@Krelian-co: There's more too it than that. 60FPS looks cheap. Like a daytime soap-opera. Great when fluid motion is a constant, not so much when the entire frame and the relative (mostly static) position of all the objects on screen matters. Small things like characters breathing looks off in 60.
In any case. 60FPS is really one of those things that is a major boon but a minor loss to not. After all, you stop noticing some 10 minutes into playing a game anyway (irrespective of which way you go).
The only reason many people think 30FPS is sluggish or choppy is because they've not played games with properly implemented framecaps (common on PC games and increasingly on console games post-PS2 era), leading to juddering and constant (but minor) frame fluctuations. People confound that lack of fluidity with the framerate when it's actually the capping at fault.
60 fps tv and film looks off because you're used to seeing it at low fps your whole life.
24 fps was decided on because it requires less film which in turn saves a lot of money. Lugging around 60 fps film reels would have been a bitch too.
I will go out on a limb and say that if movie and tv were traditionally 60 fps and then a movie came out at low fps, people would hate it. They would complain about how blurry it gets when the camera is panning, movement being choppy and that it just looks looks plain weird. In that reality I could see trippy movies like Requeim for a Dream using 24 fps.
Log in to comment