It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Q:about the 'frame rate' are eyes see at, and the subconscious

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Hi there


Not sure which forum to stick this in, but I s'pose it's a kind of 'sciency?(sic)' question so hey...

The speed at which our eyes assilimilate infomation I believe (recalling from memory) to be approx. 25+- frames per second (this changes with psychological extremes such as life threatening situations and such).

I was checking out info on 'subliminal influences', the word SEX for example...right NOW is making your brain release endorphins which, when placed in the context of an ADVERT, can make you feel more drawn to said product.

GOOD EXAMPLE IS THIS YOUTUBE VIDEO..
Edited for warning: the 'F' word is written within the video. cheers


Now my question is. ...

Does anyone know just how MUCH of that 25 frames a second frame rate; we are ACTUALLY aware of.

Do we, on a CONSCIOUS level, see EVERYthing within that 25 frames?
Is SUBLIMINAL BENEATH this frame rate, 30 frames for example (speaking for a FLASH image of course).

Is it like, we are FULLY aware of 15 frames a second, and the other ten are store on a much less "visually aware" level.

And if we see at 25 frames a second, and thats ALL wee can process visually, does that meen that subliminal images played between that frame rate would actually be LOST/not processed due to being too fast to 'capture'.

sorry for this sounding abit sketchy.. but hey


Whatd'ya all think?

Cheers


AoN

[edit on 27-5-2008 by Anomic of Nihilism]

[edit on 27-5-2008 by Anomic of Nihilism]


[edit on 27-5-2008 by Anomic of Nihilism]




posted on May, 27 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Hmmmm our eyes don't have a frame rate, we see in real time...

We can see frame rates on a screen of over 200, but that is only because of the limitations of frame rates on a screen, not our physical limitations.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Actually humans do have a flicker. But that is really irrelevant to this scale. The Reis Limen or threshold of perception is 4ms. At 4ms if I flash a single character somewhere on the screen you have about a 50/50 chance of knowing I did it. You probably only have about a 20 percent chance of guessing it correctly.

If I flash it at 1ms you will not know. It is sub liminal, below the Reis Limen.

If I flash the same character 100 times at 1 ms all over the screen. You will swear the screen is covered in the character. There can be no mistaking it, even though it is below the Reis Limen. Unperceptable as a single exposure.

The rule of thumb is that the number of exposures times the duration of exposures times the intensity of exposures = effectiveness of exposure.
I would add to that multiplying by the number of sources of exposure.

Yes there is such a thing. We gate and filter our attention. The senses are take in more than the mind can handle unfiltered. Some forms of mental illness are from an inability to filter. Some forms of schizophrenia for example. Such schizophrenics are highly succeptable to subliminal triggers.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 08:31 PM
link   
The human visual system is incredibly complex. I don't have all my references at hand right now, but here's a few thoughts:

The different types of receptors (rods and cones) in the retina, have different 'response' and 'refresh' times, the upshot of which is that greyscale vision can have much more temporal accuracy than color vision -- this is apparent in several video codecs, which attempt to reproduce luminous detail with more temporal accuracy than color detail (an effect which I find annoying sometimes). This also applies to spatial resolution.

After a single rod or cone is activated, there's many layers of neurons that combine and 'process' the visual data into what you perceive. These include structures that effectively detect edges, motion, etc. So, you will be able to detect changes in edges with more temporal precision, or notice very small 'hiccups' in slowly moving objects. Also, perception in the center (fovea) of the visual field is different than at the periphery.

The visual system has different temporal accuracies with regards to increasing and decreasing luminance. So, perception of brightly appearing objects is more accurate -- eg, Cyberian's example of flashing characters would have slightly different results with white characters on a black field than with black characters on a white field.

There are many more system of perception beyond that, and they get more complex, too. Most 'subliminal' effects are actually subtle emotion triggering imagery, rather than quick flashes or effects that trick the earlier stages of the visual system (such as optical illusions). The liminal/subliminal 'barrier' is actually much more pliable, diffuse, and consciously controllable than the mainstream conception would indicate.

