a concept that was somewhat popular believed at some point, but it seems that it is not entirely true, with some studies saying that humans can perceive up to 240 FPS. I also personally feel like I can tell when something is 90 FPS or 60 but this is purely anecdotal. I also wonder the purpose of virtual reality being 90 FPS and if that visually makes a difference or not.
StephenYangjz
I think the 60 FPS thing is certainly not true -- from my personal experience I can see the huge differences between a 60hz screen and a 120hz screen. I guess it depends on different people though, but overall if we are used to a higher refresh rate then certainly most of us can feel the difference, and there's hardly a real hard limit for this. The reason why I think VR needs a higher refresh rate though is that VR renderings do not provide motion blurs and there's also a lot of quick head movements which we can easily get dazzy.
greeknerd1
Why do film, video, and VR require different fps's to provide this "sense of motion"?
yfz3357
@greeknerd my personal hunch is that VR requires a higher fps in order for it to feel real, as you are not only looking at a 2D screen but possibly 3D or multiple 2D screens reflections, so the higher the expectation on the quality of the display.
ananthmrao
What's the limit on human fps perception? Someone said earlier that it's 240 fps according to "some studies"--is there a lot of variance in this figure for different people?
ashvindhawan
https://azretina.sites.arizona.edu/node/837
Regarding the previous comment, this article mentions that perhaps we may only be able to see up to 75fps, but we can still notice artifacts in monitors that go above that level.
Why does Virtual Reality require so much more fps than video? Is it because of pure spatial size, new dimension to account for, or the interactability of a VR experience? (I find that VR games often feel "blocky", even at higher fps)
@gowenong: If I remember correctly, the reason why virtual reality needs higher fps is that we want to avoid the nauseating effect that is usually associated with virtual reality headsets. The lower the framerates, means that there might be higher latency between our movement and what see, which will lead to a disconnect between what our senses perceive and cause nausea.
I don't know how true this is, but I've heard before that humans can only perceive about 60 frames per second. Looking this up, I see that this idea of the human eye only perceiving up to 60 FPS is a concept that was somewhat popular believed at some point, but it seems that it is not entirely true, with some studies saying that humans can perceive up to 240 FPS. I also personally feel like I can tell when something is 90 FPS or 60 but this is purely anecdotal. I also wonder the purpose of virtual reality being 90 FPS and if that visually makes a difference or not.
I think the 60 FPS thing is certainly not true -- from my personal experience I can see the huge differences between a 60hz screen and a 120hz screen. I guess it depends on different people though, but overall if we are used to a higher refresh rate then certainly most of us can feel the difference, and there's hardly a real hard limit for this. The reason why I think VR needs a higher refresh rate though is that VR renderings do not provide motion blurs and there's also a lot of quick head movements which we can easily get dazzy.
Why do film, video, and VR require different fps's to provide this "sense of motion"?
@greeknerd my personal hunch is that VR requires a higher fps in order for it to feel real, as you are not only looking at a 2D screen but possibly 3D or multiple 2D screens reflections, so the higher the expectation on the quality of the display.
What's the limit on human fps perception? Someone said earlier that it's 240 fps according to "some studies"--is there a lot of variance in this figure for different people?
https://azretina.sites.arizona.edu/node/837 Regarding the previous comment, this article mentions that perhaps we may only be able to see up to 75fps, but we can still notice artifacts in monitors that go above that level.