Whats the framerate and resolution of your eys

[ARikozuM]

19 minutes ago, Glenwing said:

 It's like asking what RPM an SSD operates at.

What about Honda SSD's? 

[heimdali]

Just now, Crunchy Dragon said:

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

Lol, why is everyone assuming all the time I´m saying something else than I do?

 

As to the link above, I don´t see any study there.  If you´re referring to that quote of a study, it says clearly that the pilots used the afterimage to identify the object they were shown, and it doesn´t give any prove whatsoever that humans are able to actually see 220fps.  It is nothing new that afterimages can be seen under certain conditions.  Try the same experiment in bright daylight instead of in a dark room, and see what results you´ll get ...

 

[Enderman]

2 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

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. 

No there is not a frame rate.

The neural signals can fire at any time, and have a cool down, but they do not synchronize between themselves.

There is no "rate" where your brain interprets an image, then does the next image, etc.

 

2 hours ago, heimdali said:

Lol, why is everyone assuming all the time I´m saying something else than I do?

 

As to the link above, I don´t see any study there.  If you´re referring to that quote of a study, it says clearly that the pilots used the afterimage to identify the object they were shown, and it doesn´t give any prove whatsoever that humans are able to actually see 220fps.  It is nothing new that afterimages can be seen under certain conditions.  Try the same experiment in bright daylight instead of in a dark room, and see what results you´ll get ...

 

It is a lot more complicated than that, the "humans can see 220 fps" is just bs because it depends on what type of image is being displayed, the surroundings, the alertness/concentration of the person, the individual's JND, and plenty of other factors.

[DrMacintosh]

16 minutes ago, Enderman said:

The neural signals can fire at any time, and have a cool down,

Which is a "rate" 

 

As I said your brain refreshes what is moving so your eyes do technically have a refresh rate and by extension a frame rate. There is a limit at which your brain can't refresh fast enough and you get motion blur. 

[Drak3]

Depending on the person and imagery, looking at a panel, they might only be able to interpret 60ish hertz, or they might be able to interpret 300. But there is no single number, no cut and dry answer.

[Enderman]

14 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Which is a "rate" 

 

As I said your brain refreshes what is moving so your eyes do technically have a refresh rate and by extension a frame rate. There is a limit at which your brain can't refresh fast enough and you get motion blur. 

No, motion blur is because of the neural signals sent by the retina are not instant, it is a rise and drop of voltage which lasts a finite amount of time, so that the cells stay "fired" for some time.

The brain has no refresh rate because the neural image processing in your brain does not run on a clock, when a receptor cell fires then the neurons in your brain also fire.

 

By your logic, if the individual cell firing is a "refresh rate", then you could argue that by stimulating each individual cell in your retina one after the other you would be able to achieve 126 million frames every 4ms since there are about 126 million rod and cone cells.

Obviously this statement is ridiculous because it would just be interpreted as a blur, not individual frames, as the occipital lobe in the brain also has a similar cell response to the graph posted above.

[ARikozuM]

My eyes are 1080p and 24fps and directed by Peter Jackson. 

[DrMacintosh]

17 minutes ago, Enderman said:

By your logic, if the individual cell firing is a "refresh rate", then you could argue that by stimulating each individual cell in your retina one after the other you would be able to achieve 126 million frames every 4ms since there are about 126 million rod and cone cells.

Sure

[mr moose]

OMG, why are people so adamant they know this shit so emphatically?

 

The eyes have a set resolution, there are a limited number of rods and cones so even if they all fired at exactly the same time you would still have an absolute resolution.

 

They don't all fire at the same time so it is usual to have half the resolution of the number of actual rods and cones you have.  That would work out to a megapixel or two.  Why is the image so clear? because the visual cortex is an extremely complicated system that fills in the gaps.

 

Lastly,  The brain stops receiving all visual input from the eyes when the eyes move, this is to prevent overloading of the visual cortex. 

 

 

EDIT:

 

I'll take the word of the royal society over a 1000 self educated tech websites on something as complex as the visual processing system.

[Mooshi]

I'm surprised this thread actually has more than 1 page and a mod hasn't "this is status material *lock*" yet.