Thanks for posting an interesting question and motivating me to de-lurk.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Cyberbian
 


STARRED


Thankyou very much!! that was EXTREMELY informative


So i would be right in thinking that 4ms equates to roughly 25 'bits per minute.?

WOOAAAHH!!!
MASSIVE thunder clap outside, sounded like a nuclear bomb!! whew
Sorry but that scared the crap out of me


So, has there be any interesting research done with regardes to what the BRAIN is assimilating that WE a not concsiously registering. Have they done experiments with subjects hooked up to an EEG (Electro Encephalo Gram) where they read (maybe) the activity in direct responce to the images they're being shown, at say, 3,2 or 1 milliseconds. can our brain process..too an extent, these images on an subconcsious level, or is the information TOTALLY lost?..limited by the rate at which we transfer the information assimilated by our Visual Cortex?

Cheers


Aon
EDITED for SPEEeeeLLING

[edit on 27-5-2008 by Anomic of Nihilism]



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Ian McLean
 




Thanks for posting an interesting question and motivating me to de-lurk.



HAHA!! No problem, welcome to the boards my friend. I thought it was a rather sketchy question, and thought it wouldn'y gain many replies. So thankyou for your interest and VERY NICE first post (I gave you a STAR...DEFFINATELY not bad for first post
)



don't have all my references at hand right now


to this i'm just wondering what where you interests lie (for want of a better phrase)for you to state 'references', is this subject reflective or your personal interests, or vocation...if you don't mind me asking




Also, perception in the center (fovea) of the visual field is different than at the periphery


Yes!!
I am TOTALLY aware of this phenomena, I have a interest in astronomy... and I am CONSTANTLY looking at stuff (galaxies, magellanic clouds etc.), to the LEFT or RIGHT..or infact ANYWHERE around the object in question but directly at it. If you try to look at the NGC/Galaxy etc. DIRECTLY through a telescope, damn thing would just disappear
if yer look slightly off center, it would reappear again.

Really frustrating.


Just as a side question..

How does peception/the Visual Cortex make up the 'grey scale' of what its seeing? The reason I ask this is...

Well, hmm ok.... This is how i see it. VISUALLY, the colour BLACK is the absence of colour. WHITE, as I understand it, is ALL the colours at once.
So why would this (quoted below) be the case? ...


greyscale vision can have much more temporal accuracy than color vision

....If ALL cones are being activated in order to produce a WHITE image?


Cheers again, thanks for replying


AoN

EDITED for toOOOo many SMILYS (thats an origional excuse isn't it
)

[edit on 27-5-2008 by Anomic of Nihilism]

[edit on 27-5-2008 by Anomic of Nihilism]



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anomic of Nihilism
So i would be right in thinking that 4ms equates to roughly 25 'bits per minute.?


No you're not right.


There is a common misconception in human thinking that our eyes can only interpret 30 Frames Per Second. This misconception dates back to the first human films where in fact a horse was filmed proving actually that at certain points they were resting on a single leg during running. These early films evolved to run at 24 Frames Per Second, which has been the standard for close to a century...

This is where this article gets even longer, but read on, please. I will explain to you how the Human Eye can perceive much past the
misconception of 30 FPS and well past 60 FPS, even surpassing 200 FPS....


Please read the rest....

Source



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Anomic of Nihilism
 

Thanks for the welcome!



to this i'm just wondering what where you interests lie (for want of a better phrase)for you to state 'references', is this subject reflective or your personal interests, or vocation...if you don't mind me asking


Hey, no worries -- I'm a graphics programmer by trade, and I've had an interest in visual perception, color theory, etc., for a long long time now. In my work I deal with a lot of artists (making tools and such), so I've tried to study up and learn the field, from both the scientific and aesthetic directions (helps to know their lingo!).



