4-5 meters multiplied by 60 Hz is equal to 240-300 m/s, which is roughly the speed of a jet liner. Highway speeds are much slower, around 30 m/s.
But I get your point. Having split-second response time is essential to being a safe driver.
Lol, that was supposed to be ".4-5", not "4-5". Guess that's what I get for typing too fast.
Well 75% of Google searching says 60hz-60 fps, but in many cases it does say they don't fully understand, maybe I am wrong but I am going by the larger amount of 60fps I see in searches.
Most of the sites that say 60fps is not enough don't actually give any details as to how they found 60fps to be wrong, maybe I missed something.
Im also sure some lights are on-off rapidly, at the speed they do it the eye just see's on, never off.
----
Should be less than 100fps or on-off 100 times per second. Somewhere around 50-60hz, below this should flicker to the eye.
Why Do LED Lights Flicker On Video? - LED & Lighting Info (ledlightinginfo.com)
Either way you can measure they eye in Hz or FPS, when it stops seeing a difference.
"Most google searching" is quite often not a particularly good source, especially as oft-repeated sourceless truisms tend to score well in terms of SEO. Most people repeating this from my experience have heard it from some unnamed source who in turn did not provide any trustworthy sources for their data.
As for that LED flicker thing, again, remember that we don't even know if the human eye has something equivalent to a "refresh rate" or "fps" at all. For example, flickering lights are much more easily spotted if you're moving than if you're standing still. Most likely human vision functions in a far more flexible way - remember, our brains do
huge amounts of processing on what our eyes see before we even actually perceive it, such as filling in blind spots (there's one per eye after all), stitching together two eyes into one field of view, interpolating imagery while the eye is moving, and a bunch more. Precisely what the "raw input data" from our eyes is, whether it's somehow divided into distinct "images" or if it's a more blended-together continuous stream of signals? And how does processing affect this; what is the "output" that is available to our consciousness from the visual cortex? From what I've seen, we really have no idea. What we do know is that there are measurable differences in reaction times between even 240Hz and 360Hz displays - though quite possibly not for everyone. Vision is also highly individual, after all. It's the same thing with "resolution" - human vision isn't comparable to a grid of pixels, as we can make out
far higher amounts of detail in some scenarios than others (we can for example spot jaggies and unevenness in
extremely fine diagonal lines, while grids or larger shapes like letters or symbols are perceived at far lower detail levels. And so on, and so on.
The desire to attempt to quantify the immensely complex and nuanced workings of the human sensory apparatus - which
far outstrips anything we can produce technologically - is a really, really bad habit, and it tries to apply standards for human-made creations onto complex biological and neurological functions that we barely understand at all. Trying to understand the body as if it were a human-made technology brings with it a ton of biases and uncommunicated implications that will inevitably skew any findings and limit our possibilities for achieving a functional and useful understanding of it, and will inevitably be both misleading and reductive.
). I voted no and have blocked them since day one with h264ify. Why? Health reasons. They make me sick.
