• argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    “The human eye can only see 30 [or 60] frames per second.” Truth is, there are some events only 1ms long that a human eye can see, so the real upper limit is [edit: at least] 1000 frames per second. There are diminishing returns, but there is plenty to be gained by getting to at least a significant fraction of that limit.

    • nik282000@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The eye-brain system is totally analog. The shortest perceivable events have to do with how bright they are and how depleted the photo-receptors are in your retina. You could see a single 1/1000s pulse in a dark room but a 1kHz square wave would appear to be a continuous light.

    • Venus@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      so the real upper limit is 1000 frames per second.

      This is basically the same misconception just kicked further down the road. The truth is that the human eye simply does not see in any way similarly to the way a camera sees and can’t be compared. There is no upper limit.

      • WhoRoger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        There certainly is a limit. The sensitivity of light-sensitive cells is finite, the speed of transfer through the optics nerve is finite, and the speed with which information can be processed is finite.

        Furthermore it needs to be synced to at least some extend, so information needs to be discarded to limit noise, echos and ghosts, not unlike how VSync limits what can be displayed.

        It’s more advanced than that, variable and individual, but there certainly are limits. I doubt that the “eye framerate” could go over 1000 fps in any way other than noise.