Overclocking my Eyes

[Detection]

"...2.5x increase in learning rate..." That's really interesting. LOL! I want one, now! I signed up for their news letter and bookmarked their site. How much do you think they would go for? Your standard $19.99 or more than that?

Probably something like that yea, they won't cost a fortune, they give you the diagram on how to build your own and from the looks of it, it would only cost a few ? to build :)

[HawkMan]

I need new eyes i thought my GFX card was going bad as i was seeing the odd black spot on screen every 3 or 4 hours but then i saw one in the sky and on a piece of paper...

If it looks like hairs in a cup of water floating around your vision when you look at bright stuff like a screen or the sky(you can see them other times to, but mostly then) there's nothing to be done about it. look up Mouches volantes for a description of what it actually is, it usually occurs most in near sighted people as I understand, but is a common condition and is not considered a "disease" or "defect"

[Slammers]

LSD MY FRIEND :)

[Detection]

LSD MY FRIEND :)

If you want to OC your eyes, then yep, this will work too :p

[MikeChipshop Member]

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

[Detection]

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*]

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]

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]

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]

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 Veteran]

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

[The Evil Overlord]

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]

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

[The Evil Overlord]

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....

[IntegralDerivative]

Ill ask my science teacher in January...

[HawkMan]

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]

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.

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 ;)

[ANON86364]

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

A relevant video:

[Detection]

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

[IntegralDerivative]

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

Nice vid, by the way, here's the answer from my Y!answers question.

No, I do not see any science behind that. The human visual system is not a personal computer that you can monkey with.

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

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.

i think the whole "eye fps" thing is a myth. EVERYONE claims to know the answer, but i've never seen proof of any of them. "I think it's more like 30..." "actually, it's 60" "well, ive heard that it's more like 100-117" and my favorite "i can totally see the frames when it's less than x" :rolleyes:

[IntegralDerivative]

i think the whole "eye fps" thing is a myth. EVERYONE claims to know the answer, but i've never seen proof of any of them. "I think it's more like 30..." "actually, it's 60" "well, ive heard that it's more like 100-117" and my favorite "i can totally see the frames when it's less than x" :rolleyes:

Ikr

[the evn show]

Removed

[IntegralDerivative]

Suppose I dig out my old intro text book and say "Neuroscience, 5th Ed. Read Chapter 2.11-13 and all of Chapter 5" Would you? Probably not - the book is like $150. The audience of the book is undergraduate science majors but most people don't study biology in highschool so they probably don't have the background to appreciate the information in the book. A better text is "Theories of Brain function" but that's from a 4th year course - it's doubtful anybody that isn't majoring in psychology or neuroscience would get much out of it (just like a Calc 3 textbook is worthless to somebody who has no idea what a tailor expansion is). In either case you're going to be out $150 so nobody is actually going to check my sources.

It's way easier to read some comp-gamer website and just take whatever they say as gospel. Better (at least from an academic standpoint) is to find a discussion from a site dedicated to video and vision but even that doesn't always tell the full story. It'd be easy to quote a wikipedia article that says "24 FPS is enough to make people experience fluid motion most of the time" and be done - but there's more to it than that.

If I had to give a TLDR explanation of how vision works on my next exam (I'm in my final year of neuroscience) I'd say something like "Your brain gets stream of information from all over the body and uses it to construct a model of the world that you perceive as vision." Nobody likes that answer because it makes the topic complicated. There's more to vision than just putting info from eyeballs into a 3d picture of the world: things you can't see are made up or filled in. your blind spots are 'edited out'. You fill in details based on expectations (which is important in recognizing faces). Information from the rest of your body factors in (spin around 50 times as fast as you can then look at the roof: the whole room appears to visually spinning even though your eyes and body are clearly not spinning). We know that if one particular cell is constantly bombarded eventually your brain will start to ignore when building up the visual picture but will pay "extra attention" when the information it's receiving changes (you notice a light going out or switching on - but after a little while you don't really notice it any more. Colors can change and you don't notice so long as it happens gradually and goes on in the background).

Then there's issues like being more sensitive to changes in brightness in one direction vs another: Stare at the sun and blink: you don't even notice the change in brightness. Be in a pitch-black room when someone takes your picture with a flash (which is 100x faster than blinking) and you'll be immediately aware of the event.

Then there's ambiguity in the question. What does it mean to "see" 30 frames per second vs 60 frames per second? Does it merely mean to be able to read a book flashed 1 word at a time with 1 word per 'frame'? If that's the case you probably can't sustain more than 5 frames per second. Does it mean to detect that one image sequence is at a different framerate than another? In that case 25 FPS vs 1500 FPS is easily identified. Does it mean to percieve a single event that lasts 1/x of a second? If that's the case then maybe you can, maybe you can't (see the example of a flash photo for an example of a 1000 FPS event you can detect even with your eyes closed)

Then there are questions about the type of sequence you're seeing: a higher frame rate in a game means you're less likely to notice the latency between your inputs on the keyboard/mouse and what you see on screen -- does that count as "seeing a difference"? If you're just watching a video played back it's much harder to detect a lower framerate. Then there's a matter of the type of image you use.Imagine a 30 FPS image that pans across a football field in 1 second. Each "frame" is gong to move by 10 yards -- motion won't appear smooth at all if you're watching from a blimp over the field. Do the same test projecting the image across a 20" monitor and it'll appear very smooth. Then there's video games (which are discreet images that are unusually crisp) vs movies (which have motion blur and other artifacts from the recording process that make it easier for the video to create the illusion of motion).

Once you realize how complicated the question is you can understand why 100 people will have 100 different answers: they're not answering the same question. When you've worked out how they're interpreting the question -- or what the OP is asking -- then you can start to phrase your answer. Unfortunately that that's a hard thing to do, especially if you aren't even aware that the topic is pretty detailed or that the answer you do have (ie; 24 FPS is enough for most people to experience the illusion of smooth motion) isn't sufficient to answer or even applicable to similar questions (ie: can you detect a difference between 60 FPS and 120 FPS?).

tl,dr

not reallly into long stuff today