Human Eye FPS

[Rye]

Well what FPS does the human eye register?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Movies and tv are done at 24-30 fps... what can our brain process and serperate... I think it is 12 fps but i am not sure...

[BoredShirtless]

Over 200 FPS.

[Rye]

Lol, well you see here's the problem.

I think TV or films are done at 25 fps, something else is 30fps, and i thought humjan eyes were 60 fps...but im now hearing >120 fps on one site, and 200 here.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Over 200 FPS.

WTF!?

If that was true then my eyes would easily pick out movies as a series of pictures, and I would easily be able to see the wingbeats of a bumblebee. As it is, I think no. I estimate (due to first person experience) around 40-60 in daylight and as low as 10 in darkness. I'm sure I could up that to 15 if I eat more carrots...

[BoredShirtless]

Over 200 FPS.

WTF!?

If that was true

It is true.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Over 200 FPS.

WTF!?

If that was true

It is true.

Please back this up with references please.

[Alyrium Denryle]

It makes sense, I was thinking what our brains can actually distinguish, but our never impulses travel at IIRC 350 meters per second, so around 200 fps for our eyes makes sense.

[BoredShirtless]

WTF!?

If that was true

It is true.

Please back this up with references please.

No probs bobs http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

[CJvR]

Old BW films were shot at 16 fps and IIRC that is the minimum framerate you need to get a smooth flowing image. Old Chaplin films were not shot at wrong speed, it only seems like it when they are run through modern systems with higher framerates.

What the maximum is I don't know but 25-30 sounds about right.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

It is true.

Please back this up with references please.

No probs bobs http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

WTF!? That's not even a real 'reference'! That site is some weird futurism thingy.

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

[Rye]

This site concludes human vision is from around 60fps to 72fps.

30 fps should look smooth enough then, since we're only getting about half what we usually see, our brain fits in the frame with the last one, so we see fluid movement.

[Iceberg]

Over 200 FPS.

WTF!?

If that was true

It is true.

Documentation?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

WTF!?

If that was true

It is true.

Documentation?

see that amo.net link he posted.

Oh, and watch out for the POPUP ADS. I think POPUP ADS are annoying and a sign of something to be discredited. POPUP ADS must die.

[Mad]

This site concludes human vision is from around 60fps to 72fps.

30 fps should look smooth enough then, since we're only getting about half what we usually see, our brain fits in the frame with the last one, so we see fluid movement.

I think it might be reversed. The eye sees at roughly 30 fps, but it's like a camera. So watching a video game at 30 fps would see 30 individual, non-motionblurred frames. Watching a game at 60 fps would give 30 motionblurred frames (the two images are blurred together in one frame of eyesight), which is what the eye is used to seeing.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

This site concludes human vision is from around 60fps to 72fps.

30 fps should look smooth enough then, since we're only getting about half what we usually see, our brain fits in the frame with the last one, so we see fluid movement.

I think it might be reversed. The eye sees at roughly 30 fps, but it's like a camera. So watching a video game at 30 fps would see 30 individual, non-motionblurred frames. Watching a game at 60 fps would give 30 motionblurred frames (the two images are blurred together in one frame of eyesight), which is what the eye is used to seeing.

Sort of like data compression. The optic nerves can only take so much bandwidth throughput, after all.

[BoredShirtless]

Please back this up with references please.

No probs bobs http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

WTF!? That's not even a real 'reference'! That site is some weird futurism thingy.

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

Are you sure refresh rate and frame rate are the same thing?

If you think my reference is crap, go ahead and discredit it.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

No probs bobs http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

WTF!? That's not even a real 'reference'! That site is some weird futurism thingy.

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

Are you sure refresh rate and frame rate are the same thing?

If you think my reference is crap, go ahead and discredit it.

I have an idea: just try to defend your statement. We both know that reference is crap, so I want to see how you can defend your 200FPS claim without it.

Yes guys, I am evil.

[Companion Cube]

Staring at my monitor, it just occured to me that life has a really high frame-rate, excellent graphics, and almost endless playability. I'll look for the sequel at E3.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Staring at my monitor, it just occured to me that life has a really high frame-rate, excellent graphics, and almost endless playability. I'll look for the sequel at E3.

I noticed that too. Plus it has the best interface of any game I've ever seen!

[Companion Cube]

Staring at my monitor, it just occured to me that life has a really high frame-rate, excellent graphics, and almost endless playability. I'll look for the sequel at E3.

I noticed that too. Plus it has the best interface of any game I've ever seen!

I still haven't figured out God Mode. Maybe I should spend more time in DM_Church.

[BoredShirtless]

WTF!? That's not even a real 'reference'! That site is some weird futurism thingy.

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

Are you sure refresh rate and frame rate are the same thing?

If you think my reference is crap, go ahead and discredit it.

I have an idea:

Did it hurt?

just try to defend your statement. We both know that reference is crap, so I want to see how you can defend your 200FPS claim without it.

No offense, but I'm not going to get into a debate when you haven't offered a plausible reason why that site is crap. So hopefully this Appeal to Authority will shut you up. From http://mikhailtech.com/articles/editorials/fps/:

tests on Air Force pilots have shown their ability to not merely notice, but identify the type of aircraft when shown an image for only 1/220th of a second

Yes guys, I am evil.

[Mad]

tests on Air Force pilots have shown their ability to not merely notice, but identify the type of aircraft when shown an image for only 1/220th of a second

That doesn't prove a framerate of 200 fps, however. A camera with a rate of 30 fps could pick up an object that appears for less than 1/30th of a second if it is bright enough. Remember, the eye is collecting light over the entire frame. It's not an instantanous snapshot like a frame from a video game.

[Dahak]

The eye has a temporal resolution of about 16 frames per second. Anything below isn't perceived as a fluid image. But just being slighly above that image not necessarily equals to a flicker-free fuild motion.

Any display types have to acchieve the critical fusion frequency. This frequency depends on the size of the display system, for instance 15 Hz for small screens and low illumination, and 50 Hz for big screens and high illumination.

[kojikun]

The thing that determines how smooth the image we see is, is how two instances appear. If we were to say thatour eyes were running at 1 frame per second we'd have to determine whether its an image that is taken every second or an image containing all the motion information of the second between sending to the brain. If we say that we would see blurs of everything occuring in the second between, then what things moving at a higher frame rate would blur, but if we see motion as captures we'd see skipping, without any connection between two points.

With either case, however, if the framerate of our eyes were higher then the frame rate of the simulated motion on the tv screen, say, then what determines how smooth the motion looks is how large the change in position is. I think it's a misconception to say that if our eyes worked at 200fps that we'd see TV screens as being a selection of images not smooth motion, because we'd need the be able to detect a difference from one frame to the other, that is, we'd need to be able to TELL theres a clear difference, and with 30fps frame rate in video, thats not possible. If you look at video, any two adjacent frames look almost identical (excluding the video capture limitations of the camera shooting the video, and including motion blurring in the output video).

Now, reality has no frame rate, so thats where the first two things come into play. Perceiving actual motion has to do with how much light is received before the signal is sent. I'm fairly certain, tho not sure, that if two seperate photons hit the retina at slightly different times, but close enough together to be within the same frame, that the eye will respond by sending a signal to the brain containing information from both photons. That would mean that the frame will contain all information between itself and the previous frame. So the real stuff you see moving appear to be clearly moving because the amount of motion blur is small relative to the size of the object youre seeing, you barely notice ti motion blur, and you barely can tell theres movement between any two given frames. Motion blur shouldnt happen if our eyes just take snapshots of an instant in time, they have to have difinitive amounts of time that the signal-reception lasts, an exposure time.