How does peception/the Visual Cortex make up the 'grey scale' of what its seeing?

Well, that's a huge question! But the simple answer has to do with what you were mentioning about looking at stars and noticing that different parts of the eye (looking left to right or on center) would make them more or less visible. That's due to the difference between rods and cones, the two main categories of 'sensors' on the retina. Essentially, rods react to a wide spectrum of light, and trigger a neuron when they receive enough photons. Cones do the same thing, but in a narrower band of the spectrum (there's multiple types of cones, with different chemical composition and response curves -- red at about 610nm, green at about 530nm, and blue at about 460nm). The outer part of the retina (peripheral vision) has many more rods than cones, the inner part vice-versa. That's why looking to the side increases perceptive resolution of luminance, as the rods are more sensitive (trigger with fewer photons) than the cones.

When a rod or cone triggers, it's a binary on/off sort of thing. There's no greyscale or intensity perception at that level of the visual system. They trigger in pulses, and neurons 'further back' in the network smooth out and average the pulses together to create the perception of gradients, greyscale, etc.



This is how i see it. VISUALLY, the colour BLACK is the absence of colour. WHITE, as I understand it, is ALL the colours at once.

Yep, that's very true, from a color-theory point of view. In the actual physiology of the eye, it's a little different, though (the rods and cones thing). Mostly, luminance (overall brightness, or 'whitepoint') is measured by the rods, and augmented by the cones (color vision). Ever notice that when you look quickly at a bright object it will appear white, then colors will resolve a fraction of a second later? Or when your eyes are dark-adjusted, everything seems kind of bluish-purple? That's because the chemical in rod cells (rhodopsin) is much more sensitive and reacts much more quickly than the cone cells (handy for detecting motion!).

Hey, I dug out another one of my references, you'd probably like reading this, because it's a straight-talking awesome introduction to how the eye and color vision work -- "Feynman Lectures on Physics", volume I, chapters 35 ("Color Vision") and 36 ("Mechanisms of Seeing"). Check it out!

Again thanks for the fun first thread!



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cyberbian
Actually humans do have a flicker. But that is really irrelevant to this scale. The Reis Limen or threshold of perception is 4ms.


Well this scientific study says different...


The USAF, in testing their pilots for visual response time, used a simple test to see if the pilots could distinguish small changes in light. In their experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. Pilots were consistently able to "see" the afterimage as well as identify the aircraft. This simple and specific situation not only proves the ability to percieve 1 image within 1/220 of a second, but the ability to interpret higher FPS.

Source

And there is this...


So what is "Enough fps"? I don't know, because nobody went there so far. Maybe 120fps is enough, maybe you will get headaches after 3 hours. Seeing framewise is simply not the way how the eye\brain system works. It works with a continuous flow of light\information. (Similar to the effects of cameras' flashlights ("red eyes"): flashing is simply not the way how we see). So there are still questions. Maybe you need as much as 4000fps, maybe less, maybe more.

Source

[edit on 27/5/2008 by ANOK]



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Anomic of Nihilism
So i would be right in thinking that 4ms equates to roughly 25 'bits per minute.?


No you're not right.



WOOh! yeah sorry, i was waAAy of on the maths with that one


It's 4:21 AM where i am in london uk at the time of posting this, so gimme some leverage, its late


Thanks for the link though, that was a damned interesting read cheers, cleared up a few things...CHRIST knows where i got the 25 frames per second from
must have been mixing it up with movie frames or something


Cheers


AoN



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Ian McLean
 




Well, that's a huge question! But the simple answer has to do with what you were mentioning about looking at stars and noticing that different parts of the eye (looking left to right or on center) would make them more or less visible. That's due to the difference between rods and cones, the two main categories of 'sensors'
......Yudda yudda

That ^^ quoted above was extremely interesting, thankyou
. that REALLY added to my wonder of life, the 'human machine' and how incrediblethat all is




Hey, I dug out another one of my references, you'd probably like reading this, because it's a straight-talking awesome introduction to how the eye and color vision work


Thankyou very much, i shall read that tommorow, im gonna get a VERY, long overdue sleep now.

ATS(abovetopsecret.com) is my mistress, sadly she NEVER lets me get any sleep


It'll will happen to you, it will happen to ALL eventually


Enjoy your time dude, i'll check back in this thread in 9hrs or so, and will reply to anyone i haven't replied to yet.

Cheers


AoN

[edit on 27-5-2008 by Anomic of Nihilism]

[edit on 27-5-2008 by Anomic of Nihilism]



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


One last thing to chime in with.



The USAF, in testing their pilots for visual response time, used a simple test to see if the pilots could distinguish small changes in light. In their experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. Pilots were consistently able to "see" the afterimage as well as identify the aircraft. This simple and specific situation not only proves the ability to percieve 1 image within 1/220 of a second, but the ability to interpret higher FPS.


ANOK hi


This peace of infomation is interesting. The one thing i wonder about is the test conditions though.

When you see a difference in light intenslty, in a localised field of vision, this 'image', a light bulb, or the sun for example. This image is usually easier to see when transposed on to a darker backgroud.
(Obviously, looking at a light bulb and then closing your eyes to see the after image on the inside of your eyelids is a perfect example)

So i wonder how this would work in average light conditions?

This ALSO throughs up the VERY interesting question of: HOW MUCH must we include the afterimage when discussing visual awareness and image processing? How long do the Cone/Rods retain the information after the image has passed.? Is it wiped out when stimulated by new imagery, does an afterimage only work when the surrounding luminous intensity is less then that which created the image? or is there some 'underlying' memory there that helps us hold on to the image longer than fleeting aknowledgement??

Damn...i'm going to bed...

See y'all in 9ish hours

Cheers


AoN



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Anomic of Nihilism
 


Well your eyes don't really 'see' an image your brain does. Your eyes are kind of like a camera lens, and the film is your brain.

Rods (for dim light), and cones (bright light and colour) become active when hit with light and they send the message to the brain via the optic nerve, and the brain creates the image you 'see'.

And just like a camera the light sent to the brain is upside down.

This happens in real time as we have no shutter like a camera, sight is continual.

You see afterimages usually from your cones, when light hits them they become less sensitive and the more you stare at something the less sensitive they become, so when you look away that light is retained for a few seconds as your eyes adjust.

[edit on 28/5/2008 by ANOK]



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Yeah, I'd agree that memory occurs mostly in the brain, but without a hard-n-fast definition of 'memory', that's debatable. The biology of the eye is of course effected by the light that impacts it, and that 'state information' is retained for a variable amount of time, so that can be considered a kind of 'memory'; a few quick examples:

Pupilary dialation: the pupil reacts (rather quickly) to dilate or contract and adjust the amount of that gets to the retina. That's a kind of memory.

Rod/cone fatigue: the cells on the retina are actually quite complex (not simple round cells like the common image of a cell) -- they're constantly growing, the cell wall 'invaginating' to create a stack of disc-like receptor surfaces. The top of those is where light hits, and when that that disc triggers over and over, it quickly becomes 'used up' and pops off the stack, which then pushes upwards to expose a fresh disc. If I remember correctly, it takes about half and hour for a cone cell to form a new disc. So the little 'floater' cells that can sometimes be seen in the aqueous humor are actually 'memories' of light that your eye has seen sometime in the past -- an interesting thought.

Color opponent network adaptation: much 'early' visual processing actually occurs in the retina. There are 'color opponent' cells that combine the inputs of adjacent cone cells, in various configurations, before the visual information even leaves the eye. These have a memory of sorts -- think of the different antagonistic combinations (red/green, blue/green, blue/red) as each measuring along the 'edges' of UV colorspace. Those measurements can then act as barycentric coordinates for a particular perceived color.

