3 ms·
The human eye can only see at 60 frames per second edit: Apparently, you don't joke about frames per second.
by tmikaeld 3y ago
The human eye can only see at 60 frames per second
edit: Apparently, you don't joke about frames per second.
- icegreentea2 3y agoWhat makes it a joke?
- diarrhea 3y agohttps://knowyourmeme.com/memes/human-eye-can-only-see-at-60-fps https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/human-eye-can-only-see-at-60-...
- icegreentea2 3y agoThanks lol.
- fsckboy 3y ago"the claim that the eye can only see 60 FPS has been proven false in numerous online threads"
- codetrotter 3y agohttps://www.pcgamer.com/how-many-frames-per-second-can-the-human-eye-really-see/ https://www.pcgamer.com/how-many-frames-per-second-can-the-h...
- Our_Benefactors 3y agoLet’s for a moment accept this as fact. Now consider you have a 60fps screen and 60fps natural vision. The periodicity of video frame updates and “vision frames” are not in any way synchronized. Meaning the image appears less “smooth” than if you had a higher refresh screen. Lastly, have you ever tried a 144hz and 60hz display side by side? The difference is very obvious.
- sdenton4 3y agoThere's no synchronized refresh in the retina though. Imagine pixels being randomly updated continuously in time, but each individual pixel has a refresh rate of 60Hz. The overall perceived 'frame rate' for this parallel random update will be much higher than 60Hz: Suppose 25% of the pixels in an object need to change to register a perceptible difference: then the effective framerate for noticing changes in the object will be ~240Hz.
- tmikaeld 3y agoThe fastest proven seems to be 220hz but 240hz is the maximum theoretical for humans.
- fsckboy 3y agoif you are referring to this: > The USAF, in testing their pilots for visual response time, used a simple test to see if the pilots could distinguish small changes in light. In their experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. Pilots were consistently able to "see" the afterimage as well as identify the aircraft. This simple and specific situation not only proves the ability to percieve 1 image within 1/220 of a second, but the ability to interpret higher FPS. that is not a test of FPS, it's a test of a few photons in a dark room and the afterimage affect of the retina (or is it also the optic nerve and the visual cortex?), potentially aka "blurring". I'm not taking a position on framerates, I'm taking a position on interpreting the data.
- tmikaeld 3y agoAh, you're right, maybe it's even higher than 240hz then, I mean, they're making 540Hz monitors now so there must be something to it.
- lucb1e 3y ago> they're making 540Hz monitors now so there must be something to it. They also keep making placebo pills, sometimes labeled as such, sometimes not. They also keep printing both the bible and the koran, which to my beginner's understanding can't both be true. I wouldn't take the existence of something as evidence that there is something to it!
- pdntspa 3y agoDude gamers get super defensive over refresh rate. It's like, don't trash my large numbers! They are large numbers! It's kind of stupid.
- Thorrez 3y agotmikaeld was joking. HN generally doesn't approve of low-effort jokes. We don't want HN to become reddit.