Is there such a thing as a maximum "resolution" (for

>>7759146
circa 0.1 millimeter

>>7759152

You mean 100 microns, faggot.

>>7759164
I actually meant your mom

>>7759146
Vision researcher here;

The answer is yes, and it depends on the location of the object in your field of vision and it's color, among other things. The limit of your spatial and temporal "resolving power" is related to the density of rod/cone photoreceptors, as well as the various "calculations" performed by the neuronal networks in the eye and brain related to visual processing.

Interestingly, we are much worse at resolving blue things than red or yellow things. The current theory is that the only evolutionarily important blue things are pretty big, like the sky or bodies of water.

File: naked_eye.png (34KB, 561x174px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 561x174px

>>7759146
>maximum "resolution"?
yes, maximum angular resolution
linear resolution depends on minimum focus distance

>>7759146
No but there is a maximum framerate, which is 30 fps

>>7759200
Very interesting

The "pixelation" from your eye is not consistent. There is a sweet spot where you have your highest definition. Outside of that sweet spot, it declines quickly the further you get.

For example, choose a word on the screen and stare at it. Without moving your eyes, how many words to each side can you read?

>>7759200
Sounds like a load of shit to me.

>>7759146
The human eye can only see 30fps and a max of 2k resolution. Which is why this new 60fps 4k fad is total bollox.

>>7759755
That's crap and you know it; I can easily tell the difference between a 120hz television and a 240hz one. Same goes for the difference between 30fps and 60fps; likewise, 60 and 120 look different as well.

>>7760593
>The human eye can only see 30fps and a max of 2k resolution. Which is why this new 60fps 4k fad is total bollox.

That's not the reason 4K is garbage.

4K is garbage because the LED's are still too large to make any quality increase noticeable.

you just end up with an enormous screen with the same quality as before.

The "i can more than 30fps" has 2 reasons:
In stress or high concentration your visual perception can increase, but that is your brain not the eye.
And its the hardware. Refreshrate of the monitor is not necessarily or rather unlikely in sync with the visual input so the probability of actually getting 30 unique frames per second onto the screen increases with a higher refresh rate on the monitors or inputs side.

Btw. That's just a opinion based on experience.

>>7760602
>I have no idea how monitors work but the PC guys at /v/ told me there's a difference

>>7760622
I could identify a 4k tv over a 2k tv 100 times out of 100.

You literally have eye sight problems if you think there is no quality difference.

>>7760593
>the human eye can only see 30 fps
I wish this meme would fucking die. This is easily refuted. Just fucking look at this:
https://boallen.com/fps-compare.html
It's just one of those bullshit 'science facts' that has been passed around so much that nobody remembers where it first came from, yet so many assume it is true.

well sir Rayleigh began this experiment by looking into the depths of perception by angular degree resolution. The human eye can detect up to 10 degrees per NAGGER OF NAGGERS NA MEAN

>>7759200
Blue is a weird colour for humans. In every language it seems to be the last of the main colours named. It seems to be the last one children learn as well. Anecdotal, but I heard of a scientist who never told his daughter the sky was blue, would only ask. It took her a long, long time to actually see that the sky was blue, it seemed empty of colour to her.

>>7761089

From how close?

It shouldn't be htat difficult to tell the difference at a few inches. On the other hand, I don't think you could tell the difference at a reasonable distance like ten feet.

File: Screenshot_197.jpg (136KB, 968x745px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 968x745px

>>7761199
bout this close

>>7759182
I spilled my drink all over my keyboard, thank you