Whats the framerate and resolution of your eys

[Godlygamer23]

13 hours ago, heimdali said:

Eyes kinda do have pixels.

How so? 

[-TesseracT-]

exactly 263.55 fps and 4862x3029

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, TurbulentWinds said:

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

 

 

Seen it before, it's wrong.  You can see one flash of an image from the dark but you can not perceive that many flashes simultaneously.  He has either taken his source out of context or he doesn't understand it's intent.  Please see my multiple previous links which explain all of this.

 

5 hours ago, Godlygamer23 said:

How so? 

Because the array of the retina has a hard limit in the number of points that can be stimulated by photons.

 

This is also known as visual acuity, it has been measured and re measured and constantly researched.  Using visual acuity research, the number of arc minutes you can perceive from a distance of 6M is observed.   This is also evidenced by comparing the eagles eyes (1Million rods and cones per mm²⁾ to human eyes (200,000 Rods and cones per mm²).    

 

[asus killer]

19 hours 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.

best answer

[mr moose]

Just now, asus killer said:

best answer

Except it's not. Eye's can receive information constantly but they cannot convert that information to nerve impulses the same way.  They are by nature  primarily hamstrung to the biology of the rods and cones.   

 

 

 

 

[asus killer]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Except it's not. Eye's can receive information constantly but they cannot convert that information to nerve impulses the same way.  They are by nature  primarily hamstrung to the biology of the rods and cones.   

 

 

 

 

framerate is the rate a frame is created. I suppose in your world there is something rendering what you see??!!

[mr moose]

Just now, asus killer said:

framerate is the rate a frame is created. I suppose in your world there is something rendering what you see??!!

 

No, but there is a limitation to how many times my eye can react to photon stimuli.  This discussion is not about how an image is created but how the eye perceives it. 

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, asus killer said:

framerate is the rate a frame is created. I suppose in your world there is something rendering what you see??!!

Unfortunately, your rods and cones have to hit a threshold before they fire along their synapses. Once fired, they also have a cool-down before they can fire once more. 

[asus killer]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

No, but there is a limitation to how many times my eye can react to photon stimuli.  This discussion is not about how an image is created but how the eye perceives it. 

eyes don't see in frames, like he said they see continuously. The world does not have framerates. The OP question was what's the eyes framerate.

 

have no idea about resolution, seems a weird question. never thought about.

[mr moose]

Just now, asus killer said:

yes don't see in frames, like he said they see continuously. The world does not have framerates. The OP question was what's the eyes framerate.

Something tells me you missed the crucial information here.  At what point do you define the eye as actually seeing anything?  Is it when the light hits the cornea, hits the retina or is converted to a nerve impulse?  Because while we have a constant stream of light in, the eye itself cannot deal with a constant stream, it has physical limitations, so in laymen's vernacular, it effectively sees in chunks and bits of those chunks at best.

[asus killer]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Something tells me you missed the crucial information here.  At what point do you define the eye as actually seeing anything?  Is it when the light hits the cornea, hits the retina or is converted to a nerve impulse?  Because while we have a constant stream of light in, the eye itself cannot deal with a constant stream, it has physical limitations, so in laymen's vernacular, it effectively sees in chunks and bits of those chunks at best.

agree to disagree. I guess there is a confusion with the eye not being able to perceive more than 60fps, but that has nothing to do with the eye seeing in framerates or having a framerate. My 2 cents anyway.

The eyes have limitations of course, i agree.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, asus killer said:

agree to disagree. I guess there is a confusion with the eye not being able to perceive more than 60fps, but that has nothing to do with the eye seeing in framerates or having a framerate. My 2 cents anyway.

The eyes have limitations of course, i agree.

I believe the confusion stems from way too many articles from gaming journalists. Journalists who don't know what they are talking about, but feel the need to sell an article to a community that wants to hear their PC is better than consoles. 

[TurbulentWinds]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

 

 

Seen it before, it's wrong.  You can see one flash of an image from the dark but you can not perceive that many flashes simultaneously.  He has either taken his source out of context or he doesn't understand it's intent.  Please see my multiple previous links which explain all of this.

 

Because the array of the retina has a hard limit in the number of points that can be stimulated by photons.

 

This is also known as visual acuity, it has been measured and re measured and constantly researched.  Using visual acuity research, the number of arc minutes you can perceive from a distance of 6M is observed.   This is also evidenced by comparing the eagles eyes (1Million rods and cones per mm²⁾ to human eyes (200,000 Rods and cones per mm²).    

 

 

[asus killer]

33 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I believe the confusion stems from way too many articles from gaming journalists. Journalists who don't know what they are talking about, but feel the need to sell an article to a community that wants to hear their PC is better than consoles. 

agree. But it's not a PC vs consoles thing. Nowadays it's usual for people to say shit, publish shit in the net and not just on the net. Politicians, journalists, wannabe scientists, quacks,... they say things that are just opinions as facts, or supposed facts that they like. But the 60fps stuck like crazy for a long time.

But most console games never pass 30fps anyway 

[William Payne]

I see in 1 million potatoes. I have super starch pixels. 

[Ashiella]

15 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

Ironic.

 

See my above post and link to supporting evidence.

Define irony.

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, TurbulentWinds said:

 

So you haven't bothered to read any of the links I posted!

 

 

1 hour ago, Ashiella said:

Define irony.

 

Making a shit post while telling others you'd appreciate seeing less shit posts.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, asus killer said:

agree. But it's not a PC vs consoles thing. Nowadays it's usual for people to say shit, publish shit in the net and not just on the net. Politicians, journalists, wannabe scientists, quacks,... they say things that are just opinions as facts, or supposed facts that they like. But the 60fps stuck like crazy for a long time.

But most console games never pass 30fps anyway 

no, but that's where most of this starts.     And tech journalists just don't understand what it is they are reporting.  Like the thousand frames a second thing,  Yes the nerve impulses operate fast enough to cater for image processing at that speed, however the eyes are not.  The visual processing system is more like having a $30K editing PC while using a 640x480 camera.

[Drak3]

2 hours ago, Ashiella said:

Define irony.

The use of words expressing something other than their literal intention.

   -Bender.

[Crunchy Dragon]

19 hours 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

Wow I must not be human

[Ashiella]

20 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

The use of words expressing something other than their literal intention.

   -Bender.

I meant, just because he doesn't believe the same thing doesn't automatically make it irony.

[Drak3]

11 minutes ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

Wow I must not be human

Course not, you're a crunchy dragon.

 

 

GRRRRRR.

Just now, Ashiella said:

I meant, just because he doesn't believe the same thing doesn't automatically make it irony.

[Ashiella]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

GRRRRRR.

 

[it_dont_work]

Atleast we should all agree we see upside down.

[mr moose]

12 minutes ago, Ashiella said:

I meant, just because he doesn't believe the same thing doesn't automatically make it irony.

It's got nothing to do with belief, I posted evidence. It's fact.