Slashdot Mirror
Human Eye's Oscillation Rate Determines Smooth Frame Rate
jones_supa writes: It should be safe to conclude that humans can see frame rates greater than 24 fps. The next question is: why do movies at 48 fps look "video-y," and why do movies at 24 fps look "dreamy" and "cinematic." Why are games more realistic at 60 fps than 30 fps? Simon Cooke from Microsoft (Xbox) Advanced Technology Group has an interesting theory to explain this all. Your eyes oscillate a tiny amount, ranging from 70 to 103 Hz (on average 83.68 Hz). So here's the hypothesis: The ocular microtremors wiggle the retina, allowing it to sample at approximately 2x the resolution of the sensors. Showing someone pictures that vary at less than half the rate of the oscillation means we're no longer receiving a signal that changes fast enough to allow the supersampling operation to happen. So we're throwing away a lot of perceived-motion data, and a lot of detail as well. Some of the detail can be restored with temporal antialiasing and simulating real noise, but ideally Cooke suggests going with a high enough frame rate (over 43 fps) and if possible, a high resolution.
I, for one, am sick of slow (seconds-long!) pans across scenery that *still* end up with judder and motion blur.
HFR isn't a gimmick like migraine-inducing stereoscopic "3D", it's more akin to adding color instead of relying solely upon greyscale for film presentation.
Like all tools, I'm sure it can be used for both good and evil. Blame evil, jump-cutting directors if the dark side is channeled.
Movies tend to be shot around 1/50" shutter speed, and that creates motion blur. The motion blur actually helps us see the animation as smooth, even at "only" 24 fps. Games on the other hand are razor sharp and will hence look much more like a staccato sequence of images than as an animation.
Or so I was told by a moviemaker
the early transparent calcite crystal lenses on the eyes of trilobites and even older compound eyes of some ancient arthropods are proof your religious fantasies are complete bullshit. The eye evolved, and we even know the creatures on the paths.
... is why cinema frame rates seem generally comfortable to watch, while video game frame rates at around the same number are problematic?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
What about our eyes is oscillating?
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
It would take hundreds of frames per second to truly fool the eye. We tend to have long decay, which I believe offers a hardware solution for "Where is it coming from?" but human attack FPS is much higher than you might think.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
This makes sense. One of the things that drives me nuts about those cheap Chinese no-name Android tablets is the display. They draw every other pixel in a checkerboard type fashion, and if your eye is totally still then you don't notice. However if you move your eye quickly back and forth you can clearly see that only half the pixels are drawn at a time. So there's something about the motion that doesn't allow enough processing time to smooth that out. It's amazing how much our visual processing smooths things and even totally fills in parts that aren't even visible, but that requires an image to be steady at least to some degree.
Better known as 318230.
The smoothest frame rate would be no frames. 2,073,600 analog tracks, one for each pixel of a 1080p display would smoothly transition from one color to another. OK, so maybe the recording tape would be 3 feet wide. But a small price to pay for smooth video.
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
Evolution doesn't push "purpose" or "meaning" it's simply an ongoing discovering of how life exists and changes over time.
Religious zealots find it to be an intrusion into their belief system and thus automatically try to make it into a religion.
What we know about the process of evolution is constantly changing and as a science NOTHING we think we know is sacred. Like the Sith, religion is the only thing dealing in absolutes.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
why do movies at 48 fps look "video-y," and why do movies at 24 fps look "dreamy" and "cinematic."
For the same reason children are picky eaters. They say that people have to take three bites of a new flavor to really know if they like or dislike it. I have personally experienced that, going from "wtf this is so wrong" to "ok it's not so bad and I might actually like this" between bite 1 and bite 3. Well, we all grew up consuming 24 fps movies, and anything higher is new and different. Rather than "take three bites", though, so many of us recoil from the different experience and immediately start talking to all our friends about how it looks wrong, concluding that high FPS just looks bad. Try. Three. Bites.
