Chrizum said:
Michael-5 said:
Kynes said:
You are mixing light frequency with image frequency. Light, as every electro-magnet signal, has a frequency and a wavelength, but this frequency has nothing to do with frames per second. Animals "see" wider light frequencies than us, as ultraviolet or infra-red, but it has nothing to do with 200 fps or 80 fps.
|
Two separate points. Hence I wrote "also."
Read the example. Those rims spin at about 5-10 rotations per second, so a fifth rotation is just about 30FPS, thats why it lookslike it's spinning bacwards.
|
You're making the mistake that we perceive visual information in frames. We do not.
The human eye perceives visuals continuously, and the "smoothness" of movement depends on the focal point, light, movement speed, etc. It's not comparable with frames per second at all. Any claim of "the human eye sees x fps" is a bullshit claim. We can easily spot the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps if the source material has enough movement. We cannot see the difference between 300 fps and 600 fps because we can't process visual information that fast.
Maybe you should read up on this article, it's quite interesting.
|
But we do see in frames, this I know for certain. Look at a humming bird flap it's wings, when it flaps in with a frequency that is a multiple of your vision, the bird will look like it's not moving at all, and it's wings are just floating. Have you never seen this before? Or the car rim rotating backwards on the highway on a forward moving car?
