3 ms·
Decades of TV being filmed on cheap(er) video cameras that had lousy picture quality but captured at 60 fps vs. film that looked beautiful but only captured at
by jandrese 3y ago
Decades of TV being filmed on cheap(er) video cameras that had lousy picture quality but captured at 60 fps vs. film that looked beautiful but only captured at 24 fps has taught people that blurry smeary motion is the ideal.
- J_Shelby_J 3y agoI used to think that but now I’m not so sure. Yeah 24fps is bad for panning and sweeping movements, but…. There is something about 24fps that I believe may have something to do with how the eye or brain works that makes viewing more immersive. Perhaps it’s due to historical cultural reasons, but I’m not sure that totally explains it. FWIW I play valorant on a 390fps monitor so I am not a “the eye can only see 60fps” truther.
- smcleod 3y ago24/30fps looks dreadfully unnatural and distracting to many people though. It’s almost painful to watch on larger screen sizes.
- smcleod 3y agoIf it’s blurry or smeary then your TV / source is doing it very wrong or just can’t keep up or is too low resolution / lacks quality upscaling.
- jandrese 3y agoIt's blurry and smeary in the movie theater. You just can't capture fast motion at 24 fps. Once you train yourself to look for it you will never be able to stop seeing it.
- smcleod 3y agoOh sorry you mean it’s blurry and smeary at 24 fps in the cinema! Yes I agree. Sorry I thought you meant that higher frame rates looks blurry.