Random middle of the night musing

H

Huy Vu

Veteran
So this thought just kinda pop into my head. If our eyes are the best cameras there is, how many frames are they capturing a second? And at what shutter speed?

Real life is basically just a series of still images right? And for us to see it in motion we must be absorbing the images at a certain speed. So if we're seeing it at 24p (I'm assuming our eyes capture images progressively), then what does it mean when we're watching 60i footages?

Of course there's nothing scientific about my assertion so far. I've just always thought that 24p is an overhyped feature for the "film look." And with all the fuss surrounding it and all the people dumping on 60i, I just thought I would throw this out here. Any thoughts?
 
if you see 18 picures a second, you will see it in motion (if it is motion picture).
you can make difference between 16 colours, but you can see thounds of tones or hue (so you can make difference between millions of colours)
you see in 180 degrees, but most os it is out of focus. and you have a very cool autofocus, DOF, auto exposure and other cool things too.
 
I've read that the "refresh rate" of the eye is equivalent to about 70 fps, which is why 60 fps footage looks more real than 24 fps.

But I think talking about "stills" and "frame rate" for the human eye is meaningless.
 
Well the only time interlace would really get us would be when we were trying to walk up stairs or if we had to pause the motion.

Stupid jiggies.
 
What if we all see colors differently...I mean like WAY differently. What if what I see the sky as blue, you see as orange, but you've always known it as blue so you don't know the difference no matter what registers in your brain.

I need to lie down.
 
mjmcneese2 said:
What if we all see colors differently...I mean like WAY differently. What if what I see the sky as blue, you see as orange, but you've always known it as blue so you don't know the difference no matter what registers in your brain.

I need to lie down.
Click to expand...

yeah, I've thought about that. Since the color charts are symetrical, different shades of colors would also be the same. The failure of that hypothesis though is if you see a red cup, there's no doubt that it's red and if the person who saw red as green called it a green cup, they'd be wrong. The light properties of that cup are undeniably red. Kind of weird to think about stuff like that though lol
 
dj200423 said:
The failure of that hypothesis though is if you see a red cup, there's no doubt that it's red and if the person who saw red as green called it a green cup, they'd be wrong.
Click to expand...

But, I'm saying what if they saw it as green, but they call it red...they really think it's red. Maybe you see things like a film negative, but I see things that look like a film positive. No one would even know the difference.

I just went crosseyed.
 
mjmcneese2 said:
What if we all see colors differently...I mean like WAY differently. What if what I see the sky as blue, you see as orange, but you've always known it as blue so you don't know the difference no matter what registers in your brain.

I need to lie down.
Click to expand...

Yea, it's called color blindness and it sux. Nothing like putting some FX in a video then having someone say, "why is everything so.....green?" It's not quite to the extent you mention, but for example. Light pink is white, red can sometimes be green, green can sometimes be brown, navy blue is absolutely black, purple is dark blue, pepto-bismol is blue.... etc, etc, etc. Just have to have everyone check out my videos before I finalize and if the cars crossing my red-light are stopped I must have green. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG) (Ok, the redlight thing is not that bad most times. It does help they tend to put them in the same sequence on the poles).

Color blindness is extreamly rare in females, the carry the defect but the male children are the ones affected. The eyes have cones and rods, basically it is a defect where the eyes are missing some of the various cones.
 
Last edited:
Slimothy said:
I wonder if a little CC would fix color blindness.
Click to expand...

I had heard there were expensive contacts, but upon google search seems to be a fishtale.

There is no cure for color deficiency that has been present since birth. Wearing colored contact lenses is only minimally effective in correcting defective color vision and may cause other eye problems like reducing the sharpness of vision and distorting depth perception.
http://www.metrohealth.org/HI/indexes/EYES4504.htm
 
yeah, I've thought about that. Since the color charts are symetrical, different shades of colors would also be the same. The failure of that hypothesis though is if you see a red cup, there's no doubt that it's red and if the person who saw red as green called it a green cup, they'd be wrong. The light properties of that cup are undeniably red. Kind of weird to think about stuff like that though lol
Click to expand...

Yes and no. The light waves themselves will still have the same properties no matter what. HOWEVER, since color is a psychological reaction to light the psycho-emotional response we call 'color' could be entirely different for different people. The light is technically the same but the response created by our brains isn't necessarily so - even if we both call the same objects green (since we would have learned from birth that the response associated with said object is 'green'). There's no way to verify that the color experience I percieve as green is the same experience you percieve.

And now if any of that rambling made sense....
 
I've thought about it, too.

The answer is, everyone probably sees them the same if everything is working properly.

But there's no way to know.
 
mjmcneese2 said:
But, I'm saying what if they saw it as green, but they call it red...they really think it's red. Maybe you see things like a film negative, but I see things that look like a film positive. No one would even know the difference.
Click to expand...

I get exactly what you're saying. If we all see "red" as a different hue, then no one could tell if we all saw different colors. To someone else, skin could be blue, but they'd still refer to it as skin colored.

jade8472 said:
So this thought just kinda pop into my head. If our eyes are the best cameras there is, how many frames are they capturing a second? And at what shutter speed?
Click to expand...

Check out this link:

I've seen competitive gamers tweak their systems to get 200+ frames per second. Can't the human eye only see 30-60 fps? Why do people do this?

"A higher FPS than the refresh rate might be noticeable, even though the monitor wont be displaying every frame, especially with objects in the distance - they will move smoother between the frames that you do see. "​

Here's another link that disagrees with the posts above:

How Many Frames Per Second Can The Human Eye See?

"How many frames per second can the human eye see?

This is a tricky question. And much confusion about it is related to the fact, that this question is NOT the same as:

How many frames per second do I have to have to make motions look fluid"​

.SWF Link

Well, I don't agree with the few replies you've had above. Here's a .swf file that plays at 120 frames per second. the 120th frame has a black screen with a red squiggle, like this picture below.
fps2wy.jpg


You're telling me we shouldn't be able to see this frame?

-Z

EDIT:

David Jimerson said:
But I think talking about "stills" and "frame rate" for the human eye is meaningless.
Click to expand...

I agree with this too, even though everything I posted above is contradictory to that belief. We can't use the term "FPS" for our eyes, because our brain uses the amount of light and color coming through our eyes all the time, and not in increments of frames per second.
 
Last edited:
-zach- said:
.SWF Link

Well, I don't agree with the few replies you've had above. Here's a .swf file that plays at 120 frames per second. the 120th frame has a black screen with a red squiggle, like this picture below.
fps2wy.jpg


You're telling me we shouldn't be able to see this frame?
Click to expand...

Seems to me it acts exactly like it ought to on my laptop scren with a refresh rate of 60 Hz.
 
David Jimerson said:
Seems to me it acts exactly like it ought to on my laptop scren with a refresh rate of 60 Hz.
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what you mean here... that you can see it because it's not going 120 FPS on your screen?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top