4 ms·

Unless it’s an integer multiple. Shrug.

• CyberDildonics 3y ago
  Nope, if it's an integer multiple you still have to throw out frames and those frames could have been part of the motion blur of other frames instead. It isn't the same because instead of taking a single exposure for half the time the frame elapses you would have two frames, each exposed for a fourth of that same time.
  • Kirby64 3y ago
    Or you just interpolate between frames if you want the same motion blur. It’s just like downsampling from 4k to 1080p. The process is clean since you can directly map 2 frames to 1 frame (or, 4 pixels to 1 pixel for resolution conversion).
    • CyberDildonics 3y ago
      Absolutly not. Once again, interpolating frames is not "just like downsampling" an image. Things move and obscure each other, you will get artifacts. Again, there is also motion blur and missing information. A frame exposure might be for half the time of the frame (which is common). Two frames would then be have their exposures broken up over time. Imagine four units of time. One frame fills up two next to each other and the next two are blank. Two frames would fill up one, the next would be blank, the next would be filled, the next would be blank. Anyone telling you that you can "just" interpolate frames has never done it before.