I mean, it’s still true, but everyone who cited it didn’t understand what it was saying. 24 is the minimum where your brain easily puts the motion together and it actually feels like motion. It’s also roughly near where your brain can still process each frame individually. Think the film blotches. Too much faster, and most people wouldn’t see a blip of a blotch and go, “oh a film blotch”, though they might still see it and go, “huh what was that?” up to some pretty significant framerates.
Though that’s because your eyes don’t see in frames. They’re always receiving info. That’s why even non-framerate related things improve visual smoothness, like how some monitors/technologies (sorry I forgot which ones specify it!) will flash the backlight for the frame instead of keeping it on. Then your eyes don’t get all the muddy colored photons from when the screen was actively changing pixels. It can massively reduce artifacts and makes 120hz feel like 240hz, even though at those speeds, you cannot “see” each frame.
TL;DR: It’s the Avatar kind of “see”, not the literal kind of “see”.
Hum… The minimum to make it feel like motion is something closer to 15 Hz.
I have no idea where people pulled the 24 Hz number from, but 60 Hz is clearly enough for everybody. Anyway, if you go inserting random noise you can disrupt the people’s perception at any frequency, the noise just needs enough total energy.
24 fps was the capture rate of old film cameras. The reason for that is because of how sound was stored on the edge of celluloid tape. Because of how the sound waves where imprinted on the tape, the max fidelity was at sample rate of at most 10,000 Hz per 18inches of tape. So, 18 inches of tape has to move through the projector and sound head every second.
Consider a 35mm film reel which was popular at the same time. On a 35mm reel, the height of a single frame is about 19mm. So we have 18 inches (457mm) going across the projector screen, which shows a new frame of film every 19mm. That tells us the frame rate: 457/19 = 24.
And that is why films run at 24 fps. Because it was the natural result of technical constraints when sound started being added to film. This is why older silent movies could use lower frame rates. Super 8 cameras recorded at 18fps because they could get away with it, but once Sound Super 8 hit the scene, it got brought back up to 24fps for much the same reasoning as the 1930s had with 35mm film.
Whenever i upgraded monitors, i was always disappointed, because i expected something amazing. I’m now on 200hz. But stepping down, oh boy you can tell. Maybe not from 20 to 165, but back to 60, from 60 to 30 becomes unplayable
FatVegan@leminal.space 2 days ago
So funny how you don’t hear that anymore now that even consoles cracked almost 60
spankysalmon@fedinsfw.app 2 days ago
I mean, it’s still true, but everyone who cited it didn’t understand what it was saying. 24 is the minimum where your brain easily puts the motion together and it actually feels like motion. It’s also roughly near where your brain can still process each frame individually. Think the film blotches. Too much faster, and most people wouldn’t see a blip of a blotch and go, “oh a film blotch”, though they might still see it and go, “huh what was that?” up to some pretty significant framerates.
Though that’s because your eyes don’t see in frames. They’re always receiving info. That’s why even non-framerate related things improve visual smoothness, like how some monitors/technologies (sorry I forgot which ones specify it!) will flash the backlight for the frame instead of keeping it on. Then your eyes don’t get all the muddy colored photons from when the screen was actively changing pixels. It can massively reduce artifacts and makes 120hz feel like 240hz, even though at those speeds, you cannot “see” each frame.
TL;DR: It’s the Avatar kind of “see”, not the literal kind of “see”.
marcos@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Hum… The minimum to make it feel like motion is something closer to 15 Hz.
I have no idea where people pulled the 24 Hz number from, but 60 Hz is clearly enough for everybody. Anyway, if you go inserting random noise you can disrupt the people’s perception at any frequency, the noise just needs enough total energy.
DaleGribble88@programming.dev 2 days ago
24 fps was the capture rate of old film cameras. The reason for that is because of how sound was stored on the edge of celluloid tape. Because of how the sound waves where imprinted on the tape, the max fidelity was at sample rate of at most 10,000 Hz per 18inches of tape. So, 18 inches of tape has to move through the projector and sound head every second.
Consider a 35mm film reel which was popular at the same time. On a 35mm reel, the height of a single frame is about 19mm. So we have 18 inches (457mm) going across the projector screen, which shows a new frame of film every 19mm. That tells us the frame rate: 457/19 = 24.
And that is why films run at 24 fps. Because it was the natural result of technical constraints when sound started being added to film. This is why older silent movies could use lower frame rates. Super 8 cameras recorded at 18fps because they could get away with it, but once Sound Super 8 hit the scene, it got brought back up to 24fps for much the same reasoning as the 1930s had with 35mm film.
gnutrino@programming.dev 2 days ago
You should try VR sometime…
FatVegan@leminal.space 1 day ago
Whenever i upgraded monitors, i was always disappointed, because i expected something amazing. I’m now on 200hz. But stepping down, oh boy you can tell. Maybe not from 20 to 165, but back to 60, from 60 to 30 becomes unplayable
LodeMike@lemmy.today 2 days ago
24 is not the minimum. I personally can see the frames on a 24 or 24*(1000/1001) fps video if it changes quickly enough.
RaccoonBall@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
Same. Going to the theatre has always been kind of rough for that reason.
On a smaller tv its less annoying, but I still wish we could do away with 24p