Human Eye FPS

[Admiral Valdemar]

The eye is typically happy with 24fps, it can, however, notice a difference between 30fps and 60fps. There is an animation technique for special effects developed by Doug Trumbull that showed scenes as being perceived "more realistic" at that high a refresh rate when compared to 30fps.

Of course today we have essentially come to the limits of sensual input for vision and sound to the point that hardware has excess performance where we don't need it (nor need to pay for it). The best things to aim for now are touch and smell and possibly direct neural activation.

[Mad]

The eye is typically happy with 24fps, it can, however, notice a difference between 30fps and 60fps. There is an animation technique for special effects developed by Doug Trumbull that showed scenes as being perceived "more realistic" at that high a refresh rate when compared to 30fps.

Is this for animation from video footage, or computer-generated animation? The human eye is used to seeing motion blur, and 30 fps computer-generated animation will not have motion blur by default (so someone would see 30 individual frames). A 60 fps computer-generated animation would cause the eye to see 30 motion-blurred frames (assuming 30 fps for the eye), and so would feel much more comfortable with the 60 fps, even if it can't distinguish 60 individual frames.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I merely know it as special effects, I don't recall it saying what type, but framerate can mean different things to animation and film.

[kojikun]

Don't be ridiculous; you are acting as though the chain is as strong as its strongest link, not its weakest link. Do we measure video camera frames per second by the time required for electricity to travel through its fucking wires?

Certainly not! We measure it by the slowest part in the video process! Which, in the human eye, just happens to be the signal transmission rate. Thus we can conclude that BoredShirtless is a stupid fuck who doesn't grasp logic (I may suck with evidence but I can use logic like noones business, or so I like to think)

[BoredShirtless]

Nope. As I pointed out to kojikun, we can register images much faster then 1/220th of a second; the response time of our complete visual system is roughly a picosecond plus time along optic nerve to visual cortex.

Don't be ridiculous; you are acting as though the chain is as strong as its strongest link, not its weakest link.

The fuck I am. I've clearly established a difference between response time, time taken to saturate the visual cortex [our eyes FPS], time taken to process an image, and time taken to then analyse it.

[BoredShirtless]

Don't be ridiculous; you are acting as though the chain is as strong as its strongest link, not its weakest link. Do we measure video camera frames per second by the time required for electricity to travel through its fucking wires?

Certainly not! We measure it by the slowest part in the video process! Which, in the human eye, just happens to be the signal transmission rate.

What a dumb shit. The slowest part in the process is clearly our visual cortex processing the received images, not the signal transmission rate which, as I've already pointed out, is roughly a picosecond [for the cones and rods] plus time to travel along optic nerve to visual cortex.

Thus we can conclude that BoredShirtless is a stupid fuck who doesn't grasp logic (I may suck with evidence but I can use logic like noones business, or so I like to think)

Keep dreaming.

[Sam Or I]

Anyone see Fight Club?

In the begining where they flash Brad Pitt for only 1 frame, you can easily make him out running at 30 FPS even though everything else was moving smoothly in the picture, with background lighting.

30fps? We're arguing about a preposterously high 200fps number which is more than 6 times that.

I know, I was trying to establish a lower limit.

[Sam Or I]

I see 2 ways of measuring the whole thing

One would be detection, you would take a fairly static scene and introduce for one frame something radically different, like a blank screen then flash a circle on the screen for one frame.

The other would be comperhension, which would be radically different pictures on each frame, like a square, circle, triangle, star, ect ect and see how fast a person could comperhend a pattern, which would be signifagantly slower than just "seeing" something.

As for your standard movie (30 fps), of course people aren't going to detect each frame, because they are so idetical to each other. If they were radically different pictures, people would see them not as moving but, flashing pictures.

[BoredShirtless]

Exactly what I said, it needs to get lucky.

As kojikun noted, however, a digital video camera would not have this limitation, and thus would not need to "get lucky."

Horray for digital cameras.

Nope. As I pointed out to kojikun, we can register images much faster then 1/220th of a second; the response time of our complete visual system is roughly a picosecond plus time along optic nerve to visual cortex.

This would only happen if enough light enters the eye in that time period.

Light is a red herring. Naturally if you don't have enough light, you won't see the damn object.

And, like I said, an experiment with brighter objects and even less time should be possible, thus leading to you thinking even higher "framerates" as possible.

And why would this be misleading for finding the speed in which our eyes can register images?

Yes intensity of light naturally affects our eyes. And yes, duration too. So yeah, I agree. But don't you see that fps is ALSO explicitly related to time, and implicitly to intensity? Your relationship with time and intensity is right, but doesn't preclude an fps analysis.

