Whats the framerate and resolution of your eys

[mr moose]

46 minutes ago, SupremeChunk said:

Fair enough, have a good day.

 

you too.

[LAwLz]

Just so that everyone is on the same page here, because I feel like at least one person in this thread is trying to push one answer by using a very specific definition arrived at using a particular testing methodology.

 

A human can not distinguish between individual flashes of light once we reach around 500 exposures a second. There is a great diminishing return and things such as environment and what is in the flashes of light matters, but in order to make sure you can not under any circumstance distinguish between two subsequent flashes you need something around 500 or higher.

 

As for resolution, it depends on what distance you're talking about.

Again, if we are talking about absolute perfect conditions then we need to use vernier acuity as the reference point since that's what humans are best at. That is to say, the minimum difference between two misaligned lines against a high contrast background the human eye can detect.

Humans have a vernier acuity of about 0.13 arc minutes. The average adult can focus on something roughly 100 millimeters away. Younger people can focus more closely but I am going to assume we're talking about a perfect display for a young adult and not a 5 year old child...

At 100 millimeters away, 0.13 arc minutes becomes 0.0038 microns. That means that at 10 centimeters away, a young adult can detect if two lines under perfect conditions are misaligned by 0.0038 microns. Smaller than that and no difference can be detected.

 

In order to get a pixel pitch of 0.0038 microns on a 24" monitor, the resolution would need to be: 140000x78750.

That would result in a PPI of around 6700.

 

So a 24", 140000x78750 monitor with a refresh rate of about 500Hz would be perfect as far as refresh rate and resolution goes. 

The practical limit for a "perfect monitor" is much more reasonable though. Probably more like 120Hz and a resolution of 4800x2680 (assuming 24" monitor, about 40cm away). After that diminishing returns starts hitting you hard and you start getting into needing more and more niche scenarios for it to be detectable.

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

A human can not distinguish between individual flashes of light once we reach around 500 exposures a second. There is a great diminishing return and things such as environment and what is in the flashes of light matters, but in order to make sure you can not under any circumstance distinguish between two subsequent flashes you need something around 500 or higher.

 

 

Which is all well and good,  except the articles that show us we can do this also tell us that it is likely due to an effect that tricks the brain.  Meaning it is entirely possible that the eye cannot send image information that fast and the saccades effect is why high contrasting changes in light can be observed at that speed.   Which means for the OP (does the eye have an FPS?) it doesn't really answer the question.   If the question was, does the whole visual processing system have an FPS limit then it would a very relevant.

 

 

[Vantage9]

On 11/17/2017 at 8:01 PM, 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?

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

 

 

This is beyond idiotic.  You, sir, have 0 clue what you're talking about, and you've clearly misunderstood something on Wikipedia.

 

How long it takes to identify an image has to do with a hell of a lot more than what framerate you see at... The time delay is for identification, not visualization.

 

And you think that fluid motion at 50fps means it can't be any smoother, and that we can't see it???   That's so dumb its not even worth refuting.    Solid Troll post.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Vantage9 said:

 

This is beyond idiotic.  You, sir, have 0 clue what you're talking about, and you've clearly misunderstood something on Wikipedia.

 

How long it takes to identify an image has to do with a hell of a lot more than what framerate you see at... The time delay is for identification, not visualization.

 

And you think that fluid motion at 50fps means it can't be any smoother, and that we can't see it???   That's so dumb its not even worth refuting.    Solid Troll post.

 

It's not beyond idiotic, it may be erroneous or out of context but to call names and call troll post on something that is not only easy to address but is a non aggressive post, is against CS.   This is a very controversial topic because it is very technical and there is a lot of bad information.  I honestly don't think many people here are trolling, they are just wading through what is a quagmire of complex concepts. 

[Vantage9]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

It's not beyond idiotic, it may be erroneous or out of context but to call names and call troll post on something that is not only easy to address but is a non aggressive post, is against CS.   This is a very controversial topic because it is very technical and there is a lot of bad information.  I honestly don't think many people here are trolling, they are just wading through what is a quagmire of complex concepts. 

 

Biology is EXTREMELY complicated, but there is an abundance of information out there.  To reduce something as complicated as how eyeballs work (human or not) into "technical" terms like Pixels and FPS a total non-starter.  There is 0 reason to think the two things can even be discussed in the same framework.  The OP has been told this by multiple people, but persists in throwing out random statistics and pretending they apply to this analogy, all without any real connection.  Just because you want to reduce something complex into a simpler concept you understand, doesn't mean it is applicable at all.

