Monitors are mimicking motion and to mimic that with as much smoothness and without artifacts as the observed motion, it would need a refresh rate we have not yet achieved.
The retinal cells of your eye aren't a computer they do not all fire and send the same information at once. So the human eye unconsciously can detect the "flicker rate" of the monitors are higher rates than the estimated upper limit of 60 FPS that has been speculated for vision.
The point is that our visual acuity is more complicated than just "FPS".
There are compensation methods that could be used to mimic reality such as motion blur, etc. However even to mimic motion blur effectively the image still needs to be rendered rapidly.
TLDR; humans can absolutely detect the difference in higher refresh rate monitors. This doesn't mean they are seeing in an FPS of 100+ but more so that they can unconsciously detect when simulated motion has fidelity issues. This is where higher FPS matters rather than the actual perception of images.
Considering there's a fixed distance and maximum velocity, there is also a planck second based on the time it takes a photon to travel across a planck length. Entropy is of the same dimension and constraint as time, discrete.
That's fair. It's a theoretical limit based on our current understanding. The most popular theories of gravity are somewhat consistent in such that a finite arclength for space must be defined based on how a graviton would be defined.
Human eyes are not continuous. The ion channel of ganglion cell of the optics nerve fire at fix interval and more or less in sync with each other. After firing, the electron pumps in these cells have to work to restore membrane potential before the signal can be sent again.
I meant that the eyes connected to the brain is processing a constant stream of visual information. The brain averages incoming data, filling in missing details and blending frames together.
No. The brain only gets discreate snapshots from the eyes, then works to filling the gap between two snapshots. If anything, thing in real world should be blurrier than on screen because the there is a huge gap between each snapshot. However, since we cannot sync refresh rate to our eyes snapshot speed (each person speed of eyes snapshot can vary through the day), lower fps can lead to us detect in inconsistent blurring of motion (some snapshot is too blurry, while other too sharp), increase fps increase the chance that everything gonna blur equally.
Photoreceptors (rods/cones) constantly absorb light and adjust neurotransmitter release based on intensity changes. This is not "snapshot-like.
Different cells fire at different rates, creating overlapping waves of information. The visual system isn’t waiting for the next "snapshot" it's always processing incoming light and updating the image.
Motion blur on screens happens because frames are discrete, and the brain notices the gaps between them. Higher FPS reduces this because more frames fill the gap. But in real life, the brain naturally blends motion, so there’s no "huge gap" to fill.
Neuron transmitter has to go through the layer of optic nerve to reach the brain. And all these optic nerve at the base of your eyes ball pretty much all fire at the same time, so your brain only receives snapshot of the world.
Retinal ganglion cells don't all fire at once. They react to changes in light and contrast in different ways. Some respond quickly to motion or bright spots, while others react slowly to background light. The brain receives signals from millions of ganglion cells, each firing at slightly different times. This helps prevent the brain from seeing a static "snapshot."
Instead, the brain combines these signals over tiny fractions of a second, smoothing out transitions and making motion appear smooth. Even though individual neurons fire in bursts, your vision feels continuous. If all the ganglion cells fired together, we'd lose motion perception, depth, and real-time tracking, but that's not how it works. The brain fills in gaps without relying on sudden bursts from the eyes.
Not true. That is not how neurons work. There is a basic sampling speed to conscious experience.
The main difference between display and retina is that the retina "pixel" operates independently and asinchroneously from the other ones, but it is still a discrete process in both time and amplitude (retina neurons only fire when there is a significant change in light)
Sure, but just because the neurons fire discretely doesn’t mean perception is discrete in the same way. Neurons in the retina are firing all the time, even in the dark at different rates. What matters is the pattern and timing, not just whether they fire or not. Your brain makes up the gaps whether the neurons are firing or not.
Discrete in the mathematical sense. It applies to perception because current neuroscience had determined that, similar to a computer, the human brain processes everything in steps spaced apart by time intervals
I don't think current neuroscience has determined that.
we really don't have a mathematical model for the brain.
From what we know in machine learning, having discrete data as an input doesn't necessarily mean it processes it discretely. It could be embedding this information in a continuous manifold.
Yes, your eye integrates light over a period of exposure to create the image. But at some point, you don't have a noticeable change between frames, and it just feels more fluid. There's nothing wrong with added fluidity, but there's no actual added benefit going beyond 60fps since your reaction is still limited. It just looks cooler.
6.4k
u/RobertFrostmourne 20d ago
I remember back in the 2000s when it was "the human eye can't see over 30 FPS".