| Michael-5 said:
2. Above 24 FPS, a human eye can't detect any changes to frame rate (first year chem/bio). You will see a smoother image, but never any screen tear or lag. So above 24 FPS and the difference is marginal. PS3 games lock in either 30 or 60 FPS, XB1 does the same, and so does WiiU. Neither is performing better here, all are doing well. |
There is nothing like that in the human eye or brain. Light signal is continuous and there is no notion of FPS in the eye or brain. 24 FPS is just a convenient and very old standard to produce with trick and limits a non interactive, good enough looking movie:
1 - Motion blur in the picture trick the eye to see the animation smoother than it is. Lag would be painfully noticeable if you were to watch 24 fps without blur. Don't expect a 3D game to be as good as the real motion blur from time of light exposition on a real thing.
2 - On interactive game, if you click on a button and the action display in 1/30th or 1/60 you will notice. In a movie you don't have any reference to assume a picture is late or not. In a game you compare to your own input.
3 - You need only 1 fps to display an unmoving wall, but the faster the movement, the more fps you need to make it smooth. That's why fast camera travellings in movies doesn't look so great.
4 - Even for a non interactive motion blurred movie and no super fast travelling... go to 48 fps and you will notice it a lot. In fact it will fill a little wierd, not like a movie. It will feel more real.
