Why can’t we measure the amount of FPS or Hz our eyes run at? What is different from a display to our own “perception”?
In: 92
FPS and Hz measure ‘discrete’ things. ‘Discrete’ meaning each piece is individual separate. Each frame or each cycle happens separately at separate times.
Your eyes function ‘continously’. There is no individuality of images and the visuals flow through time.
These can appear similar, but the frames from your comptuer screen are technically just a really fast slide-show on quick schedule (perhaps, say, every 60th of a second, on-the-dot).
Your eyes can pick up light at any arbitrary time, and rather than registering them for a specific pre-set schedule time (like a clockwork 1/60th of a second), your eye will register that light at whatever time it was hit (and it might excite your optic nerves for a longer time if the light was brighter).
–
Consider a computer screen, but spactially rather than temporally, so just a still image.
The computer screen has pixels – the individual tiny bits of colour on the screen.
Compare this to some other image, like a painting. If you ask “How many pixels does a painting have?” Well, it simply doesn’t have pixels.
Paint is continuous, while pixels are discrete.
Something I didn’t see mentioned here is that its also hard to determine because our brains also “throw away” extra information that it doesn’t feel is relevant even within the same “frame” of vision. So if you are focused on one thing even something your eyes can see at the same time can be thrown away by your brain to not “see”. The best examples of this are your nose and glasses if you wear them, they’re in your field of vision all the time, but your brain knows that i9t’s unimportant and so you don’t actively “see” them unless something is wrong / different than usual, like your nose is bleeding or your glasses are dirty.
I don’t have a source at the moment but I do remember seeing a study where they concluded that the average human can see a difference in something like 1/300 fps. But that doesn’t mean we see at that rate, just that if 1/300 frames shown are different than the rest, our brains essentially throw out an error saying something in there was wonky.
I’m not sure you can compare a combination of 1s and 0s to something we still cannot truly understand or comprehend
It is possible to measure the point at which the human eye stops noticing choppiness and begins to perceive a moving picture as fluent, and it is roughly 24-25 FPS.
Hence the debunked theory of the “25th frame”, the proponents of which believed that if we alternate 24 normal moving picture frames per second and one special frame with some written slogan, the 25th frame will not be noticed consciously and will directly affect the subconscious.
Eyes see at sbout 20-30fps. You know that illusion when spinning weels look like they suddenly spin the other way or more slowly? That happens because of that.
Vision is incredibly complex, your eyes don’t work like a screen at all. For example one can only see sharp and wirh color in the center of your vision, your brain just adds the rest from knowledge. On the sides of the viewing filed it’s easier to detect very low brightness and fast movements. So all together the eyesight isn’t at all like a screen where our brain just looks at. The update rates depend on the regions, but it is possible to estimate the rates. I heard as much as 1000 fps for the side of the sight.
Latest Answers