jonathanalis said:
I was considering that human eye was like any point-wise analog-digital converter with a aproximatelly 1/30 s refresh rate, so 60 FPS would be enough, according to Nyquist rate. But seems that the eye is much more than this. So, ok, there is no right answear. But Im still considering that a model could represent well, maybe a full exposure camera. It could explain the perceivment of a 1/500 s blink light, and the (lack of) sensivity to darkness (cos it is quite similar to the afterimage explained in text). It would explain also how motion blur affects the smothness. But it do not explain the different effects in the different areas of the eye.. |
Motion blur is a neat trick to suggest smoothness, just as depth of field blur can hide lack of detail. The human brain is a remarkable tool for filling in the gaps. Motion blur in real life works quite differently though, as your eyes track objects and in your mind everything stays sharp upto a certain point.
Just spin around in a circle for a while, after screwing up your inner ear (getting dizzy) tracking goes out the window and everything becomes a blur. You're not spinning any faster as before, yet suddenly there is motion blur everywhere.
Anyway a neat trick to suggest fluid motion is to simply turn down the lights and reduce the brightness. In that sense your eyes do have sort of an exposure time like a camera. (next to a chemical process to makes your eyes more sensitive in the dark, comparable to ISO setting) Staring at a bright monitor in a well lit room will make you more susceptible to low frame rates than playing on a dimly lit screen in the dark.
That's one area where games follow human perception, hide lots of stuff in the dark, makes the game look more detailed and seems to perform better than it is. Works in nightclubs too!