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
Smart people don't choose to believe things because they want them to be true like you do. An idea doesn't have to give you a warm fuzzy feeling to be true.
If religious people had any proof, it would no longer be religion. Of course they don't, because the supernatural is imaginary. Too many people fail to grow out of their childhood superstitions, and never develop an evidence-based adult worldview.
That would be Pascal's wager. The problem with it is that an all-knowing God would know the difference between you telling yourself that you believe in him in order to secure your salvation vs you actually believing. So... you go through the motions all your life just to burn in hell anyway.
I don't know about you but for me belief is a conclusion I come to based on the evidence I know about, not a decision that I make. Anything else would just be lying to myself. The evidence I see and know about overwellmingly supports evolution. If the reality around me is just an illusion planted by Satan to test me or a corruption resulting from the fall or planted by God to test me then I guess I am just screwed because what I see does not match up with any supernatural creation myth I have ever heard of.
By the way, evolution has nothing to do with purpose, progress or meaning. You have to make that for yourself. Evolution is just change and an explanation of why the change hapens the way it does.
I think he might mean the "made up" part more than any particular example.
Personally i am not averse to having a creator, or life having "meaning" or even an afterlife. But I am not constrained by it, do not view the world in absolutes. As each religion is the one true path to salvation and all others are heresy.
Origin of the silicon inside our computers hereby comprehensively explained.
FTFY
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
Belief requires faith. Smart or not!! until proven everything is conjecture/theory. I kinda feel that way about string theory, but that's probably because i am not so smart.
Facts are disputed as belief, and that's mostly being closed minded and nothing to do with smarts.
what a weak try at trolling
no appeal, just fact. A person's life can have purpose if they will and act for it to be so.
Your god must really, really have hated those Syrian children that writhed in agony for minutes as they died of chemical weapon poisoning. Must really, really hate the millions of africans that starve and are slaughtered in genocides. what a vindictive bastard He is.
Anyone that has done mushrooms can tell you that seeing the world at the frame rate that the brain is capable of processing is a load of fun. I have no idea how psilocybin affects the visual processing center of the brain -- or hell, it may affect the eye itself, what I do know is stepping out into a room and looking around without the brain discarding the frames that it doesn't feel like processing is amazing. However, it does look completely fake. It is too clear / crisp. Our brains aren't used to seeing every little change -- they discard information. So, if you are watching a movie at 48 or 60fps, it looks fake is the best way I can describe it. That is because when you are looking at the screen, you have a central place to focus, and my guess is the brain doesn't discard information if you aren't moving.
Again, this is just my guess, but I think the reason video games look much better at high frame rates is the fact that they already don't look realistic. We are expecting really crisp, sharp, fast graphics. Literally -- it is all in your mind.
As a test, pan your head from left to right and notice the "jumpiness" that is reality. Now, eat about a half gram of shrooms, and do the same thing. It is no longer jumpy, and you get a REAL smooth pan.
-- http://anonet.org -- The internet the way it was meant to be. Check it out, you may be surprised.
There are several ways to apply temporal antialiasing or "motion blur", each of which is analogous to a well-known spatial antialiasing method. One is to render the scene twice at a slight time offset and average the two; this is the temporal counterpart to FSAA. Or find the motion vector around the frontmost mesh in each 8x8 pixel section of the screen and add a local blur filter; this is more like MSAA. But in the march from 240p (PlayStation and Nintendo 64) to 1080p (current consoles) and higher (PC master race), the preference has been for more detail in each frame rather than a better illusion of motion within a frame.
The appeal is that it's the truth. People want to discover the truth about how our world works and how we came to exist in it, and science is how we do that -- and every bit of science we have indicates that evolution is the only plausible explanation for the current diversity of life on Earth.
you're pushing the idea that life has no true purpose and random death means progress
No, we're not, and I think the whole "you can't have meaning without religion!" bit is one of the most insidious lies the Christian church has pushed. Not following the dogma laid out in 2000-year-old books means you can make your own purpose in life. You can decide what gives you meaning and what you consider progress. I promise that if you go to any Humanist gathering, you will see plenty of people who have meaning and purpose without religion. Talk to them a bit, even -- I'll bet they'll be perfectly friendly if you say, "Hey, I'm a Christian but wanted to see what you guys are all about." Learning first-hand what life without religion is like is better than taking your pastor's word for it (after all, do you think maybe he has his own agenda?).
