help me understand the dumb "human eyes can only see..."

[Red™]

What's the point of this debate? We're treating the eyes as if it's a camera. It's so much more complex than that. Saying human eyes can only see 24FPS, so therefore 120Hz is useless is the most idiotic statement. Truthfully? It's ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ to even say human can see FPS. We do not percieve thing in FPS. It goes much deeper than that, right?

[Out Of Bubblegum]

Have you ever looked at something rotating? Like a fan or the spokes on a wheel? At certain speeds it can look like the blades/spokes are turning slowly. Or stopped. Or turning backwards.

This optical illusion is only possible because our eyes do take snapshots. Just like a camera.

The eye transmits a complete frame to the brain. The brain takes a little time to process that image before it can accept another one. That optical illusion is positive proof of this. But gamers, being smarter than all doctors and scientists, will still never believe this.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Out Of Bubblegum:

Have you ever looked at something rotating? Like a fan or the spokes on a wheel? At certain speeds it can look like the blades/spokes are turning slowly. Or stopped. Or turning backwards.

This optical illusion is only possible because our eyes do take snapshots. Just like a camera.

The eye transmits a complete frame to the brain. The brain takes a little time to process that image before it can accept another one. That optical illusion is positive proof of this. But gamers, being smarter than all doctors and scientists, will still never believe this.

The optical illusion you just described proved exactly the opposite, as if eyes were taking snapshots there won't be any blur.

[Out Of Bubblegum]

Wrong. There is no such thing as instantaneous in the real world. Only in mathematics. The blur comes from the length of the aperture opening. You don't even know how a camera works? Our eyes do the same thing. Sigh.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/what-is-aperture/

[Snow]

Originally posted by Out Of Bubblegum:

Wrong. There is no such thing as instantaneous in the real world. Only in mathematics. The blur comes from the length of the aperture opening. You don't even know how a camera works? Our eyes do the same thing. Sigh.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/what-is-aperture/

You're still thinking a human eye is a digital device. It's not. It's got millions upon millions of photocells working independently from each other. Taking a snap like a camera would require them working in sync.
And either way what does the aperture have to do with motion blur? Linking random stuff ain't gonna make you look smart.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Out Of Bubblegum:

They do work in sync. That is the only way the optical illusion happens. The brain does make complete "pictures" from the inputs. One frame at a time. I did say why the blur happens. Each photocell does have to take in the photons for a period of time. Each one has to gather enough of them to register. Once again, there is no such thing as instantaneous. That was not random stuff. You just did not bother to look and understand. The only "education" you have ever had on this subject is sitting in your room, reading what other gamer kiddies say while they sit it their room. You have never ever tried to learn. That is why you sound so silly.

All way down so self-contradicting and insulting now, are we? If they work in sync - why does the brain have to make a complete image then?
It's ok mate, don't be so upset just because you said some nonsense. You've linked a nice article up there - just go and read it until you understand aperture has nothing to do with motion blur. Not understanding the difference between blur and motion blur is fine, just google or something.

[GuRu Asaki]

help me understand the dumb "human eyes can only see..."
What's the point of this debate? We're treating the eyes as if it's a camera. It's so much more complex than that. Saying human eyes can only see 24FPS, so therefore 120Hz is useless is the most idiotic statement. Truthfully? It's ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥t to even say human can see FPS. We do not percieve thing in FPS. It goes much deeper than that, right?



I honestly never really understood the debate at all...
I can clearly tell the difference between different FPS,
as well as different Resolutions...

How can you guys not? The idea is not to stand like 3 cenemeters
away from your TV screen to see try & point out Pixel By Pixel...

The point of 4K, 8K, & such is that you don't wanna see any Pixels at all,
because you want Sharp curves, & such on screen, you want to see the
images as clear as you can... the less pixels you see, the better...

If you can see pixels from 10 to 15 feet away, then you obviously
are watching a show or Movie with terrible picture... ^_-

That is why I prefer 4K to 8K over lower resolutions,
Yes I think BluRay or 1080P kinda shows a bit more color on screen,
& that is very important, but to me, sharpness is much more important...

Because who cares what color the people are, if you can't even make out
the fact that they are people to begin with... Right?

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Originally posted by Out Of Bubblegum:

Have you ever looked at something rotating? Like a fan or the spokes on a wheel? At certain speeds it can look like the blades/spokes are turning slowly. Or stopped. Or turning backwards.

This optical illusion is only possible because our eyes do take snapshots. Just like a camera.

The eye transmits a complete frame to the brain. The brain takes a little time to process that image before it can accept another one. That optical illusion is positive proof of this. But gamers, being smarter than all doctors and scientists, will still never believe this.

Yes. And no.

The typical scenario where people have seen that happen is on film or display because of how the movement match up with the capture of the light. The other case where you may have seen this is in real life but under a flickering light resulting in just about the same because you'll see the object much more when it's lit and reflecting something than when it's dark.

