linuxmemes

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] Kelo@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Human eye can't see more than 1080p anyway, so what's the point

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] starman@programming.dev 17 points 2 years ago (2 children)

It doesn't matter honestly, everyone knows humans can't see screens at all

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] SomeBoyo@feddit.de 3 points 2 years ago

It honestly doesn't matter, reality only exists in your imagination anyway.

parent

[–] AtariDump@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Their vision is based on movement.

parent

[–] rustydrd@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago

Human eye can't see more than 8-bit colors anyway, so what's the point

parent

[–] MonkderDritte@feddit.de 9 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Jokes on you, because i looked into this once. I don't know the exact ms the light-sensitive rods in human eyes need to refresh the chemical anymore but it resulted in about 70 fps, so about 13 ms i guess (the color-sensitive cones are far slower). But psycho-optical effects can drive that number up to 100 fps in LCD displays. Though it looks like you can train yourself with certain computer tasks to follow movements with your eye, being far more sensible to flickering.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Does that refresh take place across the entire eye simultaneously or is each rod and/or cone doing its own thing?

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] teft@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago*

Are your eyeballs progressive scan or interlaced, son?

parent

[–] MonkderDritte@feddit.de 3 points 2 years ago*

There's a neuron layer trimming data down to squeeze it through the optical nerve, so... no clue.

parent

[–] SorryQuick@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 years ago

According to this study, the eye can see a difference as high as 500 fps. While this is a specific scenario, it’s a scenario that could possibly happen in a video game, so I guess it means we can go to around 500 hz monitors before it becomes too much or unnessessary.

parent

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

It's not about training, eye tracking is just that much more sensitive to pixels jumping

You can immediately see choppy movement when you look around in a 1st person view game. Or if it's an RTS you can see the trail behind your mouse anyway

I can see this choppiness at 280 FPS. The only way to get rid of it is to turn on strobing, but that comes with double images at certain parts of the screen

Just give me a 480 FPS OLED with black frame insertion already, FFS

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] MonkderDritte@feddit.de 3 points 2 years ago

Well, i do not follow movements (jump to the target) with my eyes and see no difference between 30 and 60 FPS, run comfortably Ark Survival on my iGPU at 20 FPS. And i'm still pretty good in shooters.

Yeah, it's bad that our current tech stack doesn't allow to just change image where change happens.

parent

[–] TheRedSpade@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (3 children)

This is only true if you're still using a 32 bit cpu, which almost nobody is. 64 bit cpus can use up to 16 million TB of RAM.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] teft@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago

Sorry I forgot to put my giant /s.

parent

[–] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 years ago

With PAE, a 32 bit CPU can also use more, but each process is still limited to 4GiB

parent

[–] TimeSquirrel@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

This is only true if you’re still using a 32 bit cpu

Bank switching to "fake" the ability to access more address space was a big thing in the 80s...so it's technically possible to access addresses that are wider than the address bus by dividing it up into portions that it can see.