I'd rather bet on a .001% chance that Jesus is Lord than 99.999% chance that life is based on nothing but random chance and death.
Here's the thing, though: there's not a 0.001% chance of that, there's a 0% chance of it. There is zero evidence than any sort of supernatural being exists at all, and it's a huge leap from there to "Christianity is true," with just as much evidence. You are believing it purely because it makes you feel good. That's your choice, but maybe you should find out what the alternative is actually like before dismissing it.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
Hallucinations of the dying don't constitute proof of anything. Your god is merely a group psychosis constructed by goat and sheep herders less than three thousand years ago.
Whereas some other people would rather the truth, or as good as they can get to it. As opposed to a lie that makes you feel better about yourself. Especially when it makes a lot of people feel worse about themselves in practice.
The old Bell & Howell 16mm projectors (24 fps) actually projected at 72 fps (call it flashes per second). The projector had a 3 bladed circular shutter. The film was pulled down one frame while the shutter was closed with one blade, then as the shutter rotated the frame was 'flashed' 3 times, then the next frame pulled down and the process repeated. The human eye could see flicker at 24 fps but not so much at 72. The video experts here can correct me, but I believe standard NTSC video was 30 fps of 'data' scanned twice to give 60 to reduce perceived flicker.
I'm confused, are you calling evolution a lie or christianity? With the statements you made, either could be plausible.
Such an imaginary construct does indeed fit the definition of psychosis by DSM, and in other cultures "near death experiences" can take vastly different forms. Hence, your links are to worthless imaginings. It is past time for society to admit religion is an irrational, often dangerous delusion that has done far more harm to people than good. It enables war, abuse, theft, and mental illness and is despicable remnant of the worst of human's history.
i have more faith in lucas's made up religion than anything that christians have dreamed up. at least lucas's vision hasn't been altered thousandfold times by different orders.
that being said, they're both bullshit. honestly trying to argue evolution or science to a religious zealout is like trying to talk to a child.
so i'm going to end it with this. fuck you, and fuck your religion. have a great day.
WÌÌfÍ--ÍSÌÒÍ...Í...ÌHÌÍfÍÍÍ--ÍÍÍ
Even if true, you're pushing the idea that life has no true purpose and random death means progress.
You say that like it's a bad thing
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
It's not about flicker, it's about the smoothness of motion.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Whose god?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
At 48Hz, you’re going to pull out more details at 48Hz from the scene than at 24Hz, both in terms of motion and spatial detail.
Motion yes, but spatial? I don't get that bit.
[at 24Hz] We’re no longer receiving a signal that changes fast enough to allow the super-sampling operation to happen.
Err, what? You're not supersampling if the data has changed between the two samplings.
To answer the question posed in the headline:
Why movies look weird at 48fps
Because it's not what we're used to when we go to the movies. That's all.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I don't understand the appeal of evolution. Even if true, you're pushing the idea that life has no true purpose and random death means progress.
Science and religion are orthogonal.
There is no reason why God couldn't influence the world in a way that agrees with science.
If the universe appears to work with probabilities, then why couldn't God steer those probabilities?
After all he's supposed to be almighty, and he created the universe and its laws.
Why would God need to create the end product, a single eye, when he could design the whole evolutionary tree?
If you believe in God, but deny evolution, you deny God's will and might.
This would be why you make sure you always argue with theists who reject evolution, I'll bet.
Which, for the record, is a minority of them. Unless you mean people who mean by "evolution" the irrational non-sequitur of "evolution is true, therefore there is no God" or other "often, therefore always" notions of evolutionary change.