I can't imagine you've ever seen it under sun light. Under light flickering at 50 or 100 Hz or when waving your hand in front of a computer display or TV at 60/50/30/25/24 Hz or something such sure.

[Out Of Bubblegum]

Originally posted by Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism:

I can't imagine you've ever seen it under sun light. Under light flickering at 50 or 100 Hz or when waving your hand in front of a computer display or TV at 60/50/30/25/24 Hz or something such sure.

Yes, you do see it under full sunlight. Most cars have spoked wheels. Just watch some as they drive around. You will see it.

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Originally posted by Out Of Bubblegum:

Originally posted by Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism:

I can't imagine you've ever seen it under sun light. Under light flickering at 50 or 100 Hz or when waving your hand in front of a computer display or TV at 60/50/30/25/24 Hz or something such sure.

Yes, you do see it under full sunlight. Most cars have spoked wheels. Just watch some as they drive around. You will see it.

I'm 40 and I've never seen it. I also see no reason for me to see it and I don't whatsoever believe that the brain would treat the visual sensor input into specific slices of times / frames rather than as continous data. I've seen no scientist or doctor ever talk about it but I challenge you to find anyone, or just show one since you claim it's a thing so I assume it's easy for you.

[Out Of Bubblegum]

Sigh. From the Wiki:

Truly continuous illumination
The first to observe the wagon-wheel effect under truly continuous illumination (such as from the sun) was Schouten (1967[7]). ...
Discrete frames theory
Purves, Paydarfar, and Andrews (1996[8]) proposed the discrete-frames theory. One piece of evidence for this theory comes from Dubois and VanRullen (2011[9]). ...

I am positive you have seen it. You never "noticed" it, but you have seen it.

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Originally posted by Out Of Bubblegum:

Sigh. From the Wiki:

Truly continuous illumination
The first to observe the wagon-wheel effect under truly continuous illumination (such as from the sun) was Schouten (1967[7]). ...
Discrete frames theory
Purves, Paydarfar, and Andrews (1996[8]) proposed the discrete-frames theory. One piece of evidence for this theory comes from Dubois and VanRullen (2011[9]). ...

I am positive you have seen it. You never "noticed" it, but you have seen it.

I'm willing to accept that.

[vpelss]

I doubt a game is more fun because of resolution (to a point) or FPS. We aren't machines. Just enjoy the game no matter the FPS. Of course if you are way lower than 30 fps, like 5 you will notice. But I usually set my fps to the lowest 30 fps if possible. Do I suffer? No. Because other than someone looking for a problem, there is none.

[Zefar]

Originally posted by vpelss:

I doubt a game is more fun because of resolution (to a point) or FPS. We aren't machines. Just enjoy the game no matter the FPS. Of course if you are way lower than 30 fps, like 5 you will notice. But I usually set my fps to the lowest 30 fps if possible. Do I suffer? No. Because other than someone looking for a problem, there is none.

It's akin to driving a car where 30 FPS would be the car that has small hitches and is generally unpleasant to drive and then where the 60+ FPS is a normal car that drives smoothly at all times.

It makes a massive difference in terms of enjoyment of the game. It isn't about looking for a problem, it IS a problem.

[Ocelote.12]

Originally posted by Out Of Bubblegum:

Have you ever looked at something rotating? Like a fan or the spokes on a wheel? At certain speeds it can look like the blades/spokes are turning slowly. Or stopped. Or turning backwards.

This optical illusion is only possible because our eyes do take snapshots. Just like a camera.

That's because the frequency of a man-made lamp becomes equal to (/ near the) frequency of rotation of the object. That does not happen in daylight under the Sun, only under man-made light sources that oscillate unknowingly to the human eye.

Human eye does not take snapshots, it transmits a continuous image stream.

[_I_]

Originally posted by vpelss:

I doubt a game is more fun because of resolution (to a point) or FPS. We aren't machines. Just enjoy the game no matter the FPS. Of course if you are way lower than 30 fps, like 5 you will notice. But I usually set my fps to the lowest 30 fps if possible. Do I suffer? No. Because other than someone looking for a problem, there is none.

enjoy your 30fps slideshow
there is a reason monitors can go 165+hz
more steps from point a to point b can be a smoother image

i think you are talking about frame pacing, where it is a consistent delay between displayed frames
if the system is at full load it can be slightly different times between frames and can appear to jitter or stutter
capping fps at your refresh rate, or enabling rtss to limit and delay drawing so it will be complete just before the frame is sent to the display can make it more consistent

eyes are analog and do not see in frames
tv and displays show complete refreshes, that can consist of partial or complete frames

a light blinking at 1khz(1000hz) is visible when it is moving,
it can be seen blinking as it moves, eyes can see very fast things
but when the blinking light is not moving it will appear to be on or dim