[QUOTE="myke2010"]As to your silly movie 24 FPS comment, that number isn't used because it is the maximum FPS the human eye can see, but rather because it is considered the most efficient. More FPS equaled more film used. The bright flicker in movies created an afterimage after being displayed that stays with you as the next frame on screen is displayed. This creates the illusion of fluid motion. However, digital images capable of capturing film at a much higher rate has been shown to noticably improve movie quality. The 24 fps has been the staple not out of concern for picture quality, but out of habit. Newer movies shot with digital medium are raising the bar. More importantly, the reason the movie analogy doesn't work here is movies show one still frame at a time. TV's continually refresh in lines. The distinction in frames is much more apparent.swamprat_basic
Absolutely incorrect. Couldn't be further from the truth. Most, if not all, professional movies, even the new ones shot on HD, use 24 fps. The difference between film and games is that there is motion blur when something is filmed, which hides the gaps between the frames. It is in the actual film frames themselves, not some illusion. If what you said were possible, they could do that in games as well. But it is not possible.
Increasing the frame-rate has definitely not been shown to "noticeably improve movie quality," in fact it somewhat detracts from the experience. Tests run in the opposite direction of what you are saying. It looks more like reality television, which people do not seem to like. There is a huge difference.
Am I misunderstanding you or are you saying motion blur isn't possible in games? They've been doing it for over a year now. I assume you were instead referring to why they can't use the afterimage to create the illusion of more fluid motion on TV. I already covered that, movies use flashing light to display one image at a time, TV continually updates the image in a series of line. However, you are correct that motion blur is indeed captured on film. As for the increasing frame-rate not being shown to "noticeably improve movie quality", that is not true. People don't prefer it right now because it in fact looks "too real". People have come to expect a certain quality from movies due to the 24 fps standard. When people were tested with higher FPS movies they found that quality lacking because much more action was captured on the media giving it an "unnaturally smooth" look. Note that people didn't actually say that it didn't look better, but rather that they preferred the 24 fps they were used to getting, but preferences change over time and there is no certainty one way or the other as to how movie studios will evolve because of this. In any case these preferences are irrelevant to my actual point, which is the human eye can indeed perceive much more then 24 fps as shown through numerous studies. 
Log in to comment