 

As for whether or not calling a spade a spade is out of place...  Lets look at some of the common synonyms of "idiotic".  Words like "foolish, thoughtless, and pointless".  Would I say that it is foolish, thoughtless, and pointless to throw out random stats (like seconds of response time and fps) for a biological system that doesn't use those measuring standards at all?  Yes, I'd say that it is foolish, thoughtless, and pointless.  Thus, it is clearly idiotic.

 

People who know far more than me or the OP have weighted in on this topic, but that doesn't keep people from pulling random information out of their asses, like OP's claim about 50fps being as fluid as it gets...   Sometimes, a comment can be just plain idiotic, without it being personal.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Which is all well and good,  except the articles that show us we can do this also tell us that it is likely due to an effect that tricks the brain.  Meaning it is entirely possible that the eye cannot send image information that fast and the saccades effect is why high contrasting changes in light can be observed at that speed.   Which means for the OP (does the eye have an FPS?) it doesn't really answer the question.   If the question was, does the whole visual processing system have an FPS limit then it would a very relevant.

I have not read the entire nature article yet, but it seems like you are misrepresenting or misinterpreting the information in the article.

I think it is fairly obvious that the OP is asking about what a human can perceive, not just what our eyes can perceive and this is exactly why I said in my post that at least one person in this thread is pushing an answer based on a very specific definition, and I don't think it matches what everyone else is talking about.

 

If you're going to eliminate the brain from the entire equation and just purely look at what our eyes can do then I would say our eyes sees 0 FPS and 0x0 resolution, because it's the brain that actually converts the electrical signals generated by our eyes to an actual image.

 

Yes, our brain does a lot of very interesting stuff. Vernier acuity I mentioned earlier is actually very interesting and something we don't quite understand how it works yet. Humans can detect misalignments smaller than the actual receptors in our eyes. We can do this because our brain somehow uses a type of "subpixel" sampling.

So our eyes can't see the 6700 PPI I mentioned earlier, but a human can thanks to our brains. Does that mean our hypothetical "perfect" monitor wouldn't need 6700 PPI? It absolutely would, because otherwise we would run into situations where a 1 pixel misalignment would be detectable by a human.

 

So before this goes on and on and on with us arguing back and forth, will you agree that our eyes might have one "FPS limit", but the human visual system as a whole has another limit which is significantly higher?

[mr moose]

17 minutes ago, Vantage9 said:

 

Biology is EXTREMELY complicated, but there is an abundance of information out there.  To reduce something as complicated as how eyeballs work (human or not) into "technical" terms like Pixels and FPS a total non-starter.  There is 0 reason to think the two things can even be discussed in the same framework.  The OP has been told this by multiple people, but persists in throwing out random statistics and pretending they apply to this analogy, all without any real connection.  Just because you want to reduce something complex into a simpler concept you understand, doesn't mean it is applicable at all.

 

As for whether or not calling a spade a spade is out of place...  Lets look at some of the common synonyms of "idiotic".  Words like "foolish, thoughtless, and pointless".  Would I say that it is foolish, thoughtless, and pointless to throw out random stats (like seconds of response time and fps) for a biological system that doesn't use those measuring standards at all?  Yes, I'd say that it is foolish, thoughtless, and pointless.  Thus, it is clearly idiotic.

 

People who know far more than me or the OP have weighted in on this topic, but that doesn't keep people from pulling random information out of their asses, like OP's claim about 50fps being as fluid as it gets...   Sometimes, a comment can be just plain idiotic, without it being personal.

You see, it wasn't that hard to explain why you disagree,  but there is still no need for name calling.  That doesn't add to anyone's position.

 

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

So before this goes on and on and on with us arguing back and forth, will you agree that our eyes might have one "FPS limit", but the human visual system as a whole has another limit which is significantly higher?

Absolutely I agree with that.    I wouldn't call it arguing though (not in the traditional sense of the word), it is a discussion with multiple definitions thus multiple angles of reference.   For many think the eye can transmit a constant stream of information at unlimited resolution.  You and I both know that isn't true.  I would think the discussion is mostly considered in the light of gaming and gaming monitors, so frame rate interpretation will be with regard to that.

[Hiya!]

This thread is still going? 

For the sake of artorias...

I didnt expect a simple question can lead to this epic battle of arguments.

 

[LAwLz]

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Absolutely I agree with that.    I wouldn't call it arguing though (not in the traditional sense of the word), it is a discussion with multiple definitions thus multiple angles of reference.   For many think the eye can transmit a constant stream of information at unlimited resolution.  You and I both know that isn't true.  I would think the discussion is mostly considered in the light of gaming and gaming monitors, so frame rate interpretation will be with regard to that.

I think a lot of posts in this thread could have been avoided if you had just clarified that you were strictly talking about the eyes without any "post processing" done by the brain.

 

Anyway, I will continue to say that in order to have a "perfect" monitor, it would need a 500+ Hz refresh rate and a PPI of 6700+.

[Vantage9]

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You see, it wasn't that hard to explain why you disagree,  but there is still no need for name calling.  That doesn't add to anyone's position.

 

Funny, because you seem to have missed the entire point of the explanation.  

 

A) There's no need for anything here, name calling or not.  There's no need for his original post, there's no need for this discussion, and there's no need for any of us to care about it . . . . BUT . . . we're doing it anyway.  Now that we have that baseline out of the way...

 

B) Calling out his comment (about 0.3 seconds and 50 FPS) for being idiotic, is not the same thing as calling the person an idiot.  For example, I am a very smart person who does idiotic things all the time.  Does that make me an idiot?  No.  Smart people can do and say stupid things, which is exactly what the OP is being called out for.  Saying something stupid is not the same thing as being stupid. 

 

Now that we've established that I wasn't calling him any names, lets discuss your snowflake-syndrome.  Why do you feel the need to defend someone, regardless of the context, all while ignoring the subtle details of what's actually being talked about?   The OP, who you were defending, gives hard numbers without any reference as to where or why he's pulling those numbers out of his ass.  Why don't you feel the need to defend reason and intelligence by asking him about that?  This whole idea of being more concerned with the OP's feelings as opposed to the facts of the discussion is the problem here.  

 

Some ideas are stupid.  Like the idea that the human eye can't see smoothness beyond 50fps.  That's idiotic.

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I think a lot of posts in this thread could have been avoided if you had just clarified that you were strictly talking about the eyes without any "post processing" done by the brain.

 

Anyway, I will continue to say that in order to have a "perfect" monitor, it would need a 500+ Hz refresh rate and a PPI of 6700+.

 

Except that my response was directed at those who claimed the eyes send a constant stream of information.  I never made any initial claims about the OP's question (even though it does ask about eyes specifically), so I fail to see why I should need to be the one making all the qualifiers. 

 

 

5 hours ago, Vantage9 said:

 

Funny, because you seem to have missed the entire point of the explanation.  

 

A) There's no need for anything here, name calling or not.  There's no need for his original post, there's no need for this discussion, and there's no need for any of us to care about it . . . . BUT . . . we're doing it anyway.  Now that we have that baseline out of the way...

 

B) Calling out his comment (about 0.3 seconds and 50 FPS) for being idiotic, is not the same thing as calling the person an idiot.  For example, I am a very smart person who does idiotic things all the time.  Does that make me an idiot?  No.  Smart people can do and say stupid things, which is exactly what the OP is being called out for.  Saying something stupid is not the same thing as being stupid. 

 

Now that we've established that I wasn't calling him any names, lets discuss your snowflake-syndrome.  Why do you feel the need to defend someone, regardless of the context, all while ignoring the subtle details of what's actually being talked about?   The OP, who you were defending, gives hard numbers without any reference as to where or why he's pulling those numbers out of his ass.  Why don't you feel the need to defend reason and intelligence by asking him about that?  This whole idea of being more concerned with the OP's feelings as opposed to the facts of the discussion is the problem here.  

 

Some ideas are stupid.  Like the idea that the human eye can't see smoothness beyond 50fps.  That's idiotic.

Being a need for discussion is totally your opinion, even if they are wrong, they are entitled to post their opinion, if you don't think there is a need then don't post, let alone post calling people idiots and trolls just because they think something else.  Imagine if every time you posted something you thought was right  but was actually wrong everyone called you a stupid idiot.   

 

 

[Vantage9]

11 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

Being a need for discussion is totally your opinion, even if they are wrong, they are entitled to post their opinion, if you don't think there is a need then don't post, let alone post calling people idiots and trolls just because they think something else.  Imagine if every time you posted something you thought was right  but was actually wrong everyone called you a stupid idiot.   

 

 

 

I swear you most not have read anything I said...  

 

Just because there's no need for this discussion doesn't mean we shouldn't be having it... that's not what I said at all.  But to be honest, if you can't differentiate between someone saying that a particular comment is idiotic vs saying that a person is idiotic, I don't think there's much chance of you understanding my point.