Happy holidays, do enjoy your pet false dichotomy this festive season.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
That would be Pascal's wager.
And Pascal's wager is easily disproven. Which "God" are you going to believe in, among those that explicitly deny the existence of any others?
If you believe in the Christian God, then when you die, Shaitan's penis will rip your ass regularly; his semen will scorch your throat frequently... Oh, wait, maybe it will be Angra Mainyu doing those things. Or maybe it will be Apep. Or the devil-substitute in some other Middle-Eastern religion (nota bene: religions which are not descended from those of the Middle-East generally lack such things).
The correct answer (from a doctrinal standpoint) to your first question is "No, he suffered for our sins in the Garden of Gethsemane."
Yes, human suffering is real and it is caused by God in the sense that Lenin's great-great-great-grandparents are the cause of all the deaths in the Soviet Union.
It still good to ponder what flicker could tell us. For example, the 200 Hz LCD backlight PWM frequency causes sore eyes and headaches to many people, so certainly the eyes and/or nervous system are sensing something? Put some white text on a black background on a computer like that and you can see multiple images of the text when rapidly turning eyes horizontally. Of course, as you say, the picture appearing and disappearing is largely a different discussion when compared to motion sensing, but there might be a bridge which can combine these discussions for some benefit.
Whether believing in a god is a sign of psychosis or not depends on why you believe.
If you believe because you want to be part of your cultural group or because you find it useful (either from a social point of view or a personal one), I agree it has nothing to do with psychosis. But if you truly feel there is a god, then obviously your sense of reality is wrong and this is what psychosis is about.
If religion had any kind of proof it would be called "science".
It would be called "science" by people like you, who fail to understand that nothing in science is "proven", it is a collection of models that are always provisional and permanently open to revision based on future data.
Still, say, one's preferences in art... do you object that those aren't "proven" and therefore aren't "science"--and what do you conclude from that?
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
science doesn't care about what is appealing but what is truth. a belief that does not bear on reality is also called a delusion. If the truth of the matter is that there is no life after death, and that human existence is a meaningless shamble across the pages of history, so be it. This is what is true, this is what is depressing, but this is what is true. I hold truth in higher esteem than i hold my own sense of wellbeing.
I acknowledge that persistent after death is an appealing idea, but i am made so that i cannot believe. I would love to be religious, but i can't choose my belief, it follows the evidence because that's who I am.
the theory of evolution through natural selection is our best guess at what the truth is, and because it is heavily supported, i cannot believe anything else.
You don't make any sense. I don't claim anything, I just follow the definition of the word "psychosis".
I conclude you're a nutcase! Seriously, you don't make any sense.
i didn't read your post very carefully, but one point. eyewitness testimony is incredibly shaky. We take videos because we can't trust our eyes, we have mass-spec because we can't perceive atoms, and we don't trust our noses, we have microphones because we can't trust our ears and our ears have crappy range. We have clocks because our sense of time is subjective and can be influenced neurochemical releases...
We don't trust our measurements because people are fallible, we have error bars because the universe is kinda random and extremely complex.
Someone says they had an out of body experience. I dreamed i was flying in my youth too, when you're on the edge of consciousness, lots of things can happen, and the brain is pretty damn complex.
You toss a powerful magnet at a brain and you can shut off emotions, shut off senses, distort them and induce them... what makes you think the brain dying is any less traumatic than changing the flow of electricity in one portion?
If religious people had any proof, it would no longer be religion. Of course they don't, because the supernatural is imaginary.
I assume you have proof of this? Care to share?
I say the human eye does see more than 24 fps, pan your head back and forth, no blurring like you get panning a camera. OK so I haven't RTFA but I recently read/search info on framerates. From what I gather 24 fps came about from movies particularly when the talkies became standard for motion pictures. What they settled on enough fps to have smooth action and matching audio but not too much as film is/was very expensive. But each frame is shown twice (refresh rate in the movie theatres is 48 Hz). I read 24 fps is needed so brain perceives as smooth motion but need to show each one twice to remove flicker effect. Those 16mm and silent films were less fps but not as cinema quality of major motion pictures.
