6 ms·

Please excuse my lack of technical biological vocabulary. Here is my take on the issue: The error in reducing the fps to that of the human eye is that there is

by sgc 8y ago

Please excuse my lack of technical biological vocabulary. Here is my take on the issue: The error in reducing the fps to that of the human eye is that there is no guarantee the two are in sync. To guarantee I will actually see 72 fps (or x fps) as intended, the manufacturer needs to take into account the amount of time each frame is displayed, as well as the human response to changing frames on the screen during one "frame" of the eye. How many times should a pixel refresh during one observation to create a lifelike scene for the human eye? Something analogous can be said for dpi, and the fact that we can't see a specific pixel doesn't mean that each of our eyes' "units of resolution" correspond perfectly to where a pixel is on the screen. If we are seeing the intersection of four pixels at once but only seeing subpixels of each one that don't correspond to the intended color when taken together, theoretically all the color is falsified. If we are instead seeing a number of complete pixels in each of our own visual pixels, there is less chance of this. Further, the spacing between pixels varies by manufacturer, and this can have effects on the required resolution.

sitharus 8y ago
That’s an interesting idea. The human eye (and the brain in general) isn’t a clocked system, different parts work at different speeds. You can see this yourself if you have an old fluorescent lamp that works on the mains frequency. You won’t perceive the flicker in the main part of your vision because the colour receptors aren’t that fast. However the edges of your vision where the rods dominate can perceive a 50/60hz flicker. The same is true of visual resolution. You only have high resolution sight in a tiny portion of your vision, the rest is much lower resolution and your brain uses a combination of rapid eye movements and spacial memory to fill in the blanks. Additionally one of the issues with perception of a pixel is your eyes have nothing like a pixel grid, it’s pretty random. You can see this if you use a digital camera to take a photo of a screen, you can see interference patterns as the grids align and unalign. This makes the whole equation very complicated, certainly nothing I can answer. I guess I’ll have to find an 8k/120hz display and find out.
- AngryData 8y ago
  Florescent light flicker is especially obvious if you get your eyes dilated. I thought I was tripping out or something after an eye appointment because of it.
- avn2109 8y ago
  It's easier to just get the result empirically. I once literally did this experiment in an office where we had a bunch of similar-looking Dell displays from different eras, with a range different native resolutions: It was pretty easy to set up a blind trial with 5 monitors by putting cardboard around the monitor bezel and stand, and asking people which one looks better. Everyone, even nontechnical people such as HR and sales, can identify the 4k monitors, super reliably, at a distance waaaay beyond what optometrists claim should matter. Of course you could argue that the experiment was confounded by backlights or color calibration or monitor age whatever. But IMHO the result is so stark that it would easily survive even if you repeated the experiment with a bunch of identical 4k monitors, and set some of them to crappy low resolutions.
  - sgc 8y ago
    I agree completely.The problem is obvious to anyone who cares to pay attention, but I am not sure if the interface between biology and technical implementation is being studied or at least popularized enough to create a market share for hardware that actually does what consumers think much of current hardware does (which is to have an imperceptible/unobtrusive implementation).
- jbay808 8y ago
  Eye response frequency depends on the light intensity. We can track higher frequencies when the lights are brighter. Dim theatres played a role in preserving the illusion of motion when movie frame rates were very low. You can also perceive very high frequency lights by the strobe effect. For example if you wave your hands in front of a PWM LED or a bad fluorescent light you can quickly tell. By moving my eyes quickly from left to right, I can easily spot the order in which my office projector flashes the colour components of its image.

by sgc 8y ago

sitharus 8y ago

That’s an interesting idea. The human eye (and the brain in general) isn’t a clocked system, different parts work at different speeds. You can see this yourself if you have an old fluorescent lamp that works on the mains frequency. You won’t perceive the flicker in the main part of your vision because the colour receptors aren’t that fast. However the edges of your vision where the rods dominate can perceive a 50/60hz flicker. The same is true of visual resolution. You only have high resolution sight in a tiny portion of your vision, the rest is much lower resolution and your brain uses a combination of rapid eye movements and spacial memory to fill in the blanks. Additionally one of the issues with perception of a pixel is your eyes have nothing like a pixel grid, it’s pretty random. You can see this if you use a digital camera to take a photo of a screen, you can see interference patterns as the grids align and unalign. This makes the whole equation very complicated, certainly nothing I can answer. I guess I’ll have to find an 8k/120hz display and find out.

AngryData 8y ago
Florescent light flicker is especially obvious if you get your eyes dilated. I thought I was tripping out or something after an eye appointment because of it.
avn2109 8y ago
It's easier to just get the result empirically. I once literally did this experiment in an office where we had a bunch of similar-looking Dell displays from different eras, with a range different native resolutions: It was pretty easy to set up a blind trial with 5 monitors by putting cardboard around the monitor bezel and stand, and asking people which one looks better. Everyone, even nontechnical people such as HR and sales, can identify the 4k monitors, super reliably, at a distance waaaay beyond what optometrists claim should matter. Of course you could argue that the experiment was confounded by backlights or color calibration or monitor age whatever. But IMHO the result is so stark that it would easily survive even if you repeated the experiment with a bunch of identical 4k monitors, and set some of them to crappy low resolutions.
- sgc 8y ago
  I agree completely.The problem is obvious to anyone who cares to pay attention, but I am not sure if the interface between biology and technical implementation is being studied or at least popularized enough to create a market share for hardware that actually does what consumers think much of current hardware does (which is to have an imperceptible/unobtrusive implementation).
jbay808 8y ago
Eye response frequency depends on the light intensity. We can track higher frequencies when the lights are brighter. Dim theatres played a role in preserving the illusion of motion when movie frame rates were very low. You can also perceive very high frequency lights by the strobe effect. For example if you wave your hands in front of a PWM LED or a bad fluorescent light you can quickly tell. By moving my eyes quickly from left to right, I can easily spot the order in which my office projector flashes the colour components of its image.