But given that a digital video camera with a framerate of 30 fps could give the same results that test gave, any conclusion resulting in "220 fps" is in error unless the eye is accomplishing something a digital video camera at 30 fps cannot, but at 220 fps could.

I will again make the distinction between our eyes registering and our brains processing images.

That experiment shows our EYES can register and our BRAINS can process an image at 1/220th of a second. Knowing that the response time of the visual system is a picosecond plus change, it's very clear that our eyes can easily register faster then 1/220th of a second. FPS = 1 / 1/220 = 220. But does that prove our brains can process 220 FPS? Nope. Please refer back to the first post in this thread.

[BoredShirtless]

Bored: Human eyes do not run at 220fps. Period.

Wrong. As I've pointed out, again and again and again.

You cannot SEE 220fps, you never will be able to. You can perceive things that occure for only 1/220th of a second, but if two frames appeared 1/220th of a second appart from one another and lasted the same length, they would appear to be ONE FRAME because out eyes out output to our brains once every 30th of a second or so.

Dumbshit. The bottle neck is not the eyes, it's the brain.

Its the same for videocameras and film cameras: during a single input/output cycle, anything regardless of exposure time will appear in the image, the problem arises when it vanishes and is washed over by 220 times the light from something else.

WTF? This is the biggest pile of shit yet. Try again.

Human eyes cannot perceive motion accuring during 1/220th a second but it cant detect the existance of an object at those speeds.

It "cannot" but it "cant"? Try again, this post was unreadable. BTW, this was a pathetic dodge of my direct reply to one of your posts. If you have a pair, directly rebutt my post, or conceed.

[BoredShirtless]

I see 2 ways of measuring the whole thing

One would be detection, you would take a fairly static scene and introduce for one frame something radically different, like a blank screen then flash a circle on the screen for one frame.

The other would be comperhension, which would be radically different pictures on each frame, like a square, circle, triangle, star, ect ect and see how fast a person could comperhend a pattern, which would be signifagantly slower than just "seeing" something.

Agreed.

[BoredShirtless]

Anyone see Fight Club?

In the begining where they flash Brad Pitt for only 1 frame, you can easily make him out running at 30 FPS even though everything else was moving smoothly in the picture, with background lighting.

30fps? We're arguing about a preposterously high 200fps number which is more than 6 times that.

Preposterously high eh. Seeing how scientists haven't actually found the limit, I'd hold off on the adverbs for now.

[kojikun]

It's clear that Bored is a complete fucking idiot and doesn't grasp the topic at all. Logic and reason are clearly not his friends. Can we HoS this or delete his garbage?

[BoredShirtless]

It's clear that Bored is a complete fucking idiot and doesn't grasp the topic at all. Logic and reason are clearly not his friends. Can we HoS this or delete his garbage?

Bitch, your concession has been graciously accepted.

[Hethrir]

...BTW when I put my monitor's refresh rate at 75Hz, it looks like a perfectly seamless continuous glow. 75, NOT 200!!!

Depends on the person. Some people aren't bothered by 60hz, when it gives me a splitting headache! I can't notice over 85hz, but can see the flicker at 72 still, with 75 being quite acceptable. But then again, i am a bit of a freak and can hear noises higher than most people as well.

[Mad]

Horray for digital cameras.

It proves that comparing the eye to a digital video camera in this case is quite reasonable.

And why would this be misleading for finding the speed in which our eyes can register images?

Because a digital video camera at 30 fps would be able to do the same thing. Unless you want to argue that a 30 fps camera can "register images" at a far faster rate, in which case we'd be getting into semantics.

I will again make the distinction between our eyes registering and our brains processing images.

What does this have to do with a camera at 30 fps being able to perform the same experiment that somehow "proves" 220 fps for eyes?

That experiment shows our EYES can register and our BRAINS can process an image at 1/220th of a second. Knowing that the response time of the visual system is a picosecond plus change, it's very clear that our eyes can easily register faster then 1/220th of a second. FPS = 1 / 1/220 = 220. But does that prove our brains can process 220 FPS? Nope. Please refer back to the first post in this thread.

You don't understand. A camera at 30 fps can pass that test. Therefore, the test doesn't prove anything higher than 30 fps. Or maybe video cameras can "register images" at 220 fps, as well...

[kojikun]

Bitch, your concession has been graciously accepted.

Concession nothing, it's called weariness because of inability to get through your thick skull.

[BoredShirtless]

And why would this be misleading for finding the speed in which our eyes can register images?

Because a digital video camera at 30 fps would be able to do the same thing. Unless you want to argue that a 30 fps camera can "register images" at a far faster rate, in which case we'd be getting into semantics.

It's only semantics if you believe the question "what FPS can our eyes register images" is the same as "how many FPS can we see?". One is specific, the other general. More below.

I will again make the distinction between our eyes registering and our brains processing images.

What does this have to do with a camera at 30 fps being able to perform the same experiment that somehow "proves" 220 fps for eyes?

We KNOW a 30fps digital camera cannot process 220 frames in a second, so it's a useless test. The test does however show that our eyes can register a frame at 1/220th of a second. Now, your problem is "but can we PROCESS 220 images in a second"? I don't know. But that ain't the fucking question, is it. More below.

That experiment shows our EYES can register and our BRAINS can process an image at 1/220th of a second. Knowing that the response time of the visual system is a picosecond plus change, it's very clear that our eyes can easily register faster then 1/220th of a second. FPS = 1 / 1/220 = 220. But does that prove our brains can process 220 FPS? Nope. Please refer back to the first post in this thread.

You don't understand. A camera at 30 fps can pass that test. Therefore, the test doesn't prove anything higher than 30 fps. Or maybe video cameras can "register images" at 220 fps, as well...

I'll first point out why we're arguing, then return to your digital cameras statement. Our argument boils down to this: I RESPECT the thread question, and have left it untouched. You on the other hand assumed it meant "how many FPS can we see?". Two different questions, and I am definetly NOT playing semantics. The time it takes for our eye to register an image is NOT 0. So our eyes register images at a finite rate, and it's a god damn legitimate question to ask, and I was damn curious to find out what the rate is.

Now going back to digital cameras. Each step, from converting light to analog signals to the final step of storing digital information, completes a cycle at a certain rate. A 30fps digital camera gets its rating from the slowest step. But can the CCD [the device which captures light and converts to analog signals, analogous to our eyes] process faster then 30 fps? I don't know. But I'd like to find out.

Or if the thread question was "what speed can the CCD from a digital camera register images", would you point to the cameras commercial rating which MAY NOT BE the rate for this step? This is a science forum: let's try to be a little specific with our discussions, unless asked otherwise.

[BoredShirtless]

Bitch, your concession has been graciously accepted.

Concession nothing, it's called weariness because of inability to get through your thick skull.

Get what through my skull?

[kojikun]

Get what through my skull?

The fact that frames per second and rod-cone registration of light thats appeared for 1/220th fo a second are entirely different things. Idiot.

[BoredShirtless]

Get what through my skull?

The fact that frames per second and rod-cone registration of light thats appeared for 1/220th fo a second are entirely different things. Idiot.

Not in the context of this thread they ain't. Bitch.

[Mad]

We KNOW a 30fps digital camera cannot process 220 frames in a second, so it's a useless test. The test does however show that our eyes can register a frame at 1/220th of a second. Now, your problem is "but can we PROCESS 220 images in a second"? I don't know. But that ain't the fucking question, is it. More below.

The test was about recognizing an image flashed for 1/220th of a second. A human can. A 30 fps digital video camera can. Therefore, only 30 fps is required in order to detect an image flashed for 1/220th of a second. According to your logic, that video camera can register a frame at 1/220th of a second. Do you understand now?

[BoredShirtless]

We KNOW a 30fps digital camera cannot process 220 frames in a second, so it's a useless test. The test does however show that our eyes can register a frame at 1/220th of a second. Now, your problem is "but can we PROCESS 220 images in a second"? I don't know. But that ain't the fucking question, is it. More below.

The test was about recognizing an image flashed for 1/220th of a second. A human can. A 30 fps digital video camera can. Therefore, only 30 fps is required in order to detect an image flashed for 1/220th of a second. According to your logic, that video camera can register a frame at 1/220th of a second. Do you understand now?

Please point where I made the claim a digital camera CAN'T register a frame shown for 1/220th of a second.

[Sam Or I]

...BTW when I put my monitor's refresh rate at 75Hz, it looks like a perfectly seamless continuous glow. 75, NOT 200!!!

Depends on the person. Some people aren't bothered by 60hz, when it gives me a splitting headache! I can't notice over 85hz, but can see the flicker at 72 still, with 75 being quite acceptable. But then again, i am a bit of a freak and can hear noises higher than most people as well.

Agreed, I notice the flicker on monitors alot of times that others don't, and it drives me nuts. Then even worse is the same monitor under florecent lighting, big headache.

[kojikun]

Not in the context of this thread they ain't. Bitch.

Dumbass. Frames Per Second is a very singular word, meaning one and only one thing, and it's not what you're talking about. Videocameras have the exact same ability to refer to but that doesn't mean their frame rate is >1/220th, it means that the light REGISTERED on the pixels.