[Shreyas1]

Anything that uses moving frames to make the appearance of a moving image is somewhat of an illusion 

 

The human eye cannot see more than 24 fps at 720 p

 

/s

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Shreyas1 said:

Anything that uses moving frames to make the appearance of a moving image is somewhat of an illusion 

That's the entire visual processing system for you.  Everything you think you see is made up of snippets of information from looking around, not one single image.

[Ashiella]

5 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.

Pilots can see thousands of frames per second, pro league gamers can usually see more than the average person as well, not because of the refresh rate, but being able to pause yourself inbetween every frame of 144hz compared to watching just motion at 240hz is better.

[Ashiella]

9 minutes ago, Shreyas1 said:

Anything that uses moving frames to make the appearance of a moving image is somewhat of an illusion 

 

The human eye cannot see more than 24 fps at 720 p

 

/s

I would appreciate less shitposts, even if the topic is stupid. Thank you.

[mr moose]

30 minutes ago, Ashiella said:

Pilots can see thousands of frames per second, pro league gamers can usually see more than the average person as well, not because of the refresh rate, but being able to pause yourself inbetween every frame of 144hz compared to watching just motion at 240hz is better.

 

29 minutes ago, Ashiella said:

I would appreciate less shitposts, even if the topic is stupid. Thank you.

Ironic.

 

See my above post and link to supporting evidence.

[William Payne]

1 potato, 2 potato, 3 potato, 4

[mr moose]

But it seems that might not be enough for some people.  So here is some more links to verified, peer reviewed and just well researched articles explaining more.

 

https://nerdist.com/your-brain-has-a-frame-rate-and-its-pretty-slow/

https://xcorr.net/2011/11/20/whats-the-maximal-frame-rate-humans-can-perceive/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1604863

 

 

[mariushm]

Here's a quick answer to your problem...

 

Below's a gif that counts from 1 to 1000 .... every time you see the counter changing, you can say you see a "frame per second" :

 

 

Your eyes may not be fast enough to decode each last digit from the counter, but they detect that something has changed. Often you don't need the exact information, just knowing that something has changed is good enough. For example when you're hunting an animal in the bushes in some jungle, often knowing that some tree branch shifted/bent or some tall grass moved is enough to know there's an animal there, you don't need to know it's a tiger and how many spots of color the fur has.

 

So if you're talking about how many unique "frames" per second the human eyes can process, then the closes analogy would be the second digit in the counter but the human eyes don't work like that, they work with continuous flow of information, they don't digitize, they don't take snapshots.

Trained pilots can spot and react to variations in what they see hundreds of times a second, maybe even thousands... i'm too lazy to look up the research... while we regular humans will notice changes maybe up to 200-500 "frames a second" ?  A lot of people will have eyes better than 144 Hz monitors and will notice differences between a 144 Hz monitor and a 200-240 Hz monitor easily.

 

[mr moose]

12 minutes ago, mariushm said:

human eyes don't work like that, they work with continuous flow of information, they don't digitize, they don't take snapshots.

Trained pilots can spot and react to variations in what they see hundreds of times a second, maybe even thousands... i'm too lazy to look up the research... while we regular humans will notice changes maybe up to 200-500 "frames a second" ?  A lot of people will have eyes better than 144 Hz monitors and will notice differences between a 144 Hz monitor and a 200-240 Hz monitor easily.

 

No There is no continuous stream and they do not see that many frames at all, please read the links I posted.

 

 

[Nowak]

Resolution? I've heard somewhere close to the equivalent of 600 megapixels, but there's no real "resolution of the eye. As for frame rate...

 

7 hours ago, heimdali said:

that´s no more than about 50fps

 

 

7 hours 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.

Demonstrably false. The US Air Force found the eyes of pilot trainees were able to identify a simulated enemy aircraft flashed at 220Hz, while a more recent study found that the eye is able to perceive images flashed at 500Hz.

