Poll of the Day > How many frames per second are there in real life?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Like what FPS is irl
---

Infinity.
---

5.39 10^44 frames per second

The correct answer is 20.
---

Tuna fish
---

Zero
---

6 posts and nobody has come up with the legit answer. I actually thought PotD was smarter than this lol
---

There's something in physics called Planck units which I think are talking about the smallest units. You can't get any smaller than a Planck unit because it wouldn't make physical sense. I think the base unit is Planck length. From there you can define Planck time, Planck frequency, and other units.

I think the Planck frequency would tell you about real life FPS. So you can think of real life as running in approximately 1.85 x 10^(44) FPS.

Now that's just "real life" FPS but it has nothing to do with biology. I think that biology does play a role though.
---

Planks per electropuslse
---

There is no way to know, humans can only judge it based on what they can perceive.
---

TheWorstPoster posted...

5.39 10^44 frames per second

You really, really fucked that one up.
---

anything less than 60 is unlivable
---

FatalAccident posted...

6 posts and nobody has come up with the legit answer. I actually thought PotD was smarter than this lol

Real life isn't rendered video, therefore, it can't have a "frames per second".
---

More than 120.
---

So basically the refresh rate of human vision? Probably something to do with the human and I would expect something that has been researched.

Edit: A quick google search does confirm some research has been done. Highly trained individuals (fighter pilots in this case) were able to recognize and retain something only seen for 1/220 of a second, so 220 FPS in their case.
---

I saw a sign outside a frame shop that said- We will shoot your wife, frame your brother-in-law and hang both of them.
---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

A quick google search does confirm some research has been done. Highly trained individuals (fighter pilots in this case) were able to recognize and retain something only seen for 1/220 of a second, so 220 FPS in their case.

Those are exceptions tho. I think I read somewhere that normal people won't be able to do that faster than 1/100 seconds if not lower.

so they test this by putting someone in a dark room and turning on the light for a .001 seconds and see if they can tell if they saw anything.
---

ernieforss posted...

so they test this by putting someone in a dark room and turning on the light for a .001 seconds and see if they can tell if they saw anything.

Clearly, you've never had your depth perception tested.
---

ernieforss posted...

so they test this by putting someone in a dark room and turning on the light for a .001 seconds and see if they can tell if they saw anything.

That wouldn't work because your eyes would need time to get used to the lighting change.

The human eye does not see in terms of frames.
---

TES_Nut posted...

The human eye does not see in terms of frames.

This is the correct answer.
---

VixYW posted...

Those are exceptions tho. I think I read somewhere that normal people won't be able to do that faster than 1/100 seconds if not lower.

Hence I said fighter pilot. I tried framing it as an upper limit, my apologies if I failed at getting that across.

Also, this was not just a light test, the pilots were shown pictures of planes for 1/200th second and managed to retain and correctly name it, a certain percentage of the time I suppose.
---

I'd say it's at least 7
---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

VixYW posted...

Those are exceptions tho. I think I read somewhere that normal people won't be able to do that faster than 1/100 seconds if not lower.

Hence I said fighter pilot. I tried framing it as an upper limit, my apologies if I failed at getting that across.

Also, this was not just a light test, the pilots were shown pictures of planes for 1/200th second and managed to retain and correctly name it, a certain percentage of the time I suppose.

Np, I was just using your argument to get mine across. I had read about this stuff a long time ago and remember seeing values for pilots and several other people under certain circumstances, and even the normal average, but I don't remember then numbers anymore.

Nichtcrawler X posted...

So basically the refresh rate of human vision? Probably something to do with the human and I would expect something that has been researched.

Edit: A quick google search does confirm some research has been done. Highly trained individuals (fighter pilots in this case) were able to recognize and retain something only seen for 1/220 of a second, so 220 FPS in their case.

240hz ftw

VixYW posted...

Nichtcrawler X posted...

A quick google search does confirm some research has been done. Highly trained individuals (fighter pilots in this case) were able to recognize and retain something only seen for 1/220 of a second, so 220 FPS in their case.

Those are exceptions tho. I think I read somewhere that normal people won't be able to do that faster than 1/100 seconds if not lower.

That's just object recognition though. Smoothness of movement is serious business and some people get sea sick from 90fps in VR.
---

TES_Nut posted...

The human eye does not see in terms of frames.

wow cool, a non-answer. get lost, troll.
---

PaddysPub posted...

TES_Nut posted...

The human eye does not see in terms of frames.

wow cool, a non-answer. get lost, troll.

It's the correct answer though. The human eye doesn't work like a projector thus vision cannot be measured in fps.
---

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-shortest-unit-of-time
---