>>4079751>3 times a second is the commonly agreed on amount. Dumbass.Your eyes move to a new point 3 times a second. They do not scan a 120 x 120 fov left/right/top/bottom completely 3 times a second or ever, dumb ass. Look at your face in the mirror. Are your eyes rapidly snapping left/right/up/down the entire time? No? Hmmm...
To scan the entire 120 x 120 fov in Clark's calculation with the 2° fov of the fovea would require 60x60 position changes. That's 3,600 eye movements. To do it 3x a second would be 10,800 eye movements. The fovea would be on any particular spot for only 1/10,800th of a second. That is literally, physically, impossible.
Double down again, gamma. Double down instead of actually READING Clark's article:
>At 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.>YOU ACTUALLY DO NOT PERCEIVE THAT MANY PIXELS>DO NOT>ACTUALLY PERCEIVE THAT MANY PIXELSFuck, how stupid are you that you can't understand this?
>Precisely, if there's anything in your fov that you want to look at, your eyes will have subconsciously locked onto it within 1\10th of a second.>1/10th of secondSo you can grab, at most, 10 pieces of 2° high resolution per second. Not 3,600. Hmmm...
>THE BRAIN DOESN'T NEED ANY TIME TO PROCESSGod you are one of the worst little gammas I've ever encountered.
>combined with your belief that eyes don't even move once per second Never once said that, dumb ass.
>Lol, citation requiredhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NystagmusFucking little gamma.
>>Focus has no bearing on what you seeNot what was said, little gamma.
>Says the guy angrily disagreeing with a NASA optical scientists own words>At 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.>YOU ACTUALLY DO NOT PERCEIVE THAT MANY PIXELS>DO NOT>ACTUALLY PERCEIVE THAT MANY PIXELSNASA guys own words, gamma.