That's how afterimages happen. The colors in the afterimages are 'real', as in you can perceive them, but they happen when the retina becomes adapted to a particular stimulus, then that stimulus is removed. That causes one or more of those barycentric coordinates to become negative, moving the perceived color outside the area in colorspace that contains the colors normally perceived (the 'physically real' colors).



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 03:27 AM
link   
From a scientific and mathematical point of view the frame rate
of our visual cortex is governed by the base physical constraints of our
input sensors (i.e. rods & cones of eyes) and the electrical conductivity
of our nervous system.

It has been said that at 120 million Rods and about million cones
which is VARIABLE amongst individuals, the maximum OPTICAL resolution
of the eye is about 120 to 130 megapixels depending upon the person.
Because we interpret in RGB, the interpolated resolution is almost
500 megapixels.

Since the human brain SEEMS to use a wavelet or fractal type compression scheme
to store visual information, I think we can also asume that NOT ALL rod & cone
firings are sent along to the visual cortex, but rather only The differences between
previous firings called Delta-V which means both only SOME of the rod & cone
firing are interpreted within specific regions (i.e. the Fovea) and that other regions
are sub-sampled (hmm sounds like MPEG-like pixel-delta and interframe encoding to me!)

This means our maximum frame rate can probably be reasonably calculated on an
general basis to top out at about 70 to 80 frames per second at full resolution
and between 120 to 200 frames on an individual regional sub-range basis
I also expect this maximum rate to vary among individuals.
This calculation is based upon the analysis of glucose uptake
within the visual cortex duing MRI-type scans of individuals
scanning photos of varying resolutions and sizes and colour spaces.

On a purely electrical basis, the technical maximum frame rate at full
resolution and speed of our nervous systems should be possible at
up to 500 fps which seems to me that a very low artificial limit
has been put on our visual cortex which also indicates to me that we have
been "Designed and Built" like machines with low-value limiter settings or
low-voltage circuit-breakers put in that artificially cut off our maximum potential...!!!!



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Wow, lots of great information in this thread.


Originally posted by StargateSG7
This means our maximum frame rate can probably be reasonably calculated on an
general basis to top out at about 70 to 80 frames per second at full resolution
and between 120 to 200 frames on an individual regional sub-range basis

That sounds like a reasonable estimate to generate equivalent perceptual reaction, under the vast majority of circumstances.

The dark-adapted eye can react to a single photon. And the individual can often distinctly perceive the resultant visual effect. That reactivity can be maintained over a continuous time interval (except when we blink!), so I'm saying that 'maximum frame rate' is always a practical approximation rather than an actual limitation.

Hey, I'm also wondering about larger population trends. I used 640x480 computer monitors back in the 80s, and looking back at them now, after using much higher resolution monitors, that resolution looks much blockier than I remember from the time. Same thing with HDTV -- NTSC didn't look as fuzzy as it does now, until 720p came along, even though the NTSC standard hasn't changed. Strange, that. So I wonder what movie-goers 50 years from now will think about display technology that we today call 'picture perfect'.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
perhaps this is irrelevent but i read a book on memory once and it argued that if you had a light on a string and span it around so it was in a circle spinning in front of you there would be a trail from that light.

but in reality the light would of already moved to the next position of its rotation and should not leave a trail as our eyes never lose sight of the spinning light

which suggests to me that all the images we see are stored for a small period of time and as said before our eyes work at a fantasctic rate the trail of a subliminal message would perhaps be stored in the same way we see the trail from the light on a string.

i did have about 5 lines of text after this but decided it was way to much speculation into why or evan if our brain would store it?



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by StargateSG7
This means our maximum frame rate can probably be reasonably calculated on an
general basis to top out at about 70 to 80 frames per second at full resolution


Wouldn't this mean that if a flywheel was rotating at 70Hz we wouldn't see it rotating at all?

I hope whatever experiments you did to measure this were performed on broad daylight and not inside a building, else I would expect you to get a result around 60Hz because that's the frequency of AC lines.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join