Probably a very stupid question...

[HK_Rage]

How many frames per second does the human eye see in real life?

[Sarcasm]

Zero. Humans don't see in frames.

[_ASSASSIN_]

we don't see in frames

[Emkryan]

We don't see in "Frames". We process the photons that run into our eyes. which is millions per second 

[FloRolf]

24.

Just kidding. See the answers above.

[Askew]

It's not a stupid question at all, our eyesight is a very complex science, and the people who go around mindlessly posting whatever random nonsense they have overheard like the typical "I don't need a 120hz monitor because the human eye can only see XX frames ect are a real problem sometimes.

 

Have a read here to gain a bit more understanding, thanks for asking and not assuming!

 

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

[helping]

IIRC the visible limit is somewhere in the approximation of ~300 fps (don't quote me on that) 

 

Like others have said, eyes don't see in FPS, but I guess you could say beyond a certain number the eye is no longer sensitive. 

[AMICLG]

We don't see frames but we can see more than computers can produce.

[WindyDays]

Better question would be: after how many frames/second would we stop noticing tangible improvements to fluidity? (I have no idea)

[TheMissxu]

 

The human eye and its brain interface, the human visual system, can process 10 to 12 separate images per second, perceiving them individually. The threshold of human visual perception varies depending on what is being measured. When looking at a lighted display, people begin to notice a brief interruption of darkness if it is about 16 milliseconds or longer. When given very short single-millisecond visual stimulus people report a duration of between 100 ms and 400 ms due to persistence of vision in the visual cortex. This may cause images perceived in this duration to appear as one stimulus, such as a 10 ms green flash of light immediately followed by a 10 ms red flash of light perceived as a single yellow flash of light. Persistence of vision may also create an illusion of continuity, allowing a sequence of still images to give the impression of motion. Early silent films had a frame rate from 14 to 24 FPS which was enough for the sense of motion, but it was perceived as jerky motion. By using projectors with dual- and triple-blade shutters, the rate was multiplied two or three times as seen by the audience. Thomas Edison said that 46 frames per second was the minimum: "anything less will strain the eye." In the mid- to late 1920s, the frame rate for silent films increased to between 20 and 26 FPS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate

 

So, I'd say 60 fps, but things like 120Hz has it's advantages.

[AMICLG]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate

 

So, I'd say 60 fps, but things like 120Hz has it's advantages.

No that's wrong you can see a lot more into the millions so to speak as we don't see in frames but you really don't notice the difference between 200 and 250 fps, but most pc gamers easy tell the difference between 60 and 80 fps.

[brob]

It's further complicated by the fact that we can become sensitized to oft repeated stimuli. Today a sequence might seem very fluid, a few weeks later we might have "learned" to see the imperfections.

[rhyseyness]

It's not a stupid question at all, our eyesight is a very complex science, and the people who go around mindlessly posting whatever random nonsense they have overheard like the typical "I don't need a 120hz monitor because the human eye can only see XX frames ect are a real problem sometimes.

 

Have a read here to gain a bit more understanding, thanks for asking and not assuming!

 

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

This article is great. I'd recommend it to anyone wanting to gain a better understanding in this field.

Thanks Askew

[mr moose]

there are quite a few research papers on this which I can link to later, however the basics are:

 

Humans can perceive generally around 60, however with training they can detect up to 74 and then the number of people able to detect higher than that drops significantly.

 

But for most people the human eye has a thing called vision persistence witch prevents it from seeing more than 30fps.

 

 

Please don't get any of this confused with latency perception or biofeedback.  Because if you could remove all the latency from two computers, so there was zero input lag and zero processing lag, then set one to 60FPS and the other to 90FPS there would only be a hand full of people in the world that could accurately tell which one was which.

[Ookami]

Normal human or console peasant? If second only 30@720p

 

 

To rant boys and console "gamers" - he asked stupid question he got stupid answer...

[MrDuJeR]

I have not seen anything lag in real life so I would say more than 60.

[Mentalguy]

Better question would be: after how many frames/second would we stop noticing tangible improvements to fluidity? (I have no idea)

About 240fps, but it depends on the person.

[Guest]

How many frames per second does the human eye see in real life?

Don't sten to the bs with the amount of frames a eye can see we don't see in frames so there is no number

[jamese669]

.

[TheMissxu]

No that's wrong you can see a lot more into the millions so to speak as we don't see in frames but you really don't notice the difference between 200 and 250 fps, but most pc gamers easy tell the difference between 60 and 80 fps.

It's not wrong. But you're right, it might be irreverent. We can see 10 to 12 frames per seconds and remember what the pictures are. Now that isn't how we "see" motion, so that is irrelevant.

 

The experiment with flashing lights at 16 ms, on the other hand... That seems more relevant because it goes to show we cannot even see light displayed for 16 ms. Now, you can see two frames flashed at 16 ms, but you merge the colors into one. Meaning, anything beyond 8 ms per frame, we just do motion blurring in our minds. The law of diminishing returns then applies here, so it might be up the the individual to place value on a certain fps/Hz.

[Askew]

Normal human

WE ARE NOT NORMAL HUMANS WE ARE THE GLORIOUS PC MASTER RACE DAMMIT!

[mr moose]

No that's wrong you can see a lot more into the millions so to speak as we don't see in frames but you really don't notice the difference between 200 and 250 fps, but most pc gamers easy tell the difference between 60 and 80 fps.

Got a link for this revelation?   The reason most gamers can tell the difference between 60 and 80 FPS is due largely to the biofeedback nature of the game. It is not soley the frame rate that the brain is noticing and making adjustments for but also for the processing lag within the pc.  As I said earlier, if you take away those biofeedback's then the gamer would have a lot of trouble tell the difference.

 

 

It's not a stupid question at all, our eyesight is a very complex science, and the people who go around mindlessly posting whatever random nonsense they have overheard like the typical "I don't need a 120hz monitor because the human eye can only see XX frames ect are a real problem sometimes.

 

Have a read here to gain a bit more understanding, thanks for asking and not assuming!

 

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

That website does not cite any references nor does it take into consideration flicker fusion, I don't think they have adequately grasped the issues that surround human visual perception.

 

Some real (peer reviewed) research on the subject:

 

http://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03204258

 

http://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03204935

 

And a really old one that explains the processing system in greater detail:

 

http://www.cns.nyu.edu/~eero/csh04/Articles/Adelson-Bergen-85.pdf

[Ookami]

WE ARE NOT NORMAL HUMANS WE ARE THE GLORIOUS PC MASTER RACE DAMMIT!

Didnt want to state obvious...

[Askew]

Got a link for this revelation?   The reason most gamers can tell the difference between 60 and 80 FPS is due largely to the biofeedback nature of the game. It is not soley the frame rate that the brain is noticing and making adjustments for but also for the processing lag within the pc.  As I said earlier, if you take away those biofeedback's then the gamer would have a lot of trouble tell the difference.

 

 

That website does not cite any references nor does it take into consideration flicker fusion, I don't think they have adequately grasped the issues that surround human visual perception.

 

Some real (peer reviewed) research on the subject:

 

http://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03204258

 

http://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03204935

 

And a really old one that explains the processing system in greater detail:

 

http://www.cns.nyu.edu/~eero/csh04/Articles/Adelson-Bergen-85.pdf

 

I was hoping someone would come and add more, thanks, I'll read the information.

[Stomplar]

you guys are really nit picking this dudes question and making a technical disaster.