[Tobba_]

If you wan't to compare against human "sample rate", it'd be equivalent to at least ~200 FPS (in order to get the same accuracy with a camera). Sure, the signal takes a moment to plumb its way through, but that's irrelevant to spotting objects.

If they're actually feeding data at 15 FPS into their ML model, then what the fuck were they expecting? Correlating movements at those framerates would be nigh-impossible.

Relying on ML for this is already comically irresponsible, but that'd just be ridiculous.

[michaelcampbell]

> If you wan't to compare against human "sample rate", it'd be equivalent to at least ~200 FPS

Where does this figure come from?

[Tobba_]

My ass, mostly. I'm extrapolating based on monitor framerates and how accurately we can see the velocity of fast-moving objects, and that I can spot a timing difference of ~5ms reliably.

Human eyes are almost comparable in terms of a framerate based on the neuron spiking rates, which are somewhere over 250-500Hz max. Obviously that's not directly comparable though, but it gives an idea of how well we can deal with moving objects.

[jon_richards]

I think they're pulling it from noticeable monitor FPS rates. I'm not an expert on machine vision, so I couldn't tell you the FPS needed to correlate movements between frames.