If it is possible to conceive this, what do you think the world's frame rate is? Basically, what is the FPS (Frame Per Second) at which you see things? Is it unlimited? Or just limited, but up to a certain number that it would be impossible to find something fast enough (Even Neutrino's ;D) So that it would look "laggy"?? I shall now enjoy you guys rant and argue over this nice concept. :smile.gif:
The eye doesn't record frames, it processes sight through the optic nerve.
The framerate you see could only be defined through the media and the characteristics of it, majority cannot detect differences from 60 fps<
It is a huge misconception that we can't tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps. The world continuously sends light to our eyes (i.e. infinite fps) and the speed that our brain can process one snapshot makes our eyes are able to perceive over 100fps. It is true that there is a limit, like have you ever watched a car's wheels as it accelerates? It ends up seeming to spin backwards because by the time we have processed one frame the wheel completes nearly a whole turn...if that makes sense. Anyway my main point was to tell you to stop believing in that little 30 fps myth.
The human visual system does not see in terms of frames; it works with a continuous flow of light information.
Actually, that's not true. Have you ever looked at a spinning wheel and noticed that it looks likes it's not spinning? This happens when the frequency of the wheel's rotation is approximately equal to a factor of your eye's frame rate. If it looks like it's spinning forward slowly (when you know it's actually spinning much faster) then it's spinning a bit faster than a factor of your eye's frame rate. Similarly, if it looks like the wheel is spinning backwards (when you know it's spinning forwards) then it's spinning a bit slower than a factor of your eye's frame rate.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This enlightening post brought to you courtesy of a serious overabundance of free time.
It doesn’t, and it doesn’t matter how high fps you have, you can always do better.
Go outside, look straight ahead. Hold up one finger in front of your face and move it rapidly from side to side. The finger is blurry.
Now do the same thing, but instead of looking straight ahead, look at the finger. Notice how the background is blurry instead of your finger?
Now say that instead of being outside in the real world, you were inside in a cinema, watching a movie of a finger moving rapidly from the left to the right. Say the finger moves one full cycle in one second. Normal cinema runs at about 24 frames per second, so instead of seeing a single blurred finger along the entire screen, you’d see a focused finger in 24 unique locations.
To solve this, we can add motion blur to the finger, but then the finger will no longer look sharp when you follow it with your eyes.
(The next time you’re watching a movie in cinemas, pay extra close attention to the background when the camera pans. Horrible, isn’t it?)
If we were to speed up the movie ten times, the finger would be in 240 unique locations, or would be blurred 1/10’th of the 24 hz version, but it’s still not perfect.
This is the reason flourescent lighting is HORRIBLE. When looking straight ahead at a stationary object, you probably can’t tell what type of lighting there is, but as soon as you move your eyes, or something in the room moves, there is a strobe effect (even if faint) that breaks up motion.
When in doubt, wave your hand in front of your face and check if you see a smooth blurred hand or a series of “snapshots” of the hand. If your hand isn’t smooth, nothing lit by that lightsource will be smooth.
The next time someone tells you the eye can’t see more than 30 fps, stab them in the face with a screwdriver.