I'll ignore the insulting tone and just reