50 replies to this topic 2 votes

[Mikeffer]

That headset sure does look interesting. Could be worth a play.

[Detection]

Mikeffer, on 18 December 2012 - 22:07, said:

That headset sure does look interesting. Could be worth a play.

I think so, and once I get my hands on one I`ll post my results

1st plan of action is to try learning to code Android again, something I failed at 1.0 brain speed - Lets see what happens at 2.5

I was watching something the other day about brains, apparently we run on a mere 4watts of power, hence multitasking is limited to quickly switching between tasks and not actually multitasking at all

My guess is providing the brain with more current / power / voltage / wattage - we enhance its capability, not sure where the FSB or Multiplier is, but one step at a time

[+remixedcat]

Skooma and AMPED WIRELESS!!! Instant overclocking!!!


HARDCORE!!!!!!!

[*RedBull*]

remixedcat, on 19 December 2012 - 03:13, said:

Skooma and AMPED WIRELESS!!! Instant overclocking!!!


HARDCORE!!!!!!!

EXTREME COVERAGE!!

[Krome]

This post reminds me a lot of the post about their hard drive getting heavier when they have more data. Microsoft forum staff made a full mockery of that. I can't find that link.

[Warboy]

MarkusDarkus, on 18 December 2012 - 09:49, said:

lool the eyes don't see in FPS. It's a continuous fluid motion as the eye aperture is always open. You could go either way if you wanted a numeric answer though. You could go by how often the average person blinks which averages between 4 - 12 times a minute. Other than that you would look at the brain but the brain has the ability to discern they say up to and around 100FPS but the brain does a lot of extra processing, composing from 2 images and assumption of the data from the eyes because it's too 'lazy' for it to process raw. From about 25FPS the brain goes 'screw this, I'm just going to assume it's one fluid motion'. It puts less strain on the brain I suppose it's like mpeg compression. Information gets lost but you can still see enough to know what you are looking at.

I would say if you wanted to overclock your eyes, you cannot. But you could possibly overclock your brain to be able to reach a higher 'FPS' if I were to use that term.

I know, I was simplifying due to people still refer to it as FPS, even tho someone can sit down and measure the electrical impulses the eye sends to the brain and it could be IPS [impulses per second]

HawkMan, on 18 December 2012 - 20:36, said:

No eyes are around 24-30 ish.

HOWEVER, you will be able to see a difference between 30 and 60 fps. though it's not so much seeing it as it's perceiving it. this is simple due to the fact that ayes don't have a "shutter" perfectly defining a frame, and you will therefore desync with the frames on the TV, and because of motion blur. though, what you actually see as a difference between a 30 and 60FPS movie picture is that the 60 FPS one is sharper due to the shutter being twice as fast. When it comes to games the difference is easier to see since games don't have a shutter, but they perfectly capture the instance of movement 30 times a second, with not blur, this makes the pictures jump inside your eyes to since there's no movement in between the naturally motion blur the picture in your brain. Even in games with motion blur, the motion blur used in games is vector based cheating, and is easily detected by your brain and eyes even if you don't truly "see" it.



a camera sensor is essentially operating in "fluid" motion, the shutter is applied either mechanically or electronically by flushing the buffer or taking a snapshot of the buffer. it's more of a software issue. however it's easier in the digital world to operate in frames.

No, You're wrong, Here is a older topic that you should read up on..

source

[HawkMan]

Warboy, on 19 December 2012 - 11:47, said:

I know, I was simplifying due to people still refer to it as FPS, even tho someone can sit down and measure the electrical impulses the eye sends to the brain and it could be IPS [impulses per second]



No, You're wrong, Here is a older topic that you should read up on..

source

No I'm not, and that topic just says the same things I did anyway.

Ad never did I say the eye sees in fps, in fact I specifically said it doesn't and it's all about perception, and of course the "reset" time of the rods. Which actually depends on light intensity.

Either way you can't truly see more than around 30 pictures a second, however you can perceive a difference between 30 and 60.

[neufuse]

Warboy, on 18 December 2012 - 09:30, said:

Thats myth, not fact. Human eyes can view between 80-120fps just fine. Most people can see dips below 60/70 fps and notice it.