 

As for your last comment, I'd imagine it would feel pretty similar to someone trying to debate you without actually reading or attempting to comprehend what you've said.  Its pretty frustrating.  Luckily, nobody in this thread (to my knowledge) has called the OP a stupid idiot, so I'm not really sure why you've posed the question. 

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, Vantage9 said:

 

I swear you most not have read anything I said...  

 

Just because there's no need for this discussion doesn't mean we shouldn't be having it... that's not what I said at all.  But to be honest, if you can't differentiate between someone saying that a particular comment is idiotic vs saying that a person is idiotic, I don't think there's much chance of you understanding my point.

 

As for your last comment, I'd imagine it would feel pretty similar to someone trying to debate you without actually reading or attempting to comprehend what you've said.  Its pretty frustrating.  Luckily, nobody in this thread (to my knowledge) has called the OP a stupid idiot, so I'm not really sure why you've posed the question. 

You called another user idiotic and a troll, then you tried to defend yourself by arguing nothing needs to be said on this thread. Please,  stop playing likes it's everyone else's problem with language.  

[Vantage9]

46 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You called another user idiotic and a troll, then you tried to defend yourself by arguing nothing needs to be said on this thread. Please,  stop playing likes it's everyone else's problem with language.  

 

Seriously, go back and re-read my posts then.  Your reading comprehension has honestly failed you.

 

I did not make the argument that nothing needs to be said on this thread.  I was pointing out how meaningless the phrase is that you used.  You told me "there's no need to call people names".  My response is that there's not technically a need for any of it.  Not the thread, the debate, or either of our thoughts on it.   THE POINT, is that it is totally irrelevant whether "there's no need" for something, because people are going to do it anyway.  It is a meaningless thing to say to someone, and it carries no weight - since there's not a single thing about any of this that's needed.  I am literally making the opposite argument that you have perceived.  

 

I told one guy that his quote about .3 seconds and 50 fps is idiotic.  I CHALLENGE you to find somewhere that I called a person an idiot.     PLEASE quote me.  Please.

 

[mr moose]

21 minutes ago, Vantage9 said:

 

 I CHALLENGE you to find somewhere that I called a person an idiot.     PLEASE quote me.  Please.

 

And you have the audacity to accuse me of comprehension issues.

On 11/28/2017 at 7:29 AM, Vantage9 said:

 

This is beyond idiotic.  You, sir, have 0 clue what you're talking about, and you've clearly misunderstood something on Wikipedia.

 

How long it takes to identify an image has to do with a hell of a lot more than what framerate you see at... The time delay is for identification, not visualization.

 

And you think that fluid motion at 50fps means it can't be any smoother, and that we can't see it???   That's so dumb its not even worth refuting.    Solid Troll post.

 

 

Your post is so idiotic, it is so dumb it is not even worth refuting,  you are a troll.  

 

Go on, try an tell me that calling someones post idiotic is not the same as calling them an idiotic.   

[Vantage9]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Go on, try an tell me that calling someones post idiotic is not the same as calling them an idiotic.   

 

Ok, though I've already told you this two or three times, so if you're curious why people might think you have comprehension problems...  But thanks for posting proof that I only referenced his comment and post, not him as a person.  Glad we cleared that up.

 

Smart people can say idiotic things.  Smart people can make idiotic posts.  His comment and his post was idiotic, but that does not mean that he is an idiot or a stupid person. 

 

You're gonna tell me that you've never done or said anything idiotic?  We all know that you have, we all have.  And when you did, you deserved to be called out for it like everybody else. 

 

I'm super duper mega sorry if this offends your extremely delicate sensibilities, but truth is truth.   

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Vantage9 said:

 

Ok, though I've already told you this two or three times, so if you're curious why people might think you have comprehension problems...  But thanks for posting proof that I only referenced his comment and post, not him as a person.  Glad we cleared that up.

 

Smart people can say idiotic things.  Smart people can make idiotic posts.  His comment and his post was idiotic, but that does not mean that he is an idiot or a stupid person. 

 

You're gonna tell me that you've never done or said anything idiotic?  We all know that you have, we all have.  And when you did, you deserved to be called out for it like everybody else. 

 

I'm super duper mega sorry if this offends your extremely delicate sensibilities, but truth is truth.   

