You see the difference between a 60Hz and 120 Hz due to the level of blur between the frames. I used the roughly 30FPS as that is when motion on a screen generally become fluid to an accepable level(varies from person to person obviously)(probably closer to 24 FPS and then we can get into the triple frame to reduce the black flicker :-p). You are correct in that the FPS of an eye is not fixed and I should have worded the statement differently.
Go ahead and limit yourself to 30FPS in quake live. You're gonna see it lag. Let's just see. TRY IT. Then limit it to 60FPS. It now lags less but lag is still visible. Now 120FPS. Near being perfect. 160FPS. PERFECT
The smoothness isn't because the lack of motion blur. It's the high FPS that you are able to see on 120hz.
PS: No LCD monitor can do 120hz in every scenario. Actual response times (not advertised) are too high to allow actual 120hz. On some transitions (not most), the monitor is incapable of 120hz.
2: The eye has no FPS. You say it doesn't have a fixed FPS. Yeah, but it has no kind of FPS, not even a fluctuating one.
3: We might have a misunderstanding here. 40FPS is reasonable. It can produce an acceptable image, and an acceptable smoothness for gameplay. However, that doesn't mean that it's the smoothest image there is. I would NEVER play COD, TF2, quake, unreal, or any of those sorts on 40FPS. It's pure torture (40FPS on low dips in TF2) All these games require a smooth image and acceptable isn't enough. Any single player game is fine with 40FPS though. Acceptable smoothness =/= smoothest there is
Trust me, people can see up to 160FPS in games. In movies maybe up to 100, because they have motion blur, but too bad there isn't any movies above 60FPS, and those are soap operas, 24FPS on any good movie.
PS: I'm the guy who doesn't watch movies because they look so laggy. Cause me headaches.
Edited by De-Zant - 4/29/11 at 2:19pm