Does the human eye see in frames per second?
342519
Yes and no.  The *eye* itself does not see in frames per second.  \n\nHowever the visual system as a whole (which includes the eye, the visual pathways, and the visual cortex in the brain) has a limit to how long an image must appear before you become aware of it as a distinct image. For example, if frames of a movie appear faster than about 24 frames per second (each image appears for about 1/24 of a second), our brain perceives constant motion.  Slower than 24 frames per second and we recognizes this as a flickering succession of still frames.  The exact number, of course, depends on the person and on the viewing conditions.\n\nThis is called the 'flicker fusion threshold'.   (Source below.)
178453
Ignore the other retards who answered this.  This is actually a very intelligent question.  If you look into Einstein's theory of special relativity, you will see that no matter how fast you go (including light speed itself) light will always appear to be traveling at the same rate to you.  That means that you would still observe your headlights the same as usual.  They would still be ahead of you.  That also means that your time is slowing down greatly.  If there were a video camera on you while you were traveling this fast and someone were watching you on a monitor from the comfort of their own home, it would appear to them that you are almost frozen in time because your time reference would be so slow.  To you, your time would seem to go by at a normal pace.
289936
your eyes when you blink
222515
200 inches per second (or 500 cmps)
1109444
Actually it would be a longer separation than that.  You got carried away with the zeros.  If your eyes are separated by 10cm, and you are looking at something say, 45 degrees off of straight ahead, then the light travel distance will be 7cm further to one eye than the other. Divide that by the speed of light and you end up with about 0.2ns difference. (0.0000000002s). \n\nSadly, our human brains take about 30th to a 20th of second (.03 to .04) seconds to build an image, depending on the individual and your adrenalin level. This is why 24 (26?) frames per second in a movie looks pretty continuous to our minds.  This is sooo much longer than that light travel time distance (about a 100 million times longer or so) that you will never percieve a lag though it is fun to think that yes, the photons are hitting your cones and in one eye a tad sooner. \n\nGravitational lenses do enable us to see multiple images of the same object at different times since the resulting light paths from the object to earth usually have different lengths.  Sometimes miages gravitationally lensed objects have been identified as belonging to the same object by observing luminosity fluctuations in one image that are then repeated in another image hours to days later. Of course, this is done with telescopes and digital cameras, not eyeballs, but in principle I suppose you could image both images at the same time and use some sort of binocular device to superimpose them in your field of view in different eyes.  \n\nI say in principle because you would need a VERY large telescope to dump enough light from a quasar into your pupil to see it with your brain. \n\nIn that case you WOULD be seeing the same object at two different points in its history simultaneously from your perspective.
1080305
As you approach the speed of light heading towards Earth you would observe things happening on Earth faster than they would appear to be happening to a person who was on Earth.  You would also see a Doppler shift in the light, so in addition to seeing things happening faster, they would also shift to higher frequencies.  Something that appeared red on Earth could appear blue to you while something that appeared blue on Earth would appear violet.  Of course the speed at which you are approaching Earth would determine how much the colors were shifted.
1104675
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html\n\n324 megapixels\n\nThe eye is not a single frame snapshot camera. It is more like a video stream. The eye moves rapidly in small angular amounts and continually updates the image in one's brain to "paint" the detail. We also have two eyes, and our brains combine the signals to increase the resolution further. We also typically move our eyes around the scene to gather more information. Because of these factors, the eye plus brain assembles a higher resolution image than possible with the number of photoreceptors in the retina. So the megapixel equivalent numbers below refer to the spatial detail in an image that would be required to show what the human eye could see when you view a scene. \n\nBased on the above data for the resolution of the human eye, let's try a "small" example first. Consider a view in front of you that is 90 degrees by 90 degrees, like looking through an open window at a scene. The number of pixels would be \n90 degrees * 60 arc-minutes/degree * 1/0.3 * 90 * 60 * 1/0.3 = 324,000,000 pixels (324 megapixels).\nAt any one moment, you actually do not perceive that many pixels, but your eye moves around the scene to see all the detail you want. But the human eye really sees a larger field of view, close to 180 degrees. Let's be conservative and use 120 degrees for the field of view. Then we would see\n120 * 120 * 60 * 60 / (0.3 * 0.3) = 576 megapixels.\nThe full angle of human vision would require even more megapixels. This kind of image detail requires A large format camera to record.
56416
Fly eyes work like fantastic motion dectectors. Their sight system is completely different for a very different reason. Detecting motion not specific visual acuity
226867
The speed of light. 186,000 miles per second.
5299
well i tink its us... reason being to the introduction of technology. With 'new' medias like computers, televisions... so yeh... generally our eyesight is getting worst as the generations progress... im wearing glasses myself.. :D
55803
Vision is tested on the conduction level by a Visual Evoked Potential. Visual stimulus generates various negative and positive waveforms in the occipital cortex, with the first waveform, C1 at about 60-80 ms (milliseconds) and the final waveform, N1 at around 160 ms.\n\nOf course you'd have to consider adding the speed of light and distance from an object to the eye to that calculation.
162299
It´s because your eye doesn´t receive light in a continuos way. Our eyes are "taking pictures" several times a second, and we have the perception of movement. When a wheel turns fast, suddenly the speed sinchronizes with your eye so first it looks as it is stopping, then it goes backwards, and then again seems to turn forwards.\nThis happens when the speed is changing.
401186
It's called simultaneous viewing.  You actually look through the distance, near, and intermediate portions of the lens at the same time (they're each determined by a different curve on the lens).  Your brain automatically selects the clearest image.
31751
There is a product called EYE-Q which improves speed reading. Do a Google search on it. There's a free trial of it too.
371273
The human eye can't distinguish individual frames at 30 fps. Once you're talking about hundreds of fps, it's all effectively the same.
667863
Vertical interval\ndifference in altitiude between observer and target (or point of burst)
423251
I seem to remember somewhere that 5Hz was a ballpark figure and the intergration time of the eye. Take a look at the website below. \n---\n\nTemporal resolution,  a finite amount of time required to collect and process information, there are limitations to the responsiveness of our visual system to rates of change.\n\nTo detect a flash of light one after the other, an appropriate integration time is required. The period of integration is up to 0.1 seconds or 100 ms (for rods) and 10 to 15 ms for cones. The advantage of long integration time is that under limited light level conditions, threshold will be reached, whereas when light levels are not limiting (cone or photopic vision), a short integration time is preferable to improve temporal resolution.