How fast is the human eye?

[Karel Bata]

I kept wondering why they didn't turn the lighst on, or open the curtains. :angry:

[Walter Graff]

Walter, according to one report of a test done Muhammad ! You think about what fast reaction times evolved for and what boxers do and the cost of failure, and it's hardly surprising.

 

Yea, once again sounds great myth. But then again he is the most famous man in the world. "Ali apparently had the fastest reaction time ever recorded". And where are these people testing large groups of humans? They must have a large data base if he was the 'fastest". Never heard of them and can't find any reference to them on any of my research networks. :) Ali was a good boxer. And that makes lots of mythology, usually created by the person or his entourage. You'd probably be better off saying that Ali's reaction time was not much different than the average guys reaction time. His gift were muscle speed and his smarts as a boxer. As a box affctionado I can say that most boxers don't react faster as much as the speed of their punch is often faster. Folks confuse that with reaction time. Here's the test they gave him http://www.bullettimereaction.com/

[Chris Keth]

Yea, once again sounds great myth. But then again he is the most famous man in the world. "Ali apparently had the fastest reaction time ever recorded". And where are these people testing large groups of humans? They must have a large data base if he was the 'fastest". Never heard of them and can't find any reference to them on any of my research networks. :) Ali was a good boxer. And that makes lots of mythology, usually created by the person or his entourage. You'd probably be better off saying that Ali's reaction time was not much different than the average guys reaction time. His gift were muscle speed and his smarts as a boxer. As a box affctionado I can say that most boxers don't react faster as much as the speed of their punch is often faster. Folks confuse that with reaction time. Here's the test they gave him http://www.bullettimereaction.com/

 

Come on Walter. Ali could punch a bullet out of the air and you know it.

[David Rakoczy]

It goes back to what (I believe it was Walter again) talking about the myth of Persistence of Vision.. it is not a matter of turning it off.. but 'on'... after a few relaxing seconds into the shot the so called Persistence of Vision turns off.. and I am left viewing individual still frames... it still makes me a giggle a bit the first time it happens on a shoot day.. after that I just watch it.

[Chris Keth]

Here's the test they gave him http://www.bullettimereaction.com/

 

That's fun! I ate the bullet on stage 8. My times were between .18 and .258 and probably averaged .23 or so. I didn't record them all.

[Chris Keth]

I did it again to record the times...and because it's fun:

 

.207

.281

.234

.276

.274

.185

.22

and died on .257

 

Average of .24175 seconds.

[David Rakoczy]

Low .18s.

 

Obviously the quality of your mouse can affect your times...

[fabio pirovano]

I don't know exactly I think that is a matter of training...visual training ,anyway watching any scenes of Miami Vice I could say when they are using Sony and when they are using Thomson or Film

[Walter Graff]

I don't know exactly I think that is a matter of training...visual training ,anyway watching any scenes of Miami Vice I could say when they are using Sony and when they are using Thomson or Film

 

And you had a cheat sheet telling you if you were correct? LOL

[Karel Bata]

Here's the test they gave him http://www.bullettimereaction.com/

They had the internet in 1969? :lol:

Never heard of them and can't find any reference to them on any of my research networks.

Research networks?? A quick google gave me 16 references, including:

• First, the fighter must observe that the attack is coming and recognize the type of attack. This information is delivered to the brain, where an option is chosen from a list of appropriate responses, for example, downward block, upward block, duck, move to the side, throw, etc. The more options there are, the longer it takes to make this decision. Once the decision is made, the brain sends the signal down the spinal cord, to the appropriate motor nerve, where the correct muscles are stimulated. The amount of time that it takes for all this to occur is known as the "reaction time." The reaction time is the amount of time it takes to react to a given stimulus. From this point, the muscles that are stimulated respond by contracting appropriately to perform the action which the brain had ordered, for example, a downward block. The amount of time it takes for this to occur is known as "movement time." Therefore, to maximally heighten the speed of our responses, we should improve both reaction time and movement time.
   
  To highlight this example further, consider an experiment done by Sports Illustrated (May 5, 1969) with Muhammed Ali. He was asked to punch a balsa wood board from 16.5 inches away when a light flashed. They measured his response time at 19/100 of a second. However, his movement time, the time from when his fist started moving until it made contact with the board was only 4/100 of a second. Therefore, it took him 15/100 of a second just to react to the stimulus (the flashing light!) Now imagine how quickly you would have to react, to respond to a punch which will only take 4/100 of a second to reach it's target!
  

http://delaflamme.org/site/reflexive-speed

 

I saw this same test done some years later on Blue Peter (a TV prog here) and they said that no-one had ever beaten that. Must be true then! :rolleyes:

 

 

You hate me now. :(

[Walter Graff]

Research networks?? A quick google gave me 16 references, including:

 

To highlight this example further, consider an experiment done by Sports Illustrated (May 5, 1969) with Muhammed Ali. He was asked to punch a balsa wood board from 16.5 inches away when a light flashed. They measured his response time at 19/100 of a second. However, his movement time, the time from when his fist started moving until it made contact with the board was only 4/100 of a second. Therefore, it took him 15/100 of a second just to react to the stimulus (the flashing light!) Now imagine how quickly you would have to react, to respond to a punch which will only take 4/100 of a second to reach it's target!

