obobskivich
Headphoneus Supremus
Not to argue with you, but I would have to disagree. Let's go ahead and explain...
Frame rate for video is not fixed by any sort of "storage space" or "processing power" - film can run at any rate you'd like, and 24 fps was selected because it produces fluid motion. There's actually something that film does, called temporal blur or temporal anti-aliasing, which digital systems cannot do (digital video CAN because it generally comes from digital intermediaries, film), which informs why 24 fps works. No film is shot at a higher rate as it doesn't make sense. This is age old. Digital video equipment is designed to replace film, it can somewhat accomplish this (DC projectors, for example). It is therefore designed with the current standards and limits in mind.
There is no DBT that supports any audible difference between expensive amps or DACs, and you're drawing an unrealistic comparison there (because you could go pick something like an SR-009 that can't plug into an iPod); keep it relevant.
Now on to 120hz and 60hz and 600hz and all of that:
You have never viewed a film that was captured at 120 fps. They are not made. What you have seen is a modern HDTV with something called Motion Interpolation that attempts to create TAA through frame generation; it's a (mathematically/technically) better way to do something called 3:2 pulldown (in other words, most all TVs ever made have a field rate of 60hz, most content is 24 or 30 FPS - that mismatches). There is a very visible difference running MI, but it is not somehow producing the content at 120 FPS. You're still viewing 24 FPS content. Regarding "you can tell if the objects aren't moving fluidly" - that's a limitation of the display technology not the film itself (within reason, again, there is temporal blur, but 1/24 is fairly fast) - LCDs are especially terrible at this. CRTs, OLEDs, and most PDPs are more or less immune to motion blur. Display size has nothing to do with that either - do you think IMAX is a blurry mess? How about normal cinemas? Those do not run at 120hz. You absolutely do not want Motion Interpolation for gaming, as it inserts quite a lot of input latency between the game and the gamer; this affects your response time, this is documented (I will provide some links below for more information).
Here's some links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_interpolation
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2803/1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input_lag#Input_Lag_example_for_console_gaming
http://www.beyond3d.com/content/articles/66/
Regarding how many FPS you can "see":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate
The article does a well enough job explaining that your eyes don't "sample" - they work in a continuous manner. Conventionally it is accepted that anything meeting the 30-60 FPS average is going to be "fluid motion" enough to trick your eyes. Anything extra is gravy. You can go "slower" than 30-60FPS if you have time data (film can do this) blurred into the media, but eventually the whole thing becomes a blurry mess (it's moving, but it's blurry). In other words, you're taking too large of a "slice" of time for your sample.
Again, I'm not trying to pitch an argument here, but we're really talking apples and oranges when dealing with HDTVs and film vs CG. Yes, there is absolutely a difference with MI turned on. No, it is not agreed upon as universally better (there are MANY long-running debates in HT enthusiast circles as to what the "best" option is - if you like the feature it, use it!). And finally, yes, it does introduce more delay into the video system which is to the detriment of console games. My personal take is that MI is great for animated content (like CG movies and cartoons), but pointless for anything that was shot on film (non-CG movies), or videogames (which are starting to introduce motion blur on their own).
As a final note, those Plasmas that claim 600 hz are using MI as well.
Quote:
Frame rate for video is not fixed by any sort of "storage space" or "processing power" - film can run at any rate you'd like, and 24 fps was selected because it produces fluid motion. There's actually something that film does, called temporal blur or temporal anti-aliasing, which digital systems cannot do (digital video CAN because it generally comes from digital intermediaries, film), which informs why 24 fps works. No film is shot at a higher rate as it doesn't make sense. This is age old. Digital video equipment is designed to replace film, it can somewhat accomplish this (DC projectors, for example). It is therefore designed with the current standards and limits in mind.
There is no DBT that supports any audible difference between expensive amps or DACs, and you're drawing an unrealistic comparison there (because you could go pick something like an SR-009 that can't plug into an iPod); keep it relevant.
Now on to 120hz and 60hz and 600hz and all of that:
You have never viewed a film that was captured at 120 fps. They are not made. What you have seen is a modern HDTV with something called Motion Interpolation that attempts to create TAA through frame generation; it's a (mathematically/technically) better way to do something called 3:2 pulldown (in other words, most all TVs ever made have a field rate of 60hz, most content is 24 or 30 FPS - that mismatches). There is a very visible difference running MI, but it is not somehow producing the content at 120 FPS. You're still viewing 24 FPS content. Regarding "you can tell if the objects aren't moving fluidly" - that's a limitation of the display technology not the film itself (within reason, again, there is temporal blur, but 1/24 is fairly fast) - LCDs are especially terrible at this. CRTs, OLEDs, and most PDPs are more or less immune to motion blur. Display size has nothing to do with that either - do you think IMAX is a blurry mess? How about normal cinemas? Those do not run at 120hz. You absolutely do not want Motion Interpolation for gaming, as it inserts quite a lot of input latency between the game and the gamer; this affects your response time, this is documented (I will provide some links below for more information).
Here's some links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_interpolation
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2803/1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input_lag#Input_Lag_example_for_console_gaming
http://www.beyond3d.com/content/articles/66/
Regarding how many FPS you can "see":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate
The article does a well enough job explaining that your eyes don't "sample" - they work in a continuous manner. Conventionally it is accepted that anything meeting the 30-60 FPS average is going to be "fluid motion" enough to trick your eyes. Anything extra is gravy. You can go "slower" than 30-60FPS if you have time data (film can do this) blurred into the media, but eventually the whole thing becomes a blurry mess (it's moving, but it's blurry). In other words, you're taking too large of a "slice" of time for your sample.
Again, I'm not trying to pitch an argument here, but we're really talking apples and oranges when dealing with HDTVs and film vs CG. Yes, there is absolutely a difference with MI turned on. No, it is not agreed upon as universally better (there are MANY long-running debates in HT enthusiast circles as to what the "best" option is - if you like the feature it, use it!). And finally, yes, it does introduce more delay into the video system which is to the detriment of console games. My personal take is that MI is great for animated content (like CG movies and cartoons), but pointless for anything that was shot on film (non-CG movies), or videogames (which are starting to introduce motion blur on their own).
As a final note, those Plasmas that claim 600 hz are using MI as well.
Quote:
