Whats the framerate and resolution of your eys

[Ashiella]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

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

Just because google has it doesn't mean its true. ~ Alphabet

[TurbulentWinds]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

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

Actually, I did read all of the links you have posted and watched the video too!

 

The video was about the "resolution" of the eye, which I agree with. However, it did not go over "refresh rate."

 

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

This didn't really prove anything to me. So I followed their research link to here:

https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/how-does-a-chicken-tell-time

Where I saw no specific numbers listed and there was nothing really on humans.

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

This link was the most convincing of the bunch. Since I don't feel like typing my own take, here is what someone else said:

Quote

I think you are partly mistaken in your interpretation of the data, as well as the conclusion. The research on flicker fusion is quite clear on the fact that it is referring to the frequency of the modulation (from dark to bright). That means that with a critical frequency of 50 Hz, it is the peaks (be it black or white) that are being flickered at 50 Hz. Therefore to reproduce this on a display, you need to display black and white frames successively at 100 fps (or 120 fps if you take the higher value).

Also, as far as I understand, the test setup is idealized (that is, half of the time absolute darkness and half of the time absolute brightness). It is entirely plausible that with a different (uneven or varying) duty cycle, differences of less than 10 ms can be perceived. Therefore I cannot say with certainty that even 120 fps is the limit (although it is quite probably enough). For virtual reality purposes, more seems to be better, without exception. Michael Abrash (of previously Valve Software and now Oculus VR) estimates that the sweet spot for 1080p at 90 degrees field of view is somewhere between 300 and 1000 fps (see the website link).

The fact that differences in game score become negligible between 30 and 60 fps is meaningless. Game score is hardly a measure of the absolute limits of human vision.

I am quite certain that given 60 fps and 120 fps displays side by side with video at the same frame rates, I would be able to tell the difference between them. So please, give me a 120 fps display already.

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

This was literally useless.

[EZRILLEX]

On 17/11/2017 at 6:49 PM, Powerscape one man band said:

Whats the framerate and resolution of our eyes? just asking

Actually Vsauce made a video about that topics

 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Ashiella said:

Just because google has it doesn't mean its true. ~ Alphabet

So you'd rather just blindly dismiss it then?

 

1 hour ago, TurbulentWinds said:

Actually, I did read all of the links you have posted and watched the video too!

 

The video was about the "resolution" of the eye, which I agree with. However, it did not go over "refresh rate."

 

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

This didn't really prove anything to me. So I followed their research link to here:

https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/how-does-a-chicken-tell-time

Where I saw no specific numbers listed and there was nothing really on humans.

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

This link was the most convincing of the bunch. Since I don't feel like typing my own take, here is what someone else said:

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

This was literally useless.

 

I guess you missed this bit:

Quote

the frame rate fluctuates widely from one species to another. Jackson focused on vertebrates. At one end of the spectrum he uncovered was the golden-mantled ground squirrel, which can see a hundred and twenty flashes a second. At the other was the European eel, with a C.F.F. of just fourteen, and the leatherback sea turtle, at fifteen. Humans are more or less in the middle, at sixty. Dogs: eighty. Rats: thirty-nine.

From Dr. Andrew Jackson, leader of the complex evolutionary systems research group at trinity college Dublin.  And the basis of the article I linked.

If you don't understand the concept of vision persistence and how it effects the signals being sent to eh visual cortex then I don't know what else to tell you.

 

Don't trip over yourself trying to dismiss current research to support some old internet myths.

 

 

EDIT: the beauty of science is that we have multiple sources to form what's called a consensus.  I have linked to three different sources (excluding one just because) and Daring linked to another that all support each other.  So far you guys have linked to an old forum post and a techquikie video.  Some have referred to an army experiment that I can't seem to find but has been explained anyway.

 

[e46]

On 11/17/2017 at 5:49 PM, Powerscape one man band said:

Whats the framerate and resolution of our eyes? just asking

-wheeze-

[e46]

[flibberdipper]

I'm surprised this topic hasn't been locked yet.

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

The next threads will be:

• How many cores does the human brain have?
• At what speed does the human brain run at?
• How much available memory does the human brain have for short term memory?
• How much mass storage does the human brain have in long term memory

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, tmcclelland455 said:

I'm surprised this topic hasn't been locked yet.

 

Obviously people still don't understand, so even if the thread may have been started as a troll, while the discussion continues in a civil manner why would it get locked?

[ARikozuM]

21 minutes ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

The next threads will be:

• How many cores does the human brain have?

Mine has 2. 

21 minutes ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

• At what speed does the human brain run at?

3.2GHz; no turbo. 

21 minutes ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

• How much available memory does the human brain have for short term memory?

2MB L2 cache.

21 minutes ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

• How much mass storage does the human brain have in long term memory

About 3TB, give or take a few gigabytes.

[Drak3]

27 minutes ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

The next threads will be:

• How many cores does the human brain have?
• At what speed does the human brain run at?
• How much available memory does the human brain have for short term memory?
• How much mass storage does the human brain have in long term memory

One

133MHz

64KB

40MB

 

For at least, some people...

[handymanshandle]

On 11/17/2017 at 6:51 PM, Nimrodor said:

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

4fps 100x320 /s

 

But yeah its kinda silly to see an organ in terms of a display or an image sensor although they are like one.

