http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htmTo have a perfect illusion of everything that can flash, blink and move you shouldn't go below 500 fps.
What i mean is, according to my understanding is that in order to not see a jitter/skip the frame-rate needs to at least be 30fps, right? I could be wrong but that is what I thought.
I dunno what made the industry settle on 24fps, but eyes can definitely process a faster frame rate. Moreover, they don't see frame rate the same throughout the eye itself. The center is dominated by cones for color and details. The periphery are weighted towards rods, which are more sensitive to light and motion ....or something like that.
That's why I'm excited for 48fps, especially with 3D, as action on the edges of my vision, and particularly panning motion looks terrible to me.
I'm not excited about any movie looking like a soap opera.
Slideshow? More like blurry show. They blur everything to compensate the lack of frames, you can't make out anything. I noticed this even as a stupid teen decades ago. You can't make out wtf is going on in movies whenever it's panning.
A generation from now when kiddies are used to it, they will wonder how you got by on slide-shows.
Kinda like people who think B&W is better. It seems silly to those of us who grew up with color.
A generation from now when kiddies are used to it, they will wonder how you got by on slide-shows.
Kinda like people who think B&W is better. It seems silly to those of us who grew up with color.
A generation from now when kiddies are used to it, they will wonder how you got by on slide-shows.
Kinda like people who think B&W is better. It seems silly to those of us who grew up with color.
This.
Loads of people complain about Hi-Def, or surround sound, or 3D (actually I'm one of those)...
Fact is 24FPS second was the cheapest they could get away with and it still be watchable. There's nothing magical about it.We are all just used to it and associate it with movies and make up justifications about why its superior.
Black & white is amazing and is often better, but I see your point.
However, people have seen soap operas for a long time and they have never looked good. Can't imagine anyone preferring that over anything coming out in cinemas.
KT
Man, people like you totally ruin my argument. I forgot you guys actually exist.
Man, people like you totally ruin my argument. I forgot you guys actually exist.
Black & white is amazing and is often better, but I see your point.
However, people have seen soap operas for a long time and they have never looked good. Can't imagine anyone preferring that over anything coming out in cinemas.
KT
Thats because they are filmed with cheap equipment, tiny sets, crappy actors, and bad composition.
Its not really a valid comparison.
Yeah, but the effect appears to be the same on any TV I've looked at which uses the newer technology to either interpolate or use a higher frame rate.
Of course I know very little about the technology in all of this stuff, I just watch a lot of movies, so my ass may currently be speaking on my behalf.
KT
The stuff on your watching on TV hasnt been filmed at high FPS though, its just the TV showing the same frame over to make it look smoother. (dont cinemas do that, show each frame twice or something?).
I cant see how just filming at higher FPS is going to make things look worse if everything else is the same. Its an objectively higher quality output.