 

If you accuse someone of doing idiotic things you are accusing them of being an idiot.    This isn't up for debate, idiotic is an adjective:

 

Quote

If you call someone or something idiotic, you mean that they are very stupid or silly.

 

An intelligent person is not being intelligent if they are saying something stupid, they are being stupid.  Whether you like it or not calling someone out as being idiotic is directly insinuating they are an idiot. 

 

Besides that, you also called him a troll. 

 

From the Collins dictionary.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/idiotic

 

 

[Subtle Corruption]

24 FPS, any higher and people go nuts, Source? The Hobbit 48FPS.

 

 

[mr moose]

36 minutes ago, Erik Sieghart said:

That's rich, coming from you. If you can even understand that.

I never called anyone an idiot or a troll for their opinion/belief.  If I thought they were wrong I said so and pointed to supporting evidence.   Which is all I am asking other people to do.   

 

EDIT: maybe you could show me where I made a post insulting someone because I thought they were wrong?

[KyberKylo77]

On 18/11/2017 at 9:08 AM, 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.

Really? I can't lol. Or maybe i havent played enough fps

[Glenwing]

4 hours ago, Erik Sieghart said:

That's rich, coming from you. If you can even understand that.

 

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

I never called anyone an idiot or a troll for their opinion/belief.  If I thought they were wrong I said so and pointed to supporting evidence.   Which is all I am asking other people to do.   

 

EDIT: maybe you could show me where I made a post insulting someone because I thought they were wrong?

That's enough, please.

[Vantage9]

19 hours ago, mr moose said:

If you accuse someone of doing idiotic things you are accusing them of being an idiot.    This isn't up for debate, idiotic is an adjective:

 

Um, I beg to differ, this is very easily debatable.  An adjective can describe any noun.  The noun in this case was "his comment" or "this post".  My use of an adjective described SOMETHING, not SOMEONE.  Now, you or he are welcome to infer and assume that I'm actually talking about something more, but you know what they say about assumptions...

 

19 hours ago, mr moose said:

An intelligent person is not being intelligent if they are saying something stupid, they are being stupid.  Whether you like it or not calling someone out as being idiotic is directly insinuating they are an idiot.

 

Partly true.  In that moment of making an idiotic statement, he is not being intelligent.  But that does not mean he is not an intelligent person.  How can you possible live life using such absolutes??  You are implying that if a person does something once, they are that thing forever.  You can be the smartest person alive, but say one idiotic thing and that means you're an idiot?  That's super extreme, bro.  If that's how you  see things, you are a lot harsher on people than I am.

 

Again, you are welcome to interpret any insinuation you want, but when the person who made the comment directly tells you that insinuation is incorrect...  I guess its up to you whether or not you choose to believe them, but that's your problem - not mine.  

[mynameisjuan]

Wow this thread is still going......

 

Bottom line is yes the eyes have a resolution and frame rate because you have a fixed lens with fixed number of cones and rods, there is a resolution associated with that else you would be able to see infinite detail. As for framerate, well yeah our brains can only fire so fast but its not as much framerate as it would be individual pixel refresh. And sensors on our body cannot fire constantly, it needs a break between stimulation (nano seconds) which would essentially be the framerate.

 

Now can we stop calling people idiots and move on?

[mr moose]

46 minutes ago, Vantage9 said:

 

Um, I beg to differ, this is very easily debatable.  An adjective can describe any noun.  The noun in this case was "his comment" or "this post".  My use of an adjective described SOMETHING, not SOMEONE.  Now, you or he are welcome to infer and assume that I'm actually talking about something more, but you know what they say about assumptions...

 

 

Partly true.  In that moment of making an idiotic statement, he is not being intelligent.  But that does not mean he is not an intelligent person.  How can you possible live life using such absolutes??  You are implying that if a person does something once, they are that thing forever.  You can be the smartest person alive, but say one idiotic thing and that means you're an idiot?  That's super extreme, bro.  If that's how you  see things, you are a lot harsher on people than I am.

 

Again, you are welcome to interpret any insinuation you want, but when the person who made the comment directly tells you that insinuation is incorrect...  I guess its up to you whether or not you choose to believe them, but that's your problem - not mine.  

Context and meaning is everything, if you genuinely believed  he wasn't an idiot and didn't want to insult him, you wouldn't have labelled him as being idiotic, in fact you would have simply refuted his claim (which you said you wouldn't do because it was too stupid).   Much less add the claim of trolling. 

 

EDIT: Anyway, I have been asked to stop discussing off topic. So from here on in my comments are only going to be about the topic.