How much FPS is real life

[LeDetructor]

I got a 144hz monitor recently,and noticed that its surprisingly smooth.And that got me thinking,if i move myy hand in real life in front of my eyes it looks stuttery compared to 144hz games any answers?

[Slottr]

Your eyes are incredibly more complicated than a display.

[LeDetructor]

Just now, Slottr said:

Your eyes are incredibly more complicated than a display.

Yeah but why does 144fps look smoother than irl

[ezsteev]

How much FPS is real life

My professor says it's over 9000

[LeDetructor]

Just now, ezsteev said:

How much FPS is real life

My professor says it's over 9000

You see now im confused.Im really not sure if this is sarcasm and i feel stupid thinking that its not sarcasm

[SkilledRebuilds]

First data I came across when a quick search on "Framerate human eyeballs smoothness"

https://m.slashdot.org/story/211493

 

Always use more than one source.

[Xx_osos_xX]

12 minutes ago, LeDetructor said:

I got a 144hz monitor recently,and noticed that its surprisingly smooth.And that got me thinking,if i move myy hand in real life in front of my eyes it looks stuttery compared to 144hz games any answers?

240hz to 360 is noticable. I would guess our eyes are at least 400hz

[LeDetructor]

2 minutes ago, SkilledRebuilds said:

First data I came across when a quick search on "Framerate human eyeballs smoothness"

https://m.slashdot.org/story/211493

 

Always use more than one source.

I have no idea what that means but ill use some time to understand it further

[abc_123]

12 minutes ago, LeDetructor said:

if i move myy hand in real life in front of my eyes it looks stuttery compared to 144hz games any answers?

 

If you're doing this under a florescent or older led light and you're sensitive to the flickering it could be why. Lights such as a florescent light with a magnetic ballast are the worst for this and will typically flicker at 2x supply frequency so 100-120hz.

 

If this is happening under natural light then maybe its time to see a doctor.

[Poet129]

No one knows for sure it was thought to be 60 FPS but obviously not. I think it is more based on the opposite that being response time at 60 FPS that is ~16 milliseconds till a difference can happen. With 144 it is ~6.9(nice) milliseconds. So the real question is how fast can the human eye detect a change in milliseconds keep in mind this also varies person to person. Then converting that to FPS so assuming you want 1 millisecond you would need 1000 FPS. You could calculate the speed based on how fast the electrons move from your eyes to your brain and consider that the maximum speed of electrons however that is wildly different for everyone based on head size and shape.

[piratemonkey]

Our eyes are not cameras. We don't see the world in discrete frames. I'm pretty sure we perceive high frame rate as nice just cuz the thing in motion is much clearer than irl (no motion blur, or if there is it's obviously not real). iirc our eyes don't see one image all at the same time (like we would with a discrete frame) because of how we perceive light, which is why motion blur is a thing. So our eyes don't have a framerate, and if they did, it would probably differ between person

[Poet129]

3 minutes ago, Poet129 said:

You could calculate the speed based on how fast the electrons move from your eyes to your brain and consider that the maximum speed of electrons however that is wildly different for everyone based on head size and shape.

Assuming your eyes take a long root of 1 foot of length to the brain then you would need at most 2810 FPS because it would take roughly 0.356 milliseconds to make that distance.

[Mark Kaine]

36 minutes ago, LeDetructor said:

Yeah but why does 144fps look smoother than irl

RL, as everyone knows, has only 24FPS that's why!

[Slottr]

27 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

RL, as everyone knows, has only 24FPS that's why!

That's why cyberpunk looks so good

[Gix7Fifty]

Is adrenaline turned on?

[thrasher_565]

i would think just because we see one frame it still take are brain to react to it so there might be may frames stored up waiting to be proceeded? not only that what pixsols are eyes can see is probably nuts.

 

im probably just making stuff up thow...

Edited December 19, 2020 by thrasher_565

[Kavamale21]

because developer of RL disabled all cheats and left plenty of hardware ruining bugs soldered everyting in one flimsy case and ler it run.

