How long until we have 8k at 300fps?
Both of those are the highest current standards.
Honestly? I dunno, 25 years probably.
Half-Life 1, 980 ti, 8K downscaled to 1080p display.
"max_fps 300"
Right now.
>>53826688
Are those the max our eye can see or what. Also got any source?
>>53826743
Both those numbers are from Wikipedia.
I don't know the max for either of these, but it seems like no one really knows.
30 years because diminishing returns.
>>53826783
>I don't know the max for either of these
It's not a single number. For resolutions you have to take stuff like viewing distance, your field of view and pixel density into account. Here's a pretty good write up on the whole "how many FPS can a human eye see" debate: http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
>>53826813
>upper limit is 500 fps before it stops becoming noticable
Nah m8 human eye only sees at 24 fps, any more is unnoticeable.
Some futurists have speculated that someday we'll be able to hack into the optic nerve and send visual signals directly to the brain that way. That's probably a long way off but I wonder if we could hack it the other way, intercepting the movement signals coming from the brain the eye. That way eye tracking becomes eye prediction. The imaging system would know what part of the picture to focus on giving the most detail and be able to present the best image at the exact moment the eye is looking in that part of the display. Eye tracking is reactive. Eye prediction would be proactive. Probably would require surgery which limits the adoption rate
>>53826688
when we get foveated rendering
>>53826743
24fps is the max our eye can see dummy
>>53826921
nah man, human eye can only see 1 fps.
>>53826930
>Probably would require surgery which limits the adoption rate
kek
>>53826921
Why do 60fps movies look so much different than 24fps movies?
>>53826921
You're a retard.
>>53826940
Kek
>>53826961
Because you fed the troll.
>>53826961
placebo
>>53826961
Because we are accustomed to lower framerates. Movies don't *need* 60 fps because they do not have input lag like videogames do since movies have no input.
>>53826688
Next year. We had 8k@120 last year.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2989068/displays/japan-display-outs-an-insane-8k-120hz-laptop-sized-screen.html
>>53826971
Not actual placebo, it does look different. I saw the shitty Hobbit movie and it looked different and I didn't know why until I found out about the framerate. It looked like a stage play, but on the movie screen.
>>53826688
8k on a 22 inch screen would get you at around 400dpi. Which is iirc just above what our eyes can discern.
FPS is a bit tricky. Based on my googling skill, i would estimate that we see somewhere between 100fps to 300fps. So 8k 300fps on a 22 inch screen would be ideal.
You don't need to go higher, unless it's a bigger screen, but there is no reason to stop if we can, though. Just imagine, we are finally reaching the top of what our bodies can handle with regards to technology
>>53826971
You, my dear anon, have obviously never watched 60fps porn.
>>53827094
where can I get this
pls senpai
>>53826731
this
>>53827122
Just type 60fps under the porn category in your favorite torrent search box
or try this site http://www.eporner.com/\
they have a 60fps category
Human eyes max at 1080p at 60 Hz
No reason to do more
>>53827256
>Human eyes max at 1080p
Sure if your screen is <7inches
>>53826688
>you will never find about angie varona on /b/ again
>you will never get a 60fps video of her back in the day
>>53827122
There's a whole subleddit for this
/r/60fpsporn
>>53827334
>
>>53826931
>24fps is the max our eye can see dummy
nice meme
>>53827256
>Human eyes max at 1080p at 60 Hz
In a cellphone form factor, yeah.
On monitors, I can see the grid in which the pixels line up on a 20 inch 1080p monitor.
more than 60 fps is kinda a pain in the butt given all the devices that have a 60hz refresh rate.
Youtube has some 4k videos, I dont recall the framerate. Linus does videos in 4k resolution iirc.
>>53827256
Its 30fps moron.
>>53827317
huh?
>>53826921
scrolling through web pages looks smoother on my 85hz CRT than any of my 60hz LCDs.
I shit you not.
>>53826688
The thing is, each iteration of fps capabilities brings in better textures and physics.
One could take your exact saying:
320x280 pixels at 1000 fps is capable today, just draw a blank backgrund, so it also depends on what and how much you are drawing - But in ordinary normalization of game graphics i would say 17 years
