Anything above 40 fps worth it?

[Jehanne]

Mostly asking, but, I am happy to have my opinion shaped by scientific evidence.

Yes, I have a strong suspicion that you've succumbed to confirmation bias.

What I am looking for is a randomized, double-blinded placebo controlled study under laboratory conditions.

[Angrboda]

Yes, I have a strong suspicion that you've succumbed to confirmation bias.

What I am looking for is a randomized, double-blinded placebo controlled study under laboratory conditions.

And here I thought I was being unreasonable looking for a pretty 20-something with big tits.

[Jehanne]

What I am looking for is a randomized, double-blinded placebo controlled study under laboratory conditions.

And here I thought I was being unreasonable looking for a pretty 20-something with big tits.

I thought that you were in your 60s...

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

What I am looking for is a randomized, double-blinded placebo controlled study under laboratory conditions.

And here I thought I was being unreasonable looking for a pretty 20-something with big tits.  

That is NEVER unreasonable.

Boru

[Jehanne]

Frame skips at 60 fps are very noticeable.

My assumption is no dropped and/or corrupted frames, and so, 60 unique frames at 60 fps, 144 unique frames at 144 Hz, etc.

[HappySkeptic]

Frame skips at 60 fps are very noticeable.

My assumption is no dropped and/or corrupted frames, and so, 60 unique frames at 60 fps, 144 unique frames at 144 Hz, etc.

Okay, though most modern games "sometimes" drop below 60 fps, so this is unrealistic, even if they are running in a sync-locked mode.

If the monitor has a fast enough rise and fall time, high frame rates lead to a much smoother look during fast panning. 

In movies at 24 fps, there is a maximum pan rate for the camera, beyond which the brain can't maintain it as a moving image, especially on a big screen.  Either it will have judder or blur (or both).  There is no magic fps where this stops occurring, though it will get marginal improvement above some point.

[Jehanne]

My assumption is no dropped and/or corrupted frames, and so, 60 unique frames at 60 fps, 144 unique frames at 144 Hz, etc.

Okay, though most modern games "sometimes" drop below 60 fps, so this is unrealistic, even if they are running in a sync-locked mode.

If the monitor has a fast enough rise and fall time, high frame rates lead to a much smoother look during fast panning. 

In movies at 24 fps, there is a maximum pan rate for the camera, beyond which the brain can't maintain it as a moving image, especially on a big screen.  Either it will have judder or blur (or both).  There is no magic fps where this stops occurring, though it will get marginal improvement above some point.

I'm looking for some experimental evidence; want to submit a grant proposal?

[HappySkeptic]

https://www.testufo.com/

If your monitor is 120 Hz, you will get that option as well (mine isn't).  You will notice that 60 Hz is still blurry and fatiguing to focus on if you are trying to track the motion with your eyes.  Even when I cover up the slower panels (which are affecting the experience), the 60 fps isn't great. Of course, rise and fall times of the monitor can make a difference here, with slow rise/fall monitors not showing as much of an advantage at high frame rate as fast rise/fall monitors.

This is the most egregious type of test - smooth panning motion.  The faster the motion, the faster the frame rate needed (up to some limit) if the user is focused on the panning.

When gamers prefer 240 Hz monitors with FreeSync or GSync, I feel what they are noticing most is reduction of timing judder.  However, faster than 60 Hz on a larger monitor does have a different feel to the game.  The extra smoothness can be felt.  Exactly what the limit is, if there was zero timing judder (something most real-game tests can't separate out) may depend on the person.

[Rev. Rye]

Don't do games, but as someone who's done some research into high frame rates, I have to say, that at least for videos, a high frame rate is extremely overkill. I can remember watching the 70mm version of Oklahoma and finding something very off about the way everything moved:



Turns out this is the one film they shot in 30 fps before abandoning it. They also had a Cinemascope version with a normal frame rate that looks more normal:




Then again, perhaps for gaming, a higher framerate may be desirable, but I'm not a gamer, and when I notice that a video's motion seems off, I do what I can to make it more normal, even if it means going to a lower resolution.

[Jehanne]

Interesting.  Here's an article from Healthline:

How Many Frames Per Second Can the Human Eye See?