Films are only 24fps because they're not moving as fast as games, even in action based heavy hitters. The hobbit was filmed at 48fps.

thought the hobbit was filmed at 48 fps because of the 3D filming technique it used required that to get the lighting right

[Dushmany]

What speed to strobe lights operate at? I know in nightclubs, under strobe lighting, the human eye doesn't appear to see the movement, and has the illusion of rapid static motion
(if that's a good way to describe it)

[Detection]

Dushmany, on 19 December 2012 - 13:53, said:

What speed to strobe lights operate at? I know in nightclubs, under strobe lighting, the human eye doesn't appear to see the movement, and has the illusion of rapid static motion
(if that's a good way to describe it)

At a guess I'd say between 5-15 FPS

Enough to make you fall over if you try to touch the floor and stand back up under nothing but pitch black & strobe

[Dushmany]

Should have mentioned this is my previous post, watching the video posted by giantpotato, yikes lol I would be worried about severe muscle fatigue or some muscle bulking using those things, or some other possible damage, short or long term....

[BailaSheyla]

Ill ask my science teacher in January...

[HawkMan]

neufuse, on 19 December 2012 - 13:30, said:

thought the hobbit was filmed at 48 fps because of the 3D filming technique it used required that to get the lighting right

The drawback with the Hobbit and it being filmed at 48 is that for the majority of people it'll look horrible

in 3D cinemas that can show 48 FPS (basically all), it'll look fine. IF they filmed it in 2x24 fps.

If they also filmed 2x24, then it'll also look fine in 2D cinemas as they can just show the left or right eye frames at 24. in which case the movie was actually shot at 24.

HOWEVER, IF the movie was actually shot at real 48 fps. it'll look horrible at most cinemas without special 48fps equipment.

their alternatives are to either
1: show every second frame.
Drawback: since it's shot at 48 fps, the images are much sharper. with less motion blur, and since you're cutting every second frame you get a gap in the movement added to the extra sharp images you get jerky movement, while the eyes can't "see" it, it's noticeable because the eyes will still see everything jumping form place to place since there's no motion blur in between and there's a gap in the movement, effectively giving it the effect of a low fps cartoon or a game at 30 fps as opposed to 60 where the eye can fill in the blanks. it will in fact look worse than a 24 fps movie

2: in order to avoid the "jerky" appearance of cutting out every second frame, they can instead blend two and two frames into one frame. so frame 1 and 2 becomes frame 1 and frames 3 and 4 becomes frame 2. using either simple blend or more advanced morph techniques.
Advantage: smoother look
Drawback: you're merging two frames with two different steps of motion blur, show after each other in sequence they would look good, merged together they get weird and they don't really merge and you end up with a horrible PQ result.

[HawkMan]

neufuse, on 19 December 2012 - 13:30, said:

thought the hobbit was filmed at 48 fps because of the 3D filming technique it used required that to get the lighting right

Also his his comparison between movies and games is irrelevant anyway and non comparable.

as I said in my previous post, a movie shows a blurred version of everything that happens in that 24th of a second in each frame, making each frame blend into each other. meaning even in fast paced action, you won't notice a difference between 24 and 48 fps. EXCEPT that movies shot at 48 is sharper since they have less blur. However in high intensity scenes they'll still be blurry since your eyes will blur them anyway.


In most games howevers, there is no motion blur and every 30th or 60th of a seconf you see a perfectly sharp picture of how the gameworld look when it started rendering. No blur, and at 30 fps, the eyes will see the difference between positions of fast moving objects BECAUSE they eyes don't operate at a frame level, but fluidly. at 60, the eyes will use the in between frames to naturally blur the motion, some people will be able to see even slightly smoother movement at 100 fps. but no huge difference, and it only affects how smoothly the game appears, not what you "see". games that apply real motion blur could operate at 30 at look just as good or better than one at 60. problem is of course that games use a fast vector based motion blur that while it helps smooth out the picture, doesn't look very good and easily gets confused with the unpredictable movements in a game.

Dushmany, on 19 December 2012 - 14:00, said:

Should have mentioned this is my previous post, watching the video posted by giantpotato, yikes lol I would be worried about severe muscle fatigue or some muscle bulking using those things, or some other possible damage, short or long term....

If you refer tot he glass free 3D video, it's a parody/joke. it's not a real video or product and your eyes don't blink that fast

[+Xenosion]

It's really annoying when people try to equate eyesight to frame per second. Eyes are not mechanical, people.

A relevant video: