Does 30fps feel more "cinematic" than 60fps?

I have quite a few 60 fps games on the Xbox One now, and I am not going back to 30 fps anymore if I can help it. Any games running at 60 fps I want to try them out.

In fact, at 30 fps I can see the jumpy and twitchy framerate of games from frame to frame, and it looks odd to me.
 
Reality doesn't work in frames per second. It doesn't have discrete timeslices.

That's not quite true. Biological optics use saccades to slice space and time in discrete chunks. Plus the delay in the signal reaching the visual cortex and then being translated into the patterns required for cognition. I can't remember absolute numbers but anywhere between 50ms and 150ms depending on complexity of scene and other cognitive factors. So in a way there is a frame rate to reality. From a biological perspective anyway.
 
With 72 Hz you're above the flicker threshold for most people, so in theory you could strobe the light source with very low duty cycle for near perfect motion (with 48 Hz you could use short duty cycles, but it wouldn't have much effect because the frames are shown twice still producing blur and judder). In practice you'd need 100+ kW peak power pulsed light sources, which will be a bit expensive (probably will need to start using lasers).
 
Last edited:
That's not quite true. Biological optics use saccades to slice space and time in discrete chunks.
You're talking sampling rate. Reality has no framerate. Perception also doesn't have a discrete time interval into which it's sliced. An object moving at a thousand metres per second occupies every point along its trajectory during one second. It doesn't teleport in one metre jumps (1000 fps) or ten centimetre jumps (10,000 fps) and then post-effect a motion trail. ;) If you put a sheet of paper in the way, that paper will be hit. It's not going to be in one of the spaces between motions.

The matter of what framerate is good enough for humans has been debated before here, and there's research showing lots == better. ;)
 
You're talking sampling rate. Reality has no framerate. Perception also doesn't have a discrete time interval into which it's sliced. An object moving at a thousand metres per second occupies every point along its trajectory during one second. It doesn't teleport in one metre jumps (1000 fps) or ten centimetre jumps (10,000 fps) and then post-effect a motion trail. ;) If you put a sheet of paper in the way, that paper will be hit. It's not going to be in one of the spaces between motions.

The matter of what framerate is good enough for humans has been debated before here, and there's research showing lots == better. ;)
How so? Of course we are human, not machines, so the processing is different, and in theory our "framerate" could be infinite, but we can't consciously slow the reality down and match 1 million fps cameras used in documentaries.

There is some natural processing going on inside our brain, and we get the images up-down, then our brain places them correctly. Also, if we assume that the amount of frames we can process means the frequency of the electrical pulses that come from our optical nerve to our brain, it's obvious that there has to be a slice of some sort 'cos the brain and our eyes would be receiving too much information. We are humans, not eagles.
 
Sampling isn't done in discrete steps. Your brain doesn't take a batch of optical signals, process them, create an image and move on to the next sample. Brains aren't computers.
 
Back
Top