People say you cant see more then 24 fps. This was one classmate. So i showed him video running at 24; 60; 75; 90; 120.
After all that i asked him which was the best to watch. He showed at 120 fps one. Ok so i closed all the other ones. So i showed him 30 fps vs 120 fps side to side. He was instant to point out that the 30 fps seems like its stuttering. Then i told him the results. He didnt believe. Went to rage mode. So i explained to him calmly and he understood after that.
Oh yeah also i bought 120Hz panel for my laptop finally because i had seen 120 lot of times now and so i wanted it on my laptop. After paying 120$ (1Hz = 1$ LUL Jk it just costs 120$) now waiting for it to arrive. So excited.

  • 5
    The video was running on 120Hz display and video was desktop capture
  • 7
    You can only see at 24 fps tho
  • 10
    @NonImportant- Wrong. I can see PWM annoyingly flicker at 120 Hz. Not if focusing on it, but when I move the visual focus and have the flicker somewhat in the peripheral sight.

    I had that issue already with video projectors, and once you notice the flicker in the periphery occurring with eye saccades, it's impossible to unnotice it.
  • 4
    @NonImportant- OUT ¡!!!!!!!!!
  • 6
    @Haxk20 but my visionotoligist told me that our eyes can only see so many fast speeds in video
  • 5
    @NonImportant- i dont care what some random doctor says. Im 100000000000000000% sure you can see the difference. So tell your doctor to try it then tell shit.
  • 16
    @Haxk20 my doctor told me to turn on vsync
  • 4
    @NonImportant- GOD. OK leave from that doctor.
  • 2
    Freesync is the way
  • 2
    Yes you need Vsync enabled but still much better then pure Vsync
  • 6
    Also, there's a neat workaround for the human eye under low light conditions. You don't focus an object you want to see because the colour cells are in the vision center, and they need more brightness to work. Focusing would just black out the object.

    With a bit of training, it's possible to circle the vision around the targeted object and make use of the black and white cells that are outside the center and need less light. The brain can be trained to overlay the slightly blurry images, thus removing the blur, and deliver an amplified though colourless image. Very useful for nightly outdoor stuff.

    Problem is that this will also amplify any flicker if present like modern PWM in cars' rear lights.
  • 3
    @Fast-Nop I see flickering in stuff even at high refresh rates in lamps at 60Hz sometimes. Weird shit happens i guess
  • 3
    Why would he rage. Nothing in that interaction called for rage..
  • 5
    @NotWhoIUsedToBe He is like that when he founds out he is not right.
  • 4
    Ah. I didn't catch that he was on the "you can't see more than 24 fps anyway camp. Sorry
  • 3
    Depends on eyes.
    My eyes are only capable to see shit everywhere at one shit per second frame-rate.
    Funny thing is that you’re actually born seeing upside down and your eyes signal cross before it gets to brain so your left eye is actually your right brain side. So someone fucked up hardware and tried to fix it later in software.
  • 3
    @vane yup. Genetics and human body is weird. And funny is body is full of those hacks
  • 2
    @Haxk20 probably because we live in highly unpleasant environment where everything can kill you anytime.
  • 2
    Fun fact: Bruce Lee recorded movies at 30fps because at 24fps you would miss the action. He was too f-ing fast for 24!

    I think 24 was only ever used as a persistence of vision thing. The minimum rate needed to trick your vision into believing it was continuous. Not that max rate your eye refreshes at. Your eyes have billions of neural processors attached to do video processing. Also, during a time of crisis that rate goes up. I watched the windshield shatter in slow mo when I got in a car accident. That is way faster than 24.
  • 2
    @Fast-Nop @haxk20 any chance either of you have nystagmus (stigmatism)? I have that and have the same flickering issue. It would explain why it's more pronounced on the periphery.
  • 1
    @cmarshall10450 No, my eyes don't move except intentionally. It's more a habit how much peripheral vision the brain evaluates or discards.

    The reason for peripheral flickering is that the center vision is at a narrow angle, so if you move the eye, things will be in that spot only for a short time. The peripheral angle is much wider so that flickering things moving there spend much more time at the same angular speed. The flicker manifests as choppy movement.
  • 2
    @Fast-Nop is the answer to https://quora.com/Why-do-some-scree... what you're describing?

