I know of the whole idea that it's best to have games run at least at 60 frames per second at least (or 30 if it's on a console). It gave me an idea, if it was measurable, what FPS do you think real life runs at?, constant 60?, 30?
Real (life) framerates
- Thread starter DarklordKyo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
frames per second? I suck in biology ( or any science) , but i think there is a delay between an action and the time we actually see and process it . I'm not sure of that counts , but it's so small we can't tell the difference . Like if i was to get punched in the face with my eyes opened , i would actually ( technically ) get hit before seeing the fist touch my face . Actually now i'm pretty sure thats not the same thing . However , i'm pretty sure it would be a lot more than 60.
Well it's high time that the real world's graphics hardware got updated, I want 300FPS so I can exploit a physics bug that lets me move faster by bunny hopping. I do hope the world doesn't run on the Skyrim engine though, otherwise all sorts of weird shit starts happening if you go over 60FPS.
Movies are shot at 24/25 frames per second to simulate continuous movement. It's called retinal persistence phenomenom or something like that.
That's not how eyes work...
The real world isn't perceived in 'frames' because the world isn't a continual stream of frozen images.
The real world isn't perceived in 'frames' because the world isn't a continual stream of frozen images.
Some (yet to be verified) physics theories have proposed that the time it takes light to travel the smallest measurable distance (the Planck time) is the smallest physically meaningful interval of time. This would mean that a single Planck time is one frame for the universe. If true, this would mean that real life runs at ~18,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 frames per second.
HOW DID I GET NINJA'DMcMullen said:
HOW
HOW
;______;
Anyways, that. On the bright side, this means that during one real-life frame, light literally teleports 1.61619926 E-35 meters, which is kind of cool.
My vision usually has a good frame rate, but sometimes I run high brain CPU programs that make it all laggy.
Well, if what we see is the light coming to our eyes in real time, and light being photons... I suppose each 'layer' of photons hitting our eyes could be considered a 'frame'. So, RL FPS could be considered as the number of photons hitting a given point of on your eye in one second. Otherwise known as a very large number, and far higher than what our eyes and brains will give a damn about anyways.
While the world doesn't exactly work like that, and human eyes don't see in frames, we hold visual information in our brain for about 1/15 second, so anything lower than 15 FPS can look jerky. I think that's how it works?
While this is technically correct (the best kind of correct!), I'd be inclined to note that the smallest practically meaningful interval of time would be the time it takes for your body to react to the stimuli if you ask me. So, life plays on high FPS when you're drunk, and on low FPS when you're really focused on something and enter the kind of "bullet time" our brain is capable of. Only that it's FPWITIAS (Frames per what I think is a second), not real FPS.McMullen said:
I think we are looking at this the wrong way, we should loo at it as "how fast can our brain run in FPS"
To the best of my knowledge:
The human eye processes roughly 72 images per second, under normal conditions. Under extreme circumstances, such as during your body's fight or flight response, your brain can actually process images a lot faster than 72 per second, which of course slows your perception of time.
The standard frame rate for film varies depending on where you are (25fps in Australia, 29.97fps in the US etc.). The reason for this is that speeds within this range are enough to simulate continuous fluid movement. The reason (as far as I can tell) that framerates for film are not higher stems from the cost of analog film, and the desire to use as little as possible while still providing a quality image.
The human eye processes roughly 72 images per second, under normal conditions. Under extreme circumstances, such as during your body's fight or flight response, your brain can actually process images a lot faster than 72 per second, which of course slows your perception of time.
The standard frame rate for film varies depending on where you are (25fps in Australia, 29.97fps in the US etc.). The reason for this is that speeds within this range are enough to simulate continuous fluid movement. The reason (as far as I can tell) that framerates for film are not higher stems from the cost of analog film, and the desire to use as little as possible while still providing a quality image.
Under normal circumstances it tends to be a little over 100-120FPS but I did a slightly different experiment at school. Essentially an image of a silhouette would be would be flashed for a fraction of a second then you would have to identify what it was you saw. I did the second best in the class by identifying things at about 6 milliseconds or about 166FPS.
I also read that some people can see over 200.
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
I also read that some people can see over 200.
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm