Hacker News Reader

Comment by chrisringrose | Hacker News Reader

I think the arbitrary choice of 48fps is the problem. I know it's easier to down-convert to 24, but it seems 48 just isn't right for our eyes.

The human eye can process about 60fps. I love the idea of more frames, but 60fps might be better, and eliminate the "fast-forward" jittery look.

View on HN

The 60fps myth should be wearing thin by now, and I'm sad to see it repeated so often on HN.

I don't have the relevant links available to me currently, but suffice to say the eye can pick up on far, far more than 60 fps.

The fast forward look is just an adjustment period, you experience the same watching videos of games at 60fps (even though they're played in 60fps normally, it's a very odd thing).

Ah, fair enough - thanks for the correction. However, the problem still stands that 48fps still doesn't look "right" to most people. I saw The Hobbit, loved it. And I want a faster frame rate than 24 - I think it can add to the experience. But for whatever reason, 48 just never looked ..... "Right." And I'm not alone.

If you believe 60fps is better than 24fps, I have a really hard time believing there's something about our visual processing that makes 48fps worse than 24fps.

I don't believe this to be so; I simply wonder. This random number of 48 just doesn't seem to work. I've actually seen it. For whatever reason, I always felt the motion of people was jittery.

I'm interested in higher frame rates, and want it to succeed. Perhaps 60 wouldn't be better either... but just settling on specifically 48 and saying "You'll get used to it" isn't the answer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com