Current Events > Scientists discover speed of visual perception ranges widely in humans.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-04-scientists-visual-perception-ranges-widely.html

The researchers, from the Department of Zoology in the School of Natural Sciences and the Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience, found that there is considerable variation among people in their temporal resolution, meaning some people effectively see more "images per second" than others.

So it turns out that whole thing about humans not being able to see 60 frames per second was just one guy with terrible vision?

So we have different frame rates ?

So this confirms that anyone that says there is no difference between 30 and 60 fps are just defective?

I can't tell diff between 120 fps and 165 fps. On a 165 hz monitor

I wonder if I could tell diff between 120 and 360 on a newer monitor but I doubt it

s0nicfan posted...

So it turns out that whole thing about humans not being able to see 60 frames per second was just one guy with terrible vision?

I for sure notice the difference between 30 and 60. Unsure about 120 and beyond because I have a 60 Hz monitor.

s0nicfan posted...

So it turns out that whole thing about humans not being able to see 60 frames per second was just one guy with terrible vision?

If the light source flickers above a person's threshold, they will not be able to see that it is flickering, and instead see the light as steady. Some participants in the experiment indicated they saw the light as completely still when it was in fact flashing about 35 times per second, while others were still able to perceive the flashing at rates of over 60 times per second.

Sounds like at least a few people are down in the 30fps zone

NO, REALLY?!

I ALWAYS ASSUMED PEOPLE WITH SLOW REFLEXES JUST STARE OFF INTO SPACE BEING LAZY FOR THAT EXTRA TENTH OF A SECOND!!!

For real, what kind of dipsticks decide what these scientists research? Next week they'll prove that water is freaking wet.

it's not about reaction time, it's about visual perception, the two are definitely different. Personally I'm not super surprised by the results, since individual people tend to be different in all sorts of possible ways, but it's definitely not something I knew before

s0nicfan posted...

So it turns out that whole thing about humans not being able to see 60 frames per second was just one guy with terrible vision?

Yes

RetuenOfDevsman posted...

NO, REALLY?!

I ALWAYS ASSUMED PEOPLE WITH SLOW REFLEXES JUST STARE OFF INTO SPACE BEING LAZY FOR THAT EXTRA TENTH OF A SECOND!!!

For real, what kind of dipsticks decide what these scientists research? Next week they'll prove that water is freaking wet.

Water isn't wet, though.

GrandConjuraton posted...

Water isn't wet, though.

Stop it, you'll make them think it's up for debate and then they'll research it for real.

Explains why some say 60fps isn't a thing.

RetuenOfDevsman posted...

Stop it, you'll make them think it's up for debate and then they'll research it for real.

its not a thing they need to research

water is not wet

Bigpapaplut posted...

So this confirms that anyone that says there is no difference between 30 and 60 fps are just defective?

This is more commonly an issue of people trying to view comparisons on YouTube while their auto quality setting caps the whole video at 30 fps. Especially an issue before internet got so fast everywhere.

No wonder people say they can't tell the difference between 30, 60, or 120 fps. It all makes sense now.

Pikachuchupika posted...

No wonder people say they can't tell the difference between 30, 60, or 120 fps. It all makes sense now.

s0nicfan posted...

So it turns out that whole thing about humans not being able to see 60 frames per second was just one guy with terrible vision?

Do ppl really say there's not perceivable difference between 30 and 60 fps? Or are they just saying it's not a big issue? I've definitely heard that humans can't perceive anything much past 60; thus making ppl wanting 120 ridiculous.

Your average Nintendo gamer

Link_of_time posted...

Do ppl really say there's not perceivable difference between 30 and 60 fps? Or are they just saying it's not a big issue? I've definitely heard that humans can't perceive anything much past 60; thus making ppl wanting 120 ridiculous.

There are definitely people that say they cannot see the differences. I was always confused or thought they were being sarcastic. I know I can see the differences, even with 144hz (although that is a more subtle difference compared to 30 to 60).

s0nicfan posted...

So it turns out that whole thing about humans not being able to see 60 frames per second was just one guy with terrible vision?

No. It was from people misinterpreting old cinema conventions where they deliberately targeted the lowest frame rate where humans still perceived it as motion in order to save costs on film.

Verdekal posted...

Explains why some say 60fps isn't a thing.

I play on consoles and try to play at 60 fps whenever possible, but my wife plays mostly on PC and genuinely can't tell the difference between 30 and 60.

I really hope this is the case because it drives me crazy.

Bigpapaplut posted...

So this confirms that anyone that says there is no difference between 30 and 60 fps are just defective?

a post-hoc analysis did suggest that there may be slightly more variation over time within females than within males.

watch it, that statement may prove in time to be sexist.

Link_of_time posted...

Do ppl really say there's not perceivable difference between 30 and 60 fps?

If the light source flickers above a person's threshold, they will not be able to see that it is flickering, and instead see the light as steady. Some participants in the experiment indicated they saw the light as completely still when it was in fact flashing about 35 times per second, while others were still able to perceive the flashing at rates of over 60 times per second.

seems like there are people who cap out around 35 fps

RetuenOfDevsman posted...

NO, REALLY?!

I ALWAYS ASSUMED PEOPLE WITH SLOW REFLEXES JUST STARE OFF INTO SPACE BEING LAZY FOR THAT EXTRA TENTH OF A SECOND!!!

For real, what kind of dipsticks decide what these scientists research? Next week they'll prove that water is freaking wet.

This has absolutely nothing to do with reflexes.

I didnt think this needed explanation. Anyone can come to this conclusion naturally.

DrizztLink posted...

This has absolutely nothing to do with reflexes.

I would be floored if the two arent heavily correlated but ya that dudes post was dumb.

Mine be lookin like early 3d videos made in the 80s

There's a relatively big difference between a solid color of light flickering and a videogame with a moving image, CE.

The air force has found some fighter pilots could clearly distinguish images of enemy aircraft that were visible for less than a hundredth of a second.

Screen flicker is not necessarily based on raw FPS. If your ambient lights are also flickering at nearly the same rate as your screen (or a multiple of it?), then the frequencies will alias and you will see a flicker at a lower rate. Back in the CRT days, you could seemingly "calm" a flickering 60Hz screen by turning off overhead fluorescent lights that were also flickering at 60Hz.

Just for clarity, people don't actually see in FPS