3 ms·

+1. This, and "640K ought to be enough for anybody"

• nixpulvis 8y ago
  There is an important distinction between a phonomonan that stops being detectable at high enough values (to humans), and the size of memory for a computer system.
  • gpm 8y ago
    I think VR has sufficiently demonstrated that > 60fps is easily detectable by the vast majority of humans.
  • jcelerier 8y ago
    > high enough values (to humans), and we know experimentally that for humans, "high enough values" > 500Hz https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-highest-frame-rate-fps-that-can-be-recognized-by-human-perception-At-what-rate-do-we-essentially-stop-noticing-the-difference https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-highest-frame-rate-fps-tha...
    • jug 8y ago
      It was shown that a system won’t even rum with 640K, so this (disputed) quote became an example of shortsightedness in tech. However, a system does not need to meet the maximum detectable frame rate of the human eye to be usable, or even close to it. There is a difference in use, yes, but a mere luxury. That’s why I think this comparison doesn’t hold.
      • jcelerier 8y ago
        > However, a system does not need to meet the maximum detectable frame rate of the human eye to be usable, or even close to it. for me it's really the same thing. It's physically painful to go back to 60hz screens after getting used to 120hz, just like it would be to go back to 640k systems, even if I have used 60Hz screens for many years and my first computer only had a 5 1⁄4 drive and no disk - and back then I managed just fine (though I was quite young :p).