There are commercially available video cameras that can record at 100s of thousands of FPS, and scientific cameras in the millions of FPS. Yet the fastest monitors are around 500fps. Of course, there is much more utility to a fast camera than a fast monitor, but I get the sense that there are also technical restrictions. Why has no one made a 1 million FPS monitor to show off as a tech demo?
In: 21
Frames Per Second (FPS) is the number of still images/frames captured by a camera or rendered by a GPU.
Refresh rate (Hz) is the number of times per second that your monitor refreshes the image on your screen.
They are not the same thing. Cameras are measured in FPS, monitors in Hz. A monitor cannot be “500 FPS”. The more FPS you have the less blur the image has and the more you can slow down the footage. The more Hz you have the better you can see the FPS up to a point.
Generally you want a refresh rate faster than your FPS so you get all the frames with no latency or tearing.
Many studies have been done on the human eye and standard healthy vision can only see at around 75 frames per second. So anything faster than 75FPS or 144Hz is beyond the scope of human visual information and exists solely for specific technical purposes (slow-motion/VR/compositing etc).
No one could tell the difference between 1million FPS and 100,000 FPS with the naked eye unless the footage was manipulated like extreme slow motion of an explosion etc. No one can see more than 200 Hz and screens only go faster than that to accommodate todays graphics cards and high seed cameras. We cannot perceive the difference but our software can.
Latest Answers