Whats the framerate and resolution of your eys

[Powerscape one man band]

Whats the framerate and resolution of our eyes? just asking

[Enderman]

Eyes do not see in frames and they also do not have pixels.

[Spuriae]

Eyes are analog, monitors are digital. What's the frame rate and resolution of real life?

[Powerscape one man band]

maybe 10 fps

[heimdali]

Eyes kinda do have pixels.

 

As to what you can see, that´s no more than about 50fps, and the resolution is actually very poor.  Ears are much more sensitive.

 

[poker1059]

4 minutes ago, Powerscape one man band said:

Whats the framerate and resolution of our eyes? just asking

 

2 minutes ago, Powerscape one man band said:

maybe 10 fps

Good Troll

In b4 lock

[TheKDub]

6 minutes ago, Powerscape one man band said:

Whats the framerate and resolution of our eyes? just asking

There is no specific "resolution", and light is a constant stream, so there is no "framerate".

 

P.S.

 

[seon123]

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

Eyes do not see in frames and they also do not have pixels.

Eyes do have cones to sense colour, mostly what's in focus, and rods to just sense light, mostly in the peripheral vision. 6 million cones, 90 million rods. So about 2MP RGB, and 90MP black and white? Sort of. 

[TurbulentWinds]

1 minute ago, heimdali said:

Eyes kinda do have pixels.

 

As to what you can see, that´s no more than about 50fps, and the resolution is actually very poor.  Ears are much more sensitive.

 

Dude, that is just straight up false. The human eye is remarkably complex and does not see "pixels." It has been proved that the human eye can see 240 FPS and further. I don't have the article link with be right now, but you can look up the study on jet pilots who were flashed an image of a plane and were asked to identify it.

[Glenwing]

Our eyes don't take samples, they perceive information continuously, so it doesn't have a "framerate". It's like asking what RPM an SSD operates at.

[Beezohh]

oh no not this stupid shit again. kids these days have been brainwashed! the human eye has no resolution and we perceive light as light i guess, we dont have a fucking fps counter in our eyes so no one really knows, but studies have shown its greater then 1000fps

[Unhelpful]

4 minutes ago, heimdali said:

Eyes kinda do have pixels.

 

As to what you can see, that´s no more than about 50fps, and the resolution is actually very poor.  Ears are much more sensitive.

 

Wrong in every way.

[Enderman]

3 minutes ago, seon123 said:

Eyes do have cones to sense colour, mostly what's in focus, and rods to just sense light, mostly in the peripheral vision. 6 million cones, 90 million rods. So about 2MP RGB, and 90MP black and white? Sort of. 

 

6 minutes ago, heimdali said:

Eyes kinda do have pixels.

No they do not.

They have rods and cones, and they are arranged with different densities, they have different sensitivity, and the signals they return are not like pixels where it is mapped and interpreted one-to-one.

[heimdali]

2 hours ago, TurbulentWinds said:

Dude, that is just straight up false. The human eye is remarkably complex and does not see "pixels." It has been proved that the human eye can see 240 FPS and further. I don't have the article link with be right now, but you can look up the study on jet pilots who were flashed an image of a plane and were asked to identify it.

It usually takes about 0.3 seconds to identify an image.

 

I didn´t say that you can see the pixels.  When you get to about 50fps, what you see appears fluid to the point where more fps won´t make any difference as to what you can see.

 

Why don´t you just look this up on wikipedia or the like?

2 hours ago, Enderman said:

 

No they do not.

They have rods and cones, and they are arranged with different densities, they have different sensitivity, and the signals they return are not like pixels where it is mapped and interpreted one-to-one.

And what are these rods and cones other than a kind of pixels?

 

[Enderman]

2 minutes ago, Glenwing said:

Our eyes don't take samples, they perceive information continuously, so it doesn't have a "framerate". It's like asking what RPM an SSD operates at.

They actually don't, they fire neural signals when the minimum threshold is crossed, they do not send a continuous "stream of data" or anything like that.

[TurbulentWinds]

1 minute ago, heimdali said:

It usually takes about 0.3 seconds to identify an image.

 

I didn´t say that you can see the pixels.  When you get to about 50fps, what you see appears fluid to the point where more fps won´t make any difference as to what you can see.

 

Why don´t you just look this up on wikipedia or the like?

 

https://us.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/7199031187

 

This quotes the study I was talking about.

[Enderman]

Just now, heimdali said:

And what are these rods and cones other than a kind of pixels?

 

Are you sure you know how the brain interprets the signals coming from the optical nerve?

It is not at all like pixels. It is more like a massive amount of pattern recognition, your brain does not interpret signals from each rod or cone individually like a GPU produces every pixel.

[Himommies]

4 minutes ago, heimdali said:

  When you get to about 50fps, what you see appears fluid to the point where more fps won´t make any difference as to what you can see.

pepole can obviously see the difference between 60 and 200 fps

[Glenwing]

Just now, Enderman said:

They actually don't, they fire neural signals when the minimum threshold is crossed, they do not send a continuous "stream of data" or anything like that.

On the scale that we're concerned with, it's effectively continuous.

[Crunchy Dragon]

There was a TechQuickie video about this a while back....

 

also @heimdali, I can see the difference between 50 and 60 fps.

[heimdali]

2 hours ago, Enderman said:

Are you sure you know how the brain interprets the signals coming from the optical nerve?

It is not at all like pixels. It is more like a massive amount of pattern recognition, your brain does not interpret signals from each rod or cone individually like a GPU produces every pixel.

I didn´t say anything about how anything is interpreted, only that these rods and cones are kinda like pixels.

 

I´ll take a look at the study and see what it says ...

 

2 hours ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

There was a TechQuickie video about this a while back....

 

also @heimdali, I can see the difference between 50 and 60 fps.

Are you saying you can look at TFT or a CRT and tell me whether it shows 50 or 60fps?

 

I´m not saying there isn´t a difference which you can make use of when playing games, but that wasn´t the question.  Also, everyone is different, that´s why I said "about" 50fps.

 

[William Payne]

I see in really tiny pixels but I have a condition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_snow

[Crunchy Dragon]

Just now, heimdali said:

Are you saying you can look at TFT or a CRT and tell me whether it shows 50 or 60fps?

 

I´m not saying there isn´t a difference which you can make use of when playing games, but that wasn´t the question.  Also, everyone is different, that´s why I said "about" 50fps.

Not without a frame counter

 

Also I agree, I just wanted to point that out, it sounded to me like you said something different my bad

[DrMacintosh]

23 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Eyes do not see in frames

Actually they do however they are dynamic frames. You brain only updates what is moving but it does have a "frame rate". 

 

It's why you see motion blur. 

[TurbulentWinds]

2 minutes ago, heimdali said:

Are you saying you can look at TFT or a CRT and tell me whether it shows 50 or 60fps?

 

I´m not saying there isn´t a difference which you can make use of when playing games, but that wasn´t the question.  Also, everyone is different, that´s why I said "about" 50fps.

 

I would say it depends. If there isn't any sort of adaptive sync or such like, the tearing on a 60 HZ monitor would be noticeable.