Whats the framerate and resolution of your eys

[Dreaper]

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?

 

Actually not true the speed of light is 186,282 miles per second and if we take that and do some math it actually takes 100-140 milliseconds  

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, Dreaper said:

Actually not true the speed of light is 186,282 miles per second and if we take that and do some math it actually takes 100-140 milliseconds  

Are you referring to the statement regarding identifying an image?   Also what math did you do?

[Dreaper]

Just now, mr moose said:

Are you referring to the statement regarding identifying an image?   Also what math did you do?

Yep registering a image and seeing light change  also the math was taking the speed of light and doing some division with speed of your brain to your eyes  

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Dreaper said:

Yep registering a image and seeing light change  also the math was taking the speed of light and doing some division with speed of your brain to your eyes  

so based on the theoretical speed on the nervous system?   Because that number lines up with known reaction times of elite athletes. 

[Dreaper]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

so based on the theoretical speed on the nervous system?   Because that number lines up with known reaction times of elite athletes. 

I can link you some of the numbers and accepted range of error if you want

[mr moose]

12 minutes ago, Dreaper said:

I can link you some of the numbers and accepted range of error if you want

Nah,  If I get that interested I'll look it up myself.  Cheers.

 

[Subtle Corruption]

24FPS and only my opinion matters, no need to argue because i over rule.

 

Oh and dogs only see through 55 FOV lenses, it's why they keep sniffing things sometimes and they ignore their ownwer when they tell them to stop sniffing another dogs anus.

 

 

[mr moose]

 

3 hours ago, Subtle Corruption said:

Oh and dogs only see through 55 FOV lenses, it's why they keep sniffing things sometimes and they ignore their ownwer when they tell them to stop sniffing another dogs anus.

 

 

 

I don't think it's got anything to do with lenses,  If someone told me to stop sniffing anus I'd ignore them too.

 

[heimdali]

On 11/27/2017 at 9:29 PM, 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.

Show evidence that says otherwise, or explain how motion can appear smoother than smooth.

 

[SandalsWarrior]

30, can't see more than that

[Mira Yurizaki]

Eyes and brains aren't digital and they don't sample at discrete values, so trying to come up with things like "FPS" or "Resolution" for them is pointless.

[Vantage9]

15 hours ago, heimdali said:

Show evidence that says otherwise, or explain how motion can appear smoother than smooth.

 

 

Seriously?  If no one could see smoother than 50fps, than how come EVERYONE who games on a 60fps monitor can immediately tell (without looking at Afterburner to confirm) when your fps drop anything below 60??  I know I can, and its easy to confirm with performance monitoring.  Its PAINFULLY obvious when frames dip.

 

What's even more telling, is how come people who game on 144fps monitors can ALSO immediately tell when their frames drop below 144??  This is not something that needs to be proven, because the masses of people that use these products already know the answer.  If you happen to be one of the few people out there who can't discern the difference between changes in framerates, that's very unfortunate, but those people are the minority.  Especially in the PC gaming world.  

 

If people couldn't discern more than 50fps, then how come EVERY SINGLE GAMER in these forms wants a high-refresh rate GSync or Freesync monitor??  We're not all a bunch of dupes who just want to spend more money.  We've seen the difference for ourselves in real life and were visually blown away by it.  

 

To debate the concept of a 50fps visual limit is literally ridiculous, given the personal experience of the vast majority of PC gamers.

[CyanideInsanity]

On 11/28/2017 at 8:07 PM, Subtle Corruption said:

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

 

 

Guess I'm not human than because not only did I enjoy it, I'd prefer to see movies/tv at 48 over 24/30.

[Princess Luna]

My eyes refresh rate caps a bit above 100hz... really I have exhaustively tried out my monitor at 100hz with a friends monitor at 144hz I did not see 1 tiny bit of difference at all... though I do noticed, even with ease, the difference between 60hz(or lower) to 100hz.