On Tue, 4 Feb 2014 15:59:07 +0100 (CET) Michael Van Canneyt <mich...@freepascal.org> wrote:
> Traditional Film uses 24 FPS, this was considered twice the speed of what > was/is > needed to experience motion 'fluently'. It is not unusual to show the same frame three times to bring the framerate up to 72fps to reduce the "black screen time" which will be percieved as flickering. Motion blur helps a lot to make the experience 'smooth'. Why do you think it is recreated in 3D graphics? > The human eye can *discern* changes at faster rates, meaning it will > recognize the difference between a film played at 30 and 60, the latter > being perceived as more 'smooth'. And the general human can see changes up to 150 fps so the eyes must be able to "see at that rate". > > But this does not enable you to process the *information* displayed at such a > speed. As stated in my last mail the USAF and their pilots do not share your opinion. > using a practical example: > Let me display random numbers at speed > 10 FPS on screen. > Will you be able to repeat the numbers ? I doubt it. That's no argument, that's speculation. > You may want to watch "Fight Club", where this is demonstrated in a cinema ;) Thanks, but I do not watch Hollywood blockbusters. No matter the frame rate your brain is not able to process anything when it is exposed to such trash. R. -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
