21 ms·

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

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.

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.