[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 68 KB, 534x484, 1378058278079.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6669954 No.6669954 [Reply] [Original]

According to http://movieline.com/2012/12/14/hobbit-high-frame-rate-science-48-frames-per-second/ , humans see at about 66 fps, and we process about 40 fps.

However, I see no citations for that beyond the person making that claim. Does anybody have any info on this?

>> No.6669960

>>6669954
>>>/v/

>> No.6669961

if humans saw things in "frames" things that can move across our field of vision in less than a second would be invisible, or only seen once for a single "frame"

the entire claim is bullshit, except for maybe the "process in 40fps" part. that could be interpreted as humans can only make 40 decisions/disern 40 events per second, but I think thats wrong too

>> No.6669963

>>6669954
Humans don't see in a constant FPS rate. In fact, we don't even really see in frames. Different parts of the eye process things differently; a lot of information is gathered once and then kept in memory. Depending on factors and varying by the individual, we can discern differences in as high as 87fps or as low as 20.

Our eyes don't work the same way our cameras do.

>> No.6669969

eyes are a low pass filter, you can prove this by watching a bicycle wheel or rim of a car as it speeds up.
the effect is to see the rim begin to blur then appear in focus again going backwards
just like any strobe light on a spinning object will do
pretty much we have a frame rate on our eyes and it is about 16 to 20 FPS
i thought this was taught in basic science with the einstein on the bike video

>> No.6669982

>>6669961
>>6669963
I'm fully aware of this fact, which is why I was wondering what this guy's sources were.

>> No.6669987

>>6669982
his own justifications to make a snobby claim about what cinema should and shouldnt be

>> No.6669994
File: 71 KB, 480x800, 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6669994

I think humans process all light being observed in the field of view. The thing that varies is the accuracy of comprehension of what the eyes are actually seeing. The brain can react to a fly whizzing past its eyes perfectly fine, but you can start to pick out the finer details as more adrenaline in pumping throughout your body/brain.

Pic unrelated.

>> No.6670000

>>6669987
Seems like a counter intuitive way to push his own opinions, given 40 is closer to 48 and the average idiot won't understand what the uncanny valley is

>> No.6670003

>>6670000
Uncanny valley is talked a lot about with video and game animation, especially right now.

>> No.6670011

>>6670003
I guess.

For what it's worth, I love the high frame rate visual effect, and I've never had any issues with uncanny CG (I don't know why people say the polar express looked creepy), but I still suffer from the traditional issues with stuff like creepy dolls and robots.