How much HZ can the human eye actually see? At what rate does

An average reaction is around 250ms but our eyes recognize sooner, so I wouldn't be too surprised if 480hz worked for most consumers. I could easily be wrong on this though.

>>389040446
Probably over 200

>>389039663
Depends from person to person, the average is somewhere in the ballpark of 240th of a second for visual recognition (as in, you're able to tell what flashed there) and no one has ever tested the upper range for mere recognition, but it's most likely absurdly high.

It's not that straightforward. The perceived image isn't directly based on the activation of light-sensitive cells in retina to begin with (for example, you only see with high resolution in the focal point of the eye, a roughly 6 degree arc, and the rest of the perceived image isn't a pixelated mess because the brain remembers what it looked like last time it was looked at directly or otherwise comes up with an image). Brain doesn't work in "ticks" in which it fully processes the image before starting to work on the next "frame". The amount of photons hitting cells in retina affects when they fire as opposed to rods and cones firing x times a second. And so on.

There have been tests in which fighter pilots have recognized shapes that flashed for 1/250ths of a second in a dark room for example, but that's not really the "FPS" you see at either. You could perceive a nanosecond of incredibly intense light too because that moment is enough to cause all light-sensitive cells to fire, but that doesn't translate to the flash lasting a nanosecond in perceived time. And then there's a difference between simply being able to tell a difference between footage rendered at x FPS and being able to act on it any faster.

I believe for most people the former, in normal light conditions etc, plateaus at slightly below 200FPS, but cognitive processes for being able to act on that information are substantially slower.

>>389041443
tl;dr

>>389041567
read that shit you uncultured fucker, anon wrote all that so that you may get a little bit less ignorant

>>389041781
lol nope

>>389039663
0-17 you perceive no motion, only still images
17-48 you perceive motion but its snappy
49-600 you perceive the motion as fluid, but you can still notice that its not actually motion but many still images
600+ indistinguishable from real motion

(600 is just an average, it ranges from 250 to 2000, varying from person to person)

>>389042179
>There are people who view the real world only in 250 fps

>>389042179
source?

>>389041443
Smart sounding