| Dante9 said: Umm, actually it's the other way around, 30fps is more 'realistic' than 60 fps, where things bounce around at superhuman speeds. Ubisoft seems to agree, and they might actually know about these things. Perhaps the younger gaming generations are so used to the hyper speed action games, that they kind of forget what speed the real world functions at and what actually looks realistic. |
Well yes and no. When the eyes (fixed at a point) resolves an image that is at the very bottom of the low threshold (24-30fps, anything lower goes from a very fast slideshow to a slow slideshow the lower you get) it attempts to compemnsate for the missing frames, so the mage seems blurred. When looking at 240-300fps, the frames are coming in so fast that the eyes cannot reolve them so again, creates blur. This compensation or lack of it there of, is what we call motion blur.
What you call "realistic" couldn't actually be further from the truth. Unless when walking on the street you see everyone in a blur. However its more "cinematic" cause like movies that are generaly shot at the low threshhold and naturally benefits form the blur the brain associates with 24fps video, we have become used to it. Games that are made at 30fps and above, will have to artifically add in that blur effect. Games running at 240fps-300fps wouldnt have to add the blur effect cause at that point the image is moving so fast that it appears as a blur anyways.