[thrasher_565]

1 hour ago, Poet129 said:

No one knows for sure it was thought to be 60 FPS but obviously not. I think it is more based on the opposite that being response time at 60 FPS that is ~16 milliseconds till a difference can happen. With 144 it is ~6.9(nice) milliseconds. So the real question is how fast can the human eye detect a change in milliseconds keep in mind this also varies person to person. Then converting that to FPS so assuming you want 1 millisecond you would need 1000 FPS. You could calculate the speed based on how fast the electrons move from your eyes to your brain and consider that the maximum speed of electrons however that is wildly different for everyone based on head size and shape.

that would mean everyone should not benefit form 144hrz it would vary person to person. kinda like tast, sound.

Edited December 19, 2020 by thrasher_565

[Joseph K]

1 hour ago, LeDetructor said:

I got a 144hz monitor recently,and noticed that its surprisingly smooth.And that got me thinking,if i move myy hand in real life in front of my eyes it looks stuttery compared to 144hz games any answers?

The stuttering you are seeing is probably the actual muscle moving your eye around. Things will look twitchy because as your brain tries to track an object that's moving quickly it will lost track of it for very small periods of time while your eyes try focusing on it.

[NineEyeRon]

When you look at something your brain holds the image for a second.

 

you can see this for yourself with a clock or more noticeably the spokes on a car tyre while it’s spinning 

 

Our brain does the “seeing”, it turns the light into how we perceive the world!

 

 

 

[Drama Lama]

3 hours ago, LeDetructor said:

I got a 144hz monitor recently,and noticed that its surprisingly smooth.And that got me thinking,if i move myy hand in real life in front of my eyes it looks stuttery compared to 144hz games any answers?

high refresh rates are not only about smoother picture movements but also about latency

[dilpickle]

21 hours ago, Poet129 said:

No one knows for sure it was thought to be 60 FPS

No one has ever thought that.

[Mark Kaine]

22 hours ago, Joseph K said:

The stuttering you are seeing is probably the actual muscle moving your eye around. Things will look twitchy because as your brain tries to track an object that's moving quickly it will lost track of it for very small periods of time while your eyes try focusing on it.

This is actually correct... so I'm wondering what kind of game OP is playing where a hand is waved in front of them so they can even actually compare this accurately ........... 

 

 

[Mihle]

First, if you focus on a fast moving object and compare it to another where you focus on something stationary while another object is moving fast in front of it (your eyes are standing still), it's very different situations.

 

Our eyes doesn't work like cameras or monitors at all tho, eyes do not have a frame rate or frequency.

 

But one thing I have read that seems logical to me, but someone else would have to confirm or deny because I am not 100% sure on it:

 

Eyes have lots of light detecting cells. They work in the way that they send a pulse as nerve signal when the light over a time reaches an limit.

So the nerve signal becomes sort of a pulsating signal that pulsate faster when there is more light hitting it. So in theory your brain gets more data or frequency per cell when you look at something lighter rather than darker.

At least when I try to look at something moving in a dark environment Vs a light one, everything seem to be more blury in a darker one, and that seem to confirm that to me.

 And your monitor is most likely lighter for your eyes than what your moving hand is in your room.

 

When it comes to frequency, eye cells don't follow and synced clock in their signals, they just send signals whenever, so different cells will be out of sync compared to others.

[kaixax555]

I watched a video where Corridor Crew is thinking what kind of specifications would a human eye be if it was a camera.

 

While they did a questionable experiment (using Trumotion to simulate 120fps instead of using true 120fps), they pointed out that each "pixel" in the eye has an independent frame rate, the time for light signal to enter from eye to brain is about 13ms (about 75fps), and since each "pixel" operates independently from each other, the FPS as interpreted by the brain would be much higher than 75fps. They also mentioned an experiment on pilots where they determined how fast they can flash an image of a plane that is recognizable, which is 1/220 of a second (220fps). They ended up settling on 500fps as their frame rate.

However, one of the comments pointed out while that eyes see objects in a stream so it is like a continuous operation, this does not mean our eyes have inifinite FPS. What we see a moment in time is a combination of information from each "pixel" over a course of many milliseconds, for most people is about 20ms (so about 50-60fps or so). He also pointed out that while there are tests showing that flashes of light as fast as 1/1000 can be detected, this is not accounting motion blur. In the end he agreed that with 500 fps, 10 frames in a 20ms interval is good enough to simulate motion blur.