[asus killer]

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

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.

real study by MIT:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2542583/Scientists-record-fastest-time-human-image-takes-just-13-milliseconds.html

 

the eyes and the brain are insane machines.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, asus killer said:

real study by MIT:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2542583/Scientists-record-fastest-time-human-image-takes-just-13-milliseconds.html

 

the eyes and the brain are insane machines.

13ms = 76 FPS.    How is that different from the other articles I posted? 

 

 

 

[Sfekke]

On 11/18/2017 at 2:06 AM, Himommies said:

pepole can obviously see the difference between 60 and 200 fps

Just for the record, FPS & Hertz are not the same
But you always have a set amount of hertz, not frames. (What we call lag)

 

I know for a fact a friend of mine cannot, while I can clearly tell 2 exact monitors of he's apart and could tell him one was running at 144Hertz or around there.

He didn't even notice a difference and had to check which one of the 2 it was again.

 

People can see it, but some might have trouble or just not see it at all.

I'll admit I'm fine with 60Hertz screens, when you put them side by side yes there is a difference.

Is it worth the price? In games yes, maybe.

Windows itself, yes maybe.

But it depends on how thick you wallet is.

[Alvin walker]

Basicaly the eye has no framerate nor resolution (eyes do have but the brain fills in the gaps). So the higher refresh rate, the better and the higher resolution, the better too. Just check that you graphics card is powerful enough to run the games that you want to play at the resolution of your display (and refresh rate too). If you are looking for the best gaming experience you should look for a g-sync or freesync display, it will make a bigger difference then higher refresh rates. You can also note that the difference between 60 and 120hz is much more noticable then between 120 and 240.

[TurbulentWinds]

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

From Dr. Andrew Jackson, leader of the complex evolutionary systems research group at trinity college Dublin.  And the basis of the article I linked.

If you don't understand the concept of vision persistence and how it effects the signals being sent to eh visual cortex then I don't know what else to tell you.

 

Don't trip over yourself trying to dismiss current research to support some old internet myths.

First of all, there is no reason to be an asshole. You could have just explained this to me using much nicer words. I did indeed miss the part you pointed out, however, while I do understand that 60 flashes of light per second looks continuous, I don't understand why this is wrong: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep07861. 

[asus killer]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

13ms = 76 FPS.    How is that different from the other articles I posted? 

 

 

 

because it's not an opinion, it's measured. I have no idea about the eye perceiving only 60 or 76fps, never done any study miself  it's just that i respect more a study than an opinion. 

but this is for different images (a cat, a dog, a house, etc... for example) and not movie images or videogame images, continuous frames.

 

but my point is that the eyes and brain are amazing machines.

 

PS: regarding videogames, there is a difference between 60fps and more or less depending on what you see, static images, low movement images or high speed images, it looks to me.

[CPPrince]

On 11/18/2017 at 12:54 AM, 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.

 

 

 

On 11/18/2017 at 1:09 AM, heimdali said:

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 ...

 

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.

 

Yes. I have a 165 hz monitor and the difference is like night and day compared to 60hz. Obviously you have to have a frame rate that high to benefit. Although saying that, its not a huge difference from like 120 to 165. So 240 I think its a bit mad although I have never used a monitor with that so can't really give an opinion on it.

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, asus killer said:

because it's not an opinion, it's measured. I have no idea about the eye perceiving only 60 or 76fps, never done any study miself  it's just that i respect more a study than an opinion. 

but this is for different images (a cat, a dog, a house, etc... for example) and not movie images or videogame images, continuous frames.

 

but my point is that the eyes and brain are amazing machines.

 

PS: regarding videogames, there is a difference between 60fps and more or less depending on what you see, static images, low movement images or high speed images, it looks to me.

Absolutely.   There are obviously things at play when we get higher frame rates.  Traditionally though higher frame rates correlate to higher performing machines ( which means less lag through the system etc). 

[JoeCoke]

Well, obviously 30FPS because the human eye can't possibly see anything higher than that.

[flibberdipper]

22 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

Obviously people still don't understand, so even if the thread may have been started as a troll, while the discussion continues in a civil manner why would it get locked?

Because it's still a troll post...

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, tmcclelland455 said:

Because it's still a troll post...

so we are not allowed to have a civil discussion about anything if the topic was originally intended to be a troll post?

 

[LAwLz]

Haven't bothered to read all the replies yet but I have seen enough of these threads to know what the answers will be anyway.

 

Humans does not perceive things in frames per seconds or pixels, and once you try to convert things like cons and rods to "pixels" things quickly just turns into "what is a pixel/frame" and "under what conditions", and also it varies from person to person.

 

Here are some facts though:

• Humans can perceive more than 60 frames per second as smoother motion. What is the cap where no person could see a difference regardless of how many FPS we increase by? No idea. What is the cap where humans can no longer distinguish between individual frames? No idea either but my guess is that it's pretty low. 
• Under ideal conditions, a human can make out fine details from an imagine that we only saw for 1/200 of a second. If that means we can see 200 FPS is up for debate, but the fact of the matter is that our eyes and brain can create a clear imagine of something using only 1/200 of a second of exposure time.
• When it comes to pixels, the "resolution" is quite low but varies in different parts of the eyes, and we are more sensitive to certain things like misaligned lines. ~900 PPI is not really that far fetched for human eyes assuming perfect conditions and average vision. If you have slightly better than average vision then being able to see above 1000 PPI is entirely possible. You just have to be uncomfortably close to the subject.

[JoostinOnline]

Framerate is 24fps