 

Actually, that entire study I linked (published on Nature, one of the most prestigious scientific journals) is interesting. Here's some further tidbits:

 

• A monitor refresh rate of 72Hz is a sufficient enough refresh rate to avoid flicker entirely
• When a modulated light source is spatially uniform (e.g. a screen changing), the sensitivity curve drops to 65Hz
• However, when all participants in the study saw something from a modulated light source that wasn't spatially uniform, but rather with a spatial high frequency edge (e.g. moving white edge on black background or vice versa), all participants saw artifacts flicker at 200Hz
• For the median viewer, flickering artifacts disappear only over 500Hz
• The eyes are most sensitive to flickering with green light at up to 500Hz, red light at 475Hz and blue light at 158Hz

Checkmate.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Daring said:

Resolution? I've heard somewhere close to the equivalent of 600 megapixels, but there's no real "resolution of the eye. As for frame rate...

 

• A minimum monitor refresh rate of 72Hz is a sufficient enough refresh rate to avoid flicker entirely
• When a modulated light source is spatially uniform (e.g. a screen changing), the sensitivity curve drops to 65Hz
• However, when all participants in the study saw something from a modulated light source that wasn't spatially uniform, but rather with a spatial high frequency edge (e.g. moving white edge on black background or vice versa), all participants saw artifacts flicker at 200Hz
• For the median viewer, flickering artifacts disappear only over 500Hz
• The eyes are most sensitive to flickering with green light at up to 500Hz, red light at 475Hz and blue light at 158Hz

 

 

The study you linked did not say "minimum" monitor refresh rate, it said "a frame rate of 72 Hz for computer displays is sufficient to avoid flicker completely" That is the most it needs not the minimum it needs. Which is funnily enough the same as what all the other research has discovered.

 

Flicker artifacts on non-uniform spacial images (need to be moving edges) have been observed for a while now.  (rainbow effect on DLP projectors are a classic example)

 

Flicker artifacts are not the same is perceiving whole frames or indeed even being able to perceive frame rates as we discuss them here, but tries to deal with the perception of flicker (consider one like seeing a car drive past (but not be able to identify it) and the other the perception of a dark flash in the corner of the eye), it is the Hypothesized that the reason they can be perceived is due to saccades.  Which as yet changes in both directions when accounting for eye movement (in the links I posted earlier).

 

 

[Nowak]

Just now, mr moose said:

 

The study you linked did not say "minimum" monitor refresh rate, it said "a frame rate of 72 Hz for computer displays is sufficient to avoid flicker completely" That is the most it needs not the minimum it needs. Which is funnily enough the same as what all the other research has discovered.

 

Flicker artifacts on non-uniform spacial images (need to be moving edges) have been observed for a while now.  (rainbow effect on DLP projectors are a classic example)

 

Flicker artifacts are not the same is perceiving whole frames or indeed even being able to perceive frame rates as we discuss them here, but tries to deal with the perception of flicker (consider one like seeing a car drive past (but not be able to identify it) and the other the perception of a dark flash in the corner of the eye), it is the Hypothesized that the reason they can be perceived is due to saccades.  Which as yet changes in both directions when accounting for eye movement (in the links I posted earlier).

 

 

Ah, my bad. I'll fix my post.

[TurbulentWinds]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

The study you linked did not say "minimum" monitor refresh rate, it said "a frame rate of 72 Hz for computer displays is sufficient to avoid flicker completely" That is the most it needs not the minimum it needs. Which is funnily enough the same as what all the other research has discovered.

 

Flicker artifacts on non-uniform spacial images (need to be moving edges) have been observed for a while now.  (rainbow effect on DLP projectors are a classic example)

 

Flicker artifacts are not the same is perceiving whole frames or indeed even being able to perceive frame rates as we discuss them here, but tries to deal with the perception of flicker (consider one like seeing a car drive past (but not be able to identify it) and the other the perception of a dark flash in the corner of the eye), it is the Hypothesized that the reason they can be perceived is due to saccades.  Which as yet changes in both directions when accounting for eye movement (in the links I posted earlier).

 

 

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

[TurbulentWinds]

 

[ramencupofjoy]

this thread just a repetitive boring argument that has been had hundreds of times before and it's going nowhere.