Comment on How do our brains process reality? I heard our eyes were just low-res cameras and our brains were doing all the heavy lifting in 'rendering' reality.

• TachyonTele@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Yeah it’s not like frames from a projector. It’s a stream. But the brain skips parts that haven’t changed.

  source
• Steve@communick.news ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  People looking at a strobing light, start to see it as just “on” (not blinking anymore) at almost exactly 60Hz.
  In double blind tests, pro gamers can’t reliably tell 90fps from 120.
  There is however, an unconscious improvement to game reaction time, all the way up to 240fps. Maybe faster.

  source

  • RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It seems to be more complicated than that

    However, when the modulated light source contains a spatial high frequency edge, all viewers saw flicker artifacts over 200 Hz and several viewers reported visibility of flicker artifacts at over 800 Hz. For the median viewer, flicker artifacts disappear only over 500 Hz, many times the commonly reported flicker fusion rate.

    source
  • seaQueue@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    The real benefit of super high refresh rates is the decrease in latency for input. At lower rates the lag between input and the next frame is extremely apparent, above about ~144hz it’s much less noticable.

    The other side effect of running at high fps is that when heavy processing occurs and there are frame time lags they’re much less noticable because the minimum fps is still very high. I usually tell people not to pay attention to the maximum fps rather look at the average and min.

    source
  • Contramuffin@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I think having higher frame rates isn’t necessarily about whether our eyes can perceive the frame or not. As another commenter pointed out there’s latency benefits, but also, the frame rate affects how things smear and ghost as you move them around quickly. I don’t just mean in gaming. Actually, it’s more obvious when you’re just reading an article or writing something in Word. If you scroll quickly, the words blur and jitter more at low frame rates, and this is absolutely something you can notice

    source
• ekky@sopuli.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I think i read that fighter pilots need to be able to identify a plane in one frame at 300 fps, and that the theoretical limit of the eye is 1000+ fps.

  Though, whether the brain can manage to process the data at 1000+ fps is questionable.

  source

  • Fester@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I’m using part of this comment to inform my monitor purchases for the rest of my life.

    source

    • ivanafterall@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      New 1,200 Hz displays? Well, it did say 1,000-plus…

      source
  • nimpnin@sopuli.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Both of these claims are kinda misguided. The brain is able to detect very short flashes of light (say, 1 thousandth of a second), and other major changes in light perception. Especially an increase in light will be registered near instantly. However, since it doesn’t have a set frame rate, more minor changes in the light perception (say, 100 fps) are not going to be registered. And the brain does try to actively correct discontinuities, that’s why even 12 fps animation feels like movement, although a bit choppy.

    source
• olafurp@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I would believe it if someone told me that an individual rod or cone in the eye was 24fps but they’re most likely not synched up

  source
• SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Generally humans don’t perceive a difference above 60 Hz.

  source

  • yoevli@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Completely untrue and not even up for debate. You’d know this if you had ever used a high-refresh rate display.

    source

    • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Let me guess, you’ve also bought a Gamer Chair to go with your overpriced 144 Hz display.

      source

      • yoevli@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        So, have you actually used a 144 Hz display yourself?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It’s noticeable, it’s just not massive. My phone screen runs at 120hz but I don’t notice a difference unless I’m scrolling rapidly. Gaming culture (driven by corporations) really overemphasizes its importance.

    Also keep in mind there likely isn’t a lot of selective pressure on biological vision refresh rate, so I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a fair amount of variability in the ability to discern a difference amongst individuals.

    source

    • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Finally, a reasonable reply to my comment.

      source

      • SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        It’s a hot button topic for some people. I’m for the biological variation explanation - some people seem to really notice a difference while others don’t.

        I think what the people who get really upset notice is that they dropped a few extra $100s on what’s often largely a marketing gimmick.

        source
• Venator@lemmy.nz ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  You’re right that is a continuous process, so there’s no frame rate as such. 24 fps is just the lowest framerate that doesn’t look “framey” in videos, but can go as low as 12 and still reliably perceive it as movement, which is why most stop motion films are done at 12fps.

  The amount of motion blur we see on fast moving objects is similar to a 24fps camera with a normal shutter angle setting, but we don’t perceive any blur when we turn our heads or move our eyes like a camera at that fps does.

  There’s also our reaction time, which can vary a lot depending on a plethora of factors, but averages around 250ms, which is similar to 4fps 😅

  source