3 ms·

Your eyes are only made for a certain frame rate. Any more and your eyes will ignore it, but your brain will need to piece it back together (ie nausea). Any les

Your eyes are only made for a certain frame rate. Any more and your eyes will ignore it, but your brain will need to piece it back together (ie nausea). Any less and it will seem choppy. It's a very very thin line at which it goes from nausea too choppy/laggy. Not that a few milliseconds of latency really matter, but if you don't care about 2 milliseconds here and another 2 there, they start adding up. It's much better to try your best to have the lowest possible latency.

SixSigma 12y ago
Eyes don't have a framerate. Fighter pilots have been tested and can identify the type of plane in an image with just one frame at 255 fps. Noticing a flash of light can go into the 1000 fps territory. http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
- apl 12y ago
  While it's true that a biological eye doesn't really have a defined "framerate" like video sensors do, the examples you're providing don't really show that. Sensitivity to very short stimuli doesn't prove temporal resolution in the sense that's applied here; what you want to be looking at is flicker fusion instead. As a cheeky example -- still pictures have approximately zero frames per second temporal resolution but would be able to pick up that 2.5ms plane if their sensitivity was sufficiently high... Measuring ERGs (electro-retinogrammes) indicates that our photoreceptors can't really resolve luminance fluctuations above, at the very limit, 70-80Hz. Even Drosophila's high speed cascade doesn't really modulate beyond 200-250Hz. I'm really doubtful about those claims.
  - ghusbands 12y ago
    Indeed, flicker fusion for humans pretty much tops out at 80Hz, but you're underestimating the effects of smooth pursuit eye movement. For example, if you animate a fast-moving object at 80Hz on a 160Hz display, and follow it with your eyes, you will see two copies of the object. There's really no upper limit for this effect.
ghusbands 12y ago
On latency, you're right. Minimising it is best. There's no circumstance in which increasing the frame rate causes nausea. In fact, it tends to decrease latency and reduce nausea. In the limit, reality has an essentially-infinite frame rate and doesn't cause nausea. When low frame rates seem choppy, that's normally because there's a mismatch between frame rate and display refresh. GSync/freesync fix that to make things smooth even when the frame rate drops. Choppiness can also be due to the impulse response; technologies with a bright and short apparent pulse (CRT, Plasma, some OLED) will show better 'motion' than those that display and hold (LCD, some OLED).

SixSigma 12y ago

Eyes don't have a framerate. Fighter pilots have been tested and can identify the type of plane in an image with just one frame at 255 fps. Noticing a flash of light can go into the 1000 fps territory. http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

apl 12y ago
While it's true that a biological eye doesn't really have a defined "framerate" like video sensors do, the examples you're providing don't really show that. Sensitivity to very short stimuli doesn't prove temporal resolution in the sense that's applied here; what you want to be looking at is flicker fusion instead. As a cheeky example -- still pictures have approximately zero frames per second temporal resolution but would be able to pick up that 2.5ms plane if their sensitivity was sufficiently high... Measuring ERGs (electro-retinogrammes) indicates that our photoreceptors can't really resolve luminance fluctuations above, at the very limit, 70-80Hz. Even Drosophila's high speed cascade doesn't really modulate beyond 200-250Hz. I'm really doubtful about those claims.
- ghusbands 12y ago
  Indeed, flicker fusion for humans pretty much tops out at 80Hz, but you're underestimating the effects of smooth pursuit eye movement. For example, if you animate a fast-moving object at 80Hz on a 160Hz display, and follow it with your eyes, you will see two copies of the object. There's really no upper limit for this effect.

ghusbands 12y ago

On latency, you're right. Minimising it is best. There's no circumstance in which increasing the frame rate causes nausea. In fact, it tends to decrease latency and reduce nausea. In the limit, reality has an essentially-infinite frame rate and doesn't cause nausea. When low frame rates seem choppy, that's normally because there's a mismatch between frame rate and display refresh. GSync/freesync fix that to make things smooth even when the frame rate drops. Choppiness can also be due to the impulse response; technologies with a bright and short apparent pulse (CRT, Plasma, some OLED) will show better 'motion' than those that display and hold (LCD, some OLED).