The way aurora are seen, what is going on please?

[ONIKKINEN]

1 hour ago, Elp said:

The human eye typically sees at an equivalent camera frame rate between 25-60 FPS

This isnt true at all, its a myth that keeps getting mentioned online but is not based on any real science. The human eye is capable of seeing at least a few hundred frames per second, just one look at a high refresh rate monitor (mine is 165hz) will confirm that. I can easily see the difference between say a hundred fps and 165. 120vs 165, not sure, would probably fail occasionally in a blind test but that 60fps thing is complete hogwash.

[Elp]

Monitor refresh rate is different to actual FPS.

See here, an MIT study carried out measured the perceived perception of a frame of information rate at 13ms, which is not far off from 60FPS (it's closer to 1/77). That MIT study is referenced in a number of medical articles.

https://www.healthline.com/health/human-eye-fps#human-vs-animal-vision

If you've ever seen a film in HFR format (high frame rate) which normally is filmed or output at 60FPS the result is jarring as in motion things move too smooth than what we're accustomed to seeing in real life.

Edited May 14 by Elp

[ONIKKINEN]

37 minutes ago, Elp said:

Monitor refresh rate is different to actual FPS.

See here, an MIT study carried out measured the perceived perception of a frame of information rate at 13ms, which is not far off from 60FPS (it's closer to 1/77). That MIT study is referenced in a number of medical articles.

https://www.healthline.com/health/human-eye-fps#human-vs-animal-vision

If you've ever seen a film in HFR format (high frame rate) which normally is filmed or output at 60FPS the result is jarring as in motion things move too smooth than what we're accustomed to seeing in real life.

Did you read the article or just paste the first thing that google came up with? Quote:

"For example, the authors of a 2014 study out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that the brain can process an image that your eye sees for only 13 milliseconds — a very rapid processing speed. "

Which means 13ms/77fps is the minimum speed required to fool the brain into thinking that the blinked still frames are actually continuous motion, or at least what that study implies. Since if the brain doesnt have enough time to tell that it was a single frame it will be seen as continuous motion (and again, 5s in front of a gaming monitor will show you that we can differentiate smoothness of motion on a screen at a much higher rate).

HFR movies look jarring because for a hundred years we have been accustomed to 24 or 30fps in movies and TV (some telenovelas can be 50, and they look jarrimg as well). If we couldnt see the difference then it would surely not be jarring?

VR is another thing that needs high frame rates in order to mimic real life. Lower than 60fps is nauseating, 90 is ok, and 120+ is good. We should just disagree on this and not derail the thread.

[carastro]

Even when l was in Iceland l only saw the aurora in white.   A second or two on the camera and it was in colour. 
 

it’s to do with Rods and cones and night vision.  Read something on it.