Anyone have comments or corrections, jump in as many times I feel as if I'm still trying to figure out what and why of fps and refresh rates.
Then television came along, first 60 fps seems good (match with powerline freq) but too much bandwidth so they make it 30 fps but to reduce flicker, they did interlace. Framerate has smooth motion and interlace does the refresh rate like motion picture showing each frame twice. Then color TV comes along but as OTA bandwidth was fixed, they reduce framerate a little to 29.97 to insert chroma signal.
Then computers came along, why not use same CRTs as TV sets, so their framerate was 29.97 (but many simply rounded off to 30 when writing or talking about framerates). Then the flatscreens (VGA monitors) came along but used 29.97 to be compatible with existing computers, but refresh rate is 60 Hz to not have flicker effect. Gamers wanted higher framerates so 60 fps but I think it really is 59.94 fps.
I did some different FPS exercises with a CRT monitor and a Canon EOS camera. I set Canon to 30 fps (actually it is 29.97) and connected the video output to the monitor. I panned camera back and forth including viewing monitor. I did the same with Canon at 24 fps, there was noticable blurring or choppy on monitor when I panned camera back and forth. Viewing monitor with camera I can see those rolling bars like you see in the movies with TV set in background (aha, so that's what the 24/30 fps mismatch is). I set camera to 60 fps (actually 59.94), it seemed smoother view when panning back and forth though monitor is fixed 30 fps.
For many people, so what. However, I was looking at various cameras and spec sheets list framerates of 23.97, 24, 29.97, 30, 59.94, 60.... what's with all these variations? I don't think a camera can be set to exactly 30. Or is it sales and marketing people insists on lots more numbers for the spec sheets?
mfwright@batnet.com
'It should be safe to conclude that humans can see frame rates greater than 24 fps."
We can go even faster than that.
While this video I just shot won't show it very well due to FPS limitations, you can easily perceive much faster than anyone here assumes. In the frequency range I'm playing in, you've got THOUSANDS of hertz in difference on some of these notes. The LED setup makes it REALLY easy to see in real time.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Few people would be convicted in a court of law based upon testimony alone — it's the weakest form of 'evidence' possible. "They said so therefore true!" is not an acceptable form of evidence when you're describing a concept that governs everything in the universe (and apparently outside it, whatever that entails). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The ear follows the rules Nyquist created about sample rates (i.e. there are hairs in your ear that are turned to hear 40 kHz but you can't hear that high). There is no reason the eye can't be doing the same thing.
I think the problem is that because we're so used to 24 fps on theatrical motion pictures, going to 48 fps can be quite jarring, since everything looks so much "clearer" that you have to rethink set design, costume design and even the use of special effects to be less obtrusive at 48 fps. (Indeed, this became a huge issue with Peter Jackson's "Hobbit" trilogy because everything looked TOO clear.)
The late Roger Ebert liked the 48 fps "Maxivision" analog film format, but that idea never took off due to need to use a lot more physical film and the increased stress of running a film projector at twice the speed of regular projectors. But with modern digital movie cameras, 48 fps is now much more viable.
make movies look like they were shot on a daytime TV cam to me. I saw Braveheart on one of those modern tvs and I suppose the lighting was more natural, but it was considerably less dramatic. It just killed it for me. Also (and this is mostly just me) I can perceive noticeable drops in framerate on those newer tvs. The rate goes up and down like crazy. Drives me nuts.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I'd rather bet on a .001% chance that Jesus is Lord than 99.999% chance that life is based on nothing but random chance and death.
Most sperm get a brief swim and that's it.
Your chance of becoming the Messiah are millions of times greater than one sperm's chance of fulfilling its purpose.
Still, most sperm are dedicated to a sense of purpose. That purpose is to be absorbed by a larger cell and trigger the well-programmed growth of a new organism.
Of course, as your yourself are the rare result of a successful sperm, you discount the role of randomness and believe that life has purpose.
Why not?
We are only one generation away from Google Contact Lenses.
Haptic underwear.
Intracranial modems.
Broadband cochlea replacements.
At that point most of will be sensible only to the internal signalling of the larger organism of which we will be but cells.
DNA, against all odds, will have made it past evolution all the way to Intelligent Design.
Of course, eventually -- or perhaps soon, or maybe even now -- we will be a mere organ in the anatomy of a superintelligent intergalactically networked individual.
And what will our role be? Perhaps we will be a remote scouting organ on the lookout for even larger creatures that want to consume us. Or it.
Wow! Really? So you have invented a senario that completely discounts the suffering of a whole lot of innocents just because it fits better with your worldview? Do you have any idea how offensive that is? Would you tell that to those children's parents?
"Don't worry, your kid didn't really suffer cause my god would not allow that. Everything is just A O K! :-D"
If you see someone suffering and dying then the safest guess as to what is happening is somebody is actually suffering and dying. Maybe if someone came back from the dead and said.. "don't worry, it didn't really hurt" or maybe if someone attached an EKG machine and determined nothing was going on in the brain then you might have a point. Until then you are just denying the reality that is plainly before your face. There is no way you can ever know truth that way.
If testimony proves anything then a lot of contradictory religions, stories that outright say each other are not true are somehow all true. Likewise are alien abductions, bigfoot, the loch ness monster and a nearly unlimited number of other things.
Evolution has no practice and I really doubt anyone feels down on themselves because of it so this must be about religion.
"but we're the same petty beings we were 6,000 years ago"
Of course our species has not changed in a mere blink of the evolutionary timescale.
Yes, we could blow ourselves up today. But.. our species has survived an ice age as well as many other major climate shifts. We have survived population bottlenecks where we WERE a small, conveniently tiny target. We interbred a little and took on some useful genes from a few related species shortly before they went extinct. We outlasted them all.
That sounds like reason for hope to me!
If 16 fps was acceptable to audiences, then it would have won. Edison wasn't some kind of irresistible force - he couldn't keep the country from using AC, for instance, and where he was able to establish DC, DC actually made sense.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Given the first word is "whereas" it's stating the opposite of the post it is replying to.
LOL, just because people are capable of building a "nuclear something" does not make them a threat! The only nuclear reactor anyone has ever made in their workshop is a Farnsworth Fusor. Granted, there is some potential for harming oneself when using such a device if one doesn't know what they are doing but it is about as dangerous to the world as just another garage power tool.
The only device capable of being an existential threat to humanity is a thermonuclear bomb. Making one of those requires concentrations of specific rare isotopes. It takes the resources of a nation state to produce that. Not your geeky neighbor! There are not 10s of thousands of people with access to those resources, only a handful with access to nuclear weapons and of those maybe 3, the US, China and Russia with the ability to actually kill the whole planet. Those three may not like each other much but they are not crazy enough to kill themselves.
:P the point being that you can do it repeatedly and toggle it like a switch :)
you run into the issue of causation too. do we really believe that people didn't have near death experiences until the advent of modern medicine? your life flashing before your eyes is something apparently common enough to turn into a saying and something people apparently experience when confronted by imminent mortality. no religious connection, extremely specific perceptual footprint. probably a combination of adrenaline and pants-shitting terror.
night terrors and alien abduction, extremely specific, widely reported, no religious connection.
out of body experience, tunneling vision, light at the end of the tunnel... not truly different from the aforementioned, but definitely something that might have been incorporated into religious texts.
i wasn't saying the trauma of imminent brain death is random, i was saying it was traumatic. It might be traumatic in largely the same way for most people in fact.
You are wrong and have the psychosis known as religion, you have a serious problem that has caused misery for mankind.
loss of contact with reality that usually includes: False beliefs, delusions, about what is taking place or who one is. Seeing or hearing things that aren't there, sensory hallucinations.