 

 

http://delaflamme.org/site/reflexive-speed

 

I saw this same test done some years later on Blue Peter (a TV prog here) and they said that no-one had ever beaten that. Must be true then! rolleyes.gif

 

 

You hate me now. sad.gif

 

 

No I don't hate you. You simply show little knowledge of the scientific method. Great Ali took so long to "react"? Was it react as in his brain or was it the speed it took for his arm to hit the wood? And was that difference measurable with others? No one measured if it was his brain so no one knows if was his brains reaction time or it was that he has faster muscle reaction and speed which is what a boxer trains for. Little scientific validity in that 'test' but it sells magazines. And since there is no gold standard in the link you send, no one can say he was 'the fastest". No one put him against anyone else. Great for a Sports illustrated article, but does little for prove anything. If you knew anything about boxing (not saying you don't just that if you did), you'd know that boxers train to have their arm move as fast and as hard as it can. That does not mean their brain reacts faster, simply that they shock their opponents with a punch. Boxing is not about reacting as much as it is about surprise. You want a punch to catch someone off guard and do as much damage as possible. As I said, you are confusing it with the reaction time of the brain. Nowhere does it say anything about proof his brain could react faster.

 

In fact the one named author of the article answers your question; "When someone has the ability to react quickly, we say they have "fast reflexes." What we really mean is that they have reflex-like reactions... There are three ways that a martial artist can improve response times. The first is by learning to anticipate an opponent's actions--using visual cues and repeating patterns to determine what attack is coming as quickly as possible. The second is by improving reaction time--shortening the amount of time it takes to respond to an attack, and the third is by developing speed--and thus shortening the movement time."

 

The assumption from the above would be that if you are taking visual cues, you can react faster because you are aware of your surroundings, and using faster muscle speed with that reaction, react 'faster'. None of that involves anything more than anyone with the average reaction speed (eye to brain) could do. With athletes, the science shows that training does not necessarily make them faster at brain reaction, rather they train the mind to take the cues faster. And sometimes with such studies, the results aren't as great as expected. An example:

 

Percept Mot Skills. 1998 Jun;86(3 Pt 1):899-912

Differences in several perceptual abilities between experts and novices in basketball, volleyball and water-polo.

Kioumourtzoglou E, Kourtessis T, Michalopoulou M, Derri V.

Democritus University of Thrace, Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, Komotini, Greece.

The aim of this study was to examine differences between experts and novices in a number of perceptual abilities. Three groups of elite athletes, 44 members of Greek national teams in basketball (n = 12), volleyball (n = 13), and water-polo (n = 19) were selected. Two groups of physical education students (ns = 18 and 21) were novices. The measured abilities were selected as the most important for an elite athlete by expert coaches in the three sports. The four most frequently selected abilities for each sport, according to the coaches' opinions, were finally assessed. Analysis showed that differences were fewer than expected.

 

 

In fact many of the studies on the body and the psychology of the mind show that differences are due not necessarily to innate brain ability, but rather to physiological and physical differences due mostly to training. Access the Journal of Perceptual and Motor Skills which is the journal related to the science of how we think and react and you’ll find tons of work showing what really makes boxers faster and what does not.

 

That is why one cannot simply cut and paste a personal website and say "see, it's true". As for your sixteen searches, I only see one and it has no scientific validity. Show the other 15 and let's see what merit they have? As for your question, I use such public sites as pubmed to look up scientific research abstracts and have access to national databases with all scientific journals as I am still a member of the National Academy of Sciences and have affiliation with a research university. It offers a bit more validity to the scientific method when using research work that is peer review rather than looking at someone’s opinion on a website or an article in a Sports magazine.

[Karel Bata]

Points taken. I had no idea what you meant by 'research networks' and meant no disrespect.

 

I don't think there's any way of objectively ascertaining the truth behind either of the anecdotes, but that does not mean that because they sound like myths they are likely to be untrue. I don't think that's a sound methodology. It leads you into a post-structuralist miasma of only accepting evidence that fits what you already believe.

 

But I agree when you say " they train the mind to take the cues faster" which is what I think Ali was really good at - anticipating his opponents' moves. Though I still think that to be a world champ you have to be damn fast, so I'm not surprised if (who was it?) could read a 78rpm record label. It's not really all that fast - I remember reading 45s - the typeface is usually big white letters on a dark ground and the anecdote doesn't claim he could read all of it in one go, or that he didn't turn his head to track the motion. So, why not?

 

 

One thing still bothers me here: was that the correct grammatical use of 'miasma'? :(

[Paul Bruening]

It's flounder. Flounder can't look up.

[Edgar Dubrovskiy]

Hi John.

