3 ms·
> Trivial. Drag your white cursor quickly across the screen against a black background. You will see clear gaps between the individual cursor afterimages on you
by zozbot234 3y ago
> Trivial. Drag your white cursor quickly across the screen against a black background. You will see clear gaps between the individual cursor afterimages on your retina.
That's the outcome of aliasing, not of the FPS limitation itself. You could analytically supersample the motion in the time domain and then blur it just enough to remove the aliasing, and the distinct images would then disappear. Motion blur approximates the same result.
- blauditore 3y agoThat's not true at all. When moving multiple pixels per frame, there will always be visible jumps. Aliasing only becomes relevant at the pixel level.
- zozbot234 3y ago"Pixels" and "frames" are the exact same thing analytically, only in the spatial vs. time domain. This is very much an instance of aliasing, which is why blur happens to correct it.
- blauditore 3y agoAlright, but supersampling would exactly achieve another approximation to (real) motion blur, but still suffer from the same issues (like not becoming sharp when tracking with your eyes).
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 3y agoYeah but if your eyes were tracking it smoothly, it would not appear blurry. You could try to approximate _that_ with eye tracking but achieving such low latency might be even harder than cranking up the FPS
- zozbot234 3y agoIf your eyes were tracking the motion smoothly, the moving object would not appear blurry, but the static background absolutely would. So you'd need to apply anti-aliasing to the background while keeping the object images sharp. (Similar to how a line segment that's aligned with the pixel grid will still look sharp after applying line anti-aliasing. Motion tracking here amounts to a skewing of the pixel grid.)