    I'm glad you don't have nystagmus. It's horrible.
  • 1
    @cmarshall10450 Yeah pretty much.
  • 2
    @Fast-Nop Is it just video or displays? I really used to notice 60hz tubes displays. Setting it above that fixed that. I have not noticed flickering on newer LED/LCD displays. I will have to pay attention to see if video does this to me.
  • 3
    @Demolishun It's worst with anything LED that uses PWM for brightness control. I hate those car rear lights.

    No issue with modern monitors because I don't have fast gamer hardware so that the display is inherently somewhat inert.

    However, I do remember 60 Hz CRTs, and they were really awful. I needed 85 Hz to be mostly OK - my Eizo about 20 years ago offered that.

    At the time, the Atari SM124 B/W monitor had 71 Hz with an extremely long afterglow so that no flickering was there. That was a big reason why I never had an Amiga.
  • 1
    @cmarshall10450 I have really good vision so i dont suppose i have that
  • 1
    @cmarshall10450 And eyes move only intentionally
  • 2

    > Atari SM124 B/W

    I loved mine, such a great picture.

    (Expanded it to fit the whole screen..)

    I wish I could afford something better than a 30 Hz 4K monitor, but then it is 50"

    I guess being LCD the flicker issue is less of an issue.

    Most of the time I run all my LCD monitors at 60 Hz (Otherwise it causes all kinds of issues for Windows if they are not the same !), so the 4K is downgraded to a 2K monitor.
  • 1
    I feel like it is weird to suggest we can't see above 30Hz. Go to any store with demo iPads and use one of the iPad pro models beside the iPad. The pro model has a weird buttery smooth appearance and the normal one looks slow. Even though you would never notice unless side-by-side.
  • 1
    The whole 24fps thing is utterly bunk.
    It astounds me that some people actually believe it.

    Then again, there are flat earthers.
    And people who believe infomercials.
    And people who believe in Nigerian princes(ses).

    So I suppose it really shouldn't be so surprising.
  • 1
    I didn't read all your comments, but let me drop in as a person who studied some medical science, including the sensory system, including eye anatomy and physiology.

    I don't know about any process in the eyes what limits the 'frames per second' you would perceive.

    Retinal cells react to changes in light intensity and frequency (colour). Their ability and speed to react to these changes depends on brightness and colour and differs per cell. Then there's the ocular nerve, one large bundle of neural highways that go to the other side of your head, where the visual cortex lies in your brain. Along the way, the images are already processed and in the cortex itself they are processed again, re-emitting signals in the brain. It's safe to say: all this simultaneous processing does not happen in some synchronised fashion where we perceiver 'frames'. It's more an integrated smear / stream of physiological signals.

    (part 1/x)
  • 1
    That being said, let's assume that a part of your vision can see things updating about 24 times per second. Only if that part is synchronised with your entire vision system, then we have a homogeneous sampling frequency of 24 Hz. Due to the Nyquist sampling theorem we should then only be able to see things changing up to 12 Hz. Anything changing at higher speeds would seem to move at modulo 24 Hz frequency (between –12 Hz and 12 Hz), i.e.: the wagon wheel effect (where you see a wheel rotate slowly / in the opposite direciton, like on video), i.e. aliasing.

    Because human vision does not suffer from aliasing leading to a wagon wheel effect, we can conclude that our vision does not synchronously perceive at a fixed sampling frequency, or maybe even that we don't sample at all.

    Our eyes do have some spatial and temporal resolutions, being: what are the smallest things that our vision can see separately, how quick can changes be for our eyes to see them?

  • 1
    Is the temporal resolution 24 Hz? I don't think so. I prefer 144 Hz over any other screen refresh rate I've ever seen, and at work I usually have a screen at 60 Hz, which is just fine for development work. I do note my mouse stuttering at 30 Hz compared to 60 Hz.

    So this leads me to believe that our brains are capable of perceiving optical input from our eyes at a much greater rate. Maybe an individual retinal cell can perceive at about 24 Hz, but due to the large amount of cells firing visual signals to the brain asynchronously, the brain can integrate signals from multiple sources arriving at much greater rates and therefore detect quicker changes. After all, you don't look at your computer screen with just one cell, but with many at the same time.

  • 0
Add Comment