How many FPS can the human eye see?

How many FPS can the human eye see?

Attached: frodo.jpg (400x399, 93K)

24 max
so about 12 for each eye

Life isn't a bunch of frames, retarded child.

If you're standing still about 30(If the screen isnt too big) on a big cinema screen its 24 because your brain(not eyes) has to take the input from both eyes and downscale it to fit your brain before you can see it because the cinema screen is so big, some people can see up to 60fps though but thats rare, usually its jet pilots etc.

As many as my monitor can display. We haven't even come close to hitting the human limit.

we dont see in frames in real world

We might get a 60 FPS patch in the Life 2.020 update, but until then 24 FPS.

Studies show gamers perform better at 120 FPS, compared to 60 FPS. So probably 144 FPS or higher.

Many gamers can perceive the difference between 144 hz and 60 hz monitors. But not many can detect the difference between 144hz and 240 hz. But average humans can't really tell the difference between 60/144hz monitors. So an average person would generally be fine with 60 fps eyesight. A gamer might be more perceptive and they can detect their changes at the rate of 144 fps.

Whatever the case, the eye adapts to use.

why come? computers are made out of stuff from life and natural phenomena too, retard

actual answer
altough our eyes don't see in frames we can still test this by having flashing light for short periods of time to determine which are still detectible by the human eye
normally its around ~1/100th of a second
young people in dim rooms can see up to ~1/200th under controlled conditions
of course you couldn't make out a picture in such a short time but you can make out the change in brightness/basic shapes

>Many gamers can perceive the difference between 144 hz and 60 hz monitors.
gamers have already made the evolutionary leap huh

fpbp
for once an actual serious answer
technically we do but they overlap
reddit, but welcome hopefully you're here to escape that cancerous site
perception and ability to take in input aren't directly tied, the human eye can take in enormous amounts of data

Attached: haha-wait-oh-shit.gif (250x188, 1.63M)

1366x768

Depends on how big it is

Humans are equiped with variable refresh rate Eyes AssSync™

I can definitely tell the difference between 30 and 60. Sometimes I'm watching a youtube video on my phone and it looks a bit too smooth, so I check the quality settings and its 1080p60fps so I drop it down to not go over my data limit.
Never owned a monitor above 60Hz though so I can't judge above that

Depends on your heartbeat rate. If you're clocking 70 bpm and you have both eyes working it's 2*70=140 fps

The higher your heartbeat rate the faster you see

1000

>implying there is something outside of the eye to see
the correct question is how much fps can the human eye render

This. Can't apply fps to human eye.
24fps is some bullshit tied to the history of cinematography or something probably.

depends on adrenaline and/or simpatomimetic drugs in your system
your brain takes extensive care to compress your view more than jewtube ever could
at average you see 24 fps, but if you are full of adrenaline and still you could probably see 60 and more fps, if you are moving you'd still "see" in 60 fps but since you're moving all around your brain would compress it to around 50 or 40

2000+

1000+

Attached: CriminalSnarlingBlackwidowspider-max-1mb.gif (500x339, 403K)

>71181997 fpbp
its not even the first post, retarded kid
>71182061 reddit
youre projecting, user. admit it - you are the newfag.

250 is maxium possible but it differs from each person, its typically less
you do realize that the brain processes visual information in snapshots right?
which is why we can point out moving objects so easily
this is why they use strobe lights to see fast moving objects

Anyone who says 24 or 30 unironically is fucking retarded, that's the slowest something can go while still looking like a moving image. At less than 85 FPS, VR makes people motion sick, so we can probably label that a lower bound for things actually working while moving around. Trained fighter pilots can identify a shape that is flashed for 1/240th of a second, but not for much shorter, so 240FPS is the cap for identifying things, but percieving motion is easier. I've heard that a similar test conducted got above 300FPS for identifying motion, but I didn't read the actual paper so I can't say for sure.

Your 3rd eye can see all the FPS.

Attached: dmt.jpg (1187x789, 305K)

That's some pretty elaborate bait. I'm impressed.

Not true, we can do better than any person can recognize. The useful limit must be somewhere below 200.

This sounds retarded and like bait, but I bet there's a lot of truth to it. I'm pretty sure visual apprehension rate/performance is tied to your sympathetic activation.

I remember reading that at about 150 fps, our perception kinda caps out.

about tree fiddy

infinite

Difference between conscious perception of jumpiness in a movement simulated by images in secuence and the maximum of impulses the optical nerve can send and be processed by your brain witch is quite high, probably several thousands. There is an article out there that clarifies this. Google.

My personal bet is that when enough difference occurs between samples you can differentiate between 120fps and for example 240fps or 1000 fps if someday any monitor could display this.

The problem is sampling an object movement on a sampling resolution of 24 fps or 60 fps or 240fps. The chances of you reacting to one of those samples and evade beign owned in a game are greater with more samples than less, even of you are a piece of shit who cant feel the difference between 60fps and 144, there is more info for your brain to pick and process. Specially when fast movement is involved.

There already exist the technology to produce visible 240 FPS so we shouldn't assume it's anything below that. It might not be higher but there's no reason to cheap out on this. I mean we might not need more than 240 FPS at any point without some eye evolution but that's the number we should aim at now that it's already possible.

Theoretically its limited by your brains processor speed.

Some websites state the average rate is 1/100ms, ive also seen 200/1000ms. Each neuron is connected to around 1000 other neurons, and vision processing is a parallel task most likely, what with you having multiple light receptors that act independently.

Lets assume each fire is related to completing a 'frame' of vision. Then you can process anywhere between 1000×1/100 = 10 fps to 1000×200/1000=200 fps.

In other words, theoretically, there is zero reason to go beyond 200 fps. At that point your brain is slower than the information, so you are cpu bottlenecked.

underrated post