Search In
• More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

# Frames Per Second

• 35 heh
8
• 100-400
9
• 400-700
0
• 700-1000
2
• 1000+
1
• Infinite
12

## Recommended Posts

How many frames per second does the human eye see in? Infinite?

I'd say, around 700.

Well, I honestly have no idea. At the same time I believe I should be embarrassed for not knowing this.

No real idea. I'd say around 700-1000.

3 miiiiiiillllliiioonnn1!!!!

heh

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html:

"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."

We only need about 24 fps really... Cartoons have taught us this. ;)

NiGHTMARE said:

[USAF test]

I wonder how much of that was due to the afterimage. How successful they would have been if they had been shown 219 other images in the same second? Or if the image had been less bright, so fewer photons had reached their eyes, and thus left a less distinct afterimage?

After all these years of gaming, it depends on how complex of a scene I'm looking at. If I look into a forest, about 24-30fps. If I look into a plain room, 400+

IIRC the common human being only sees 13 a second. Something i was told in science class a while back. Probably can't remember it correctly though. Smells like a porky if you ask me.

13? Heh, even a 100 or so years ago when the first movies were made they knew it was at least 24 :)

45 to 60 fps. I thought that was a wellknown fact ;)

Heh this is teh futility of 100+ fps 'issues'.

Humans can't discern the difference anyway.

Shaviro said:

45 to 60 fps. I thought that was a wellknown fact ;)

Actually they've found it's more than 60 fps. Read the article I linked to, specifically:

"The overwhelming solution to a more realistic game play, or computer video has been to push the human eye past the misconception of only being able to perceive 30 FPS. Pushing the Human Eye past 30 FPS to 60 FPS and even 120 FPS is possible, ask the video card manufacturers, an eye doctor, or a Physiologist. We as humans CAN and DO see more than 60 frames a second."

NiGHTMARE said:

Actually they've found it's more than 60 fps. Read the article I linked to, specifically:

"The overwhelming solution to a more realistic game play, or computer video has been to push the human eye past the misconception of only being able to perceive 30 FPS. Pushing the Human Eye past 30 FPS to 60 FPS and even 120 FPS is possible, ask the video card manufacturers, an eye doctor, or a Physiologist. We as humans CAN and DO see more than 60 frames a second."

Cool.
/me looks extra hard at the monitor

-3

I'm wondering if someone who can only see in one eye can see less FPS than someone with two perfectly good eyes.

pritch said:

Heh this is teh futility of 100+ fps 'issues'.

Humans can't discern the difference anyway.

Shaviro said:

45 to 60 fps. I thought that was a wellknown fact ;)

Agreed. I thought it was as low as 30, but 45 - 60 sounds right. And that is always why I wondered why anyone cares how many fps you get in a game as long as it is at least 30 fps. eh

Scabbed Angel said:

Agreed. I thought it was as low as 30, but 45 - 60 sounds right.

As the quote I took from that article says, eye doctors and pysiologists would disagree. And I think they'd know :)

Arg! *me needs new video card*

Silverwyvern said:

We only need about 24 fps really... Cartoons have taught us this. ;)

Heh. There's a new movie called "Sex At 24 Frames Per Second", talking about the 20th century's "sex in the cinema" history. I other words, it's about sex in movies.

In the "States" it was discovered when (Electricity) AC current was invented that if the current was any less than 60 cycles per second people would see the flicker and be annoyed by it. At 60 cycles or above it it much harder for the eye to see any flicker. I'm sure that is also why most monitors have a 65-75 cycle/Hz refresh rate.

Under ideal situations The eye can see much higher framerates as mentioned above.

I kind of doubt, even tho' I have no proof, that two eyes would not make a substanial difference in the frame rate one can see since two eyes or stereo vision is mostly only good for depth perception.

30 FPS is less than optimal in games, because they still haven't figured out how to do motion blur. You need that blur to get that silky smoothness.

If a game implemented motion blur properly, 30 FPS would be totally optimal.

AndrewB said:

If a game implemented motion blur properly, 30 FPS would be totally optimal.

"Totally optimal" would be infinite FPS with no motion blur, just like objects in real life.

Linguica said:

infinite FPS

Planck time.

Fredrik said:

Planck time.

Smart arse.

Linguica said:

"Totally optimal" would be infinite FPS with no motion blur, just like objects in real life.

Nope, real life (as in real eyes) is a hard-to-determine level of FPS (because of the blur) with 100% perfected motion blur. For example, it's hard to determine the resolution of a photo-album photograph because each coloration "blurs" into the next, like a really perfected form of texture filtering.

Besides, it would be stupid for 3D applications to strive for hundreds of FPS rather than motion blur. Regardless of these silly concepts of absolute perfection, the industry should focus on feasible "blur" technology, rather than a completely unfeasible "infinite FPS" theory.

Heh, I'm just voting infinite for now. Don't really want to think about somethint like that, heh.

I read a article detailing that the human eye can view a maximum of 72 FPS, I also saw a Discovery Documentary aswell on the human eyes.

100 frames of blur per second.

Your eyes are not shutters or CCDs, they do not have ANY fps rating. They collect light constantly and there are not individual still frames being sent to your brain but rather a constant stream of visual data. Obviously any one receptor on your retina can only send so many signals per second, so in this sense there is a limit to how many fps any one particular receptor can see, but retinas are asynchronous, and different receptors will transmit signals at slightly different intervals, making the whole concept of a maximum FPS a person can see ridiculous.