 

I often experience this myself... especially when shooting. I often see each and every frame being captured... kinda like stop motion at 24fps... well, exactly like. The first time I experienced this I had to really contain myself during a long take as I couldn't believe what I was seeing... now I am used to it and enjoy it!

 

Freaking Hell, that must be unusual! And cool.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Edgar Dubrovskiy

[David Rakoczy]

It's flounder. Flounder can't look up.

 

 

That's all Flounder can do... is look up (ward)... to look down they would have to see through their bodies. As a fisherman in Florida I can assure you.. they can see up... they see the boat.. they see us.. they see the spear.. they see the lure gliding by over their head.. they see my grill... looking up all the while... until I flip them. :P

 

Edgar, it was very distracting the first day I experienced this, but now, I love watching each frame!

[Edgar Dubrovskiy]

Edgar, it was very distracting the first day I experienced this, but now, I love watching each frame!

 

I bet it is :)

Interestingly, I don't see two pictures (from left and right eye) combined in one (that's how majority of people see, if I'm right). 3D tricks and 'red-blue glasses' stereo cinema never worked for me.

My brain splits the pictures from both eyes into two, and I see on at a time - from right or left eye.

Quite useful, when operating with both eyes open :)

[Walter Graff]

I'd enjoy sharing the results of this test:

 

Extend both hands forward of your body and place the hands together making a small triangle (approximately 1/2 to 3/4 inch per side) between your thumbs and the first knuckle.

 

With both eyes open, look through the triangle and center something such as a doorknob or the bulls eye of a target in the triangle.

 

Close your left eye.Does the object remain in view or do your hands your hands appear to move off the object and move to the left?

 

Answers:

 

1 remains in view

2 shifts to the left and can't see object with other eye.

[Hal Smith]

Department of Absolutely Arcane Knowledge:

 

Somewhere around 1980 I designed an exhibit for the then brand new Anniston Alabama Museum of History. It compared a museum visitor's reaction time to that of birds. The human side of the exhibit was a trigger contact that consisted of a piece of brass plate shaped like a human hand and divided into two parts. The visitor was instructed to place their hand on the plate and pull it off when they saw a light and heard a beep. There was a neon lamp that randomly flashed simultaneously with an audible beep. The equipment measured the amount of time between the beep/flash and when the visitor pulled their hand off the plate. The visitor reaction time was consistently in the 150 to 180 milliseconds (.15-.18 seconds) range.

 

The bird side? A slow motion telecine of birds taking off in response to loud noises. If I remember correctly the birds got underway in around 40 milliseconds.

 

The exhibit turned out to be a hit, people would get competitive and try to beat their friends, siblings, etc.

[Karel Bata]

I'd enjoy sharing the results of this test:

 

My right eye is dominant. But my left has always been weaker sight-wise.

[John Sprung]

I'd enjoy sharing the results of this test:

 

I get the same results you do, right eye dominant. I'm also right handed.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Walter Graff]

Most people when looking forward are right eye dominant. It has nothing to do with handedness but about 85% of right handers are right eye dominant. But your eye dominance changes depending on the angle of the eyes. In other words if you look to the right, your left brain is 'out of range' of the site so you become right eye dominant. One of my mentors, a legend in sports shooting Barry Winik was left eye dominant and had his film cameras always set up so he shot off the right shoulder using his left eye. And he had custom viewfinder diopters as it was imposible to look though his viewfinder cause of his poor eyesight. Of course he loved to show me every day that his name was one after Gordon Willis in the IA roster book as if that meant anything.

[Paul Bruening]

My right eye isn't just dominant. It seeks to take over the world. It is mad. Mad, I tell you. Power has driven it MAAAAD!

[Walter Graff]

Here's something cool. Make glasses out of lenses that invert the picture. Wear them. In about a day or two your brain will flip it so it's right side up. Take the glasses off and you will see upside down for about a day or two at worst.

 

For those who asked about cameras that flip the image in the viewfinder, that's one way to solve it.

[David Rakoczy]

I bet it is :)

Interestingly, I don't see two pictures (from left and right eye) combined in one (that's how majority of people see, if I'm right). 3D tricks and 'red-blue glasses' stereo cinema never worked for me.

My brain splits the pictures from both eyes into two, and I see on at a time - from right or left eye.

Quite useful, when operating with both eyes open :)

 

yep.. Operating is an interesting subject all to itself... yes, you definitely have to split your hemispheres so you can keep both eyes open and look at two different things at the same time... the more I do it the more I simply relax.. watch the frames.. and without thinking turn the wheels...

 

This is a very interesting subject... I gotta split town on a show but will be back in 10 days... gonna shoot a lot of Time Lapse.. taking the Steele Chart! :)

 

I look forward to seeing where this thread advances.. until then.. load the slowest emulsion you can.. keep the kickers from hitting your meter bulb.. and for pete's sake.. let the grips set the flags.. do your own job ;)

[Edgar Dubrovskiy]

...gonna shoot a lot of Time Lapse.. taking the Steele Chart! :)

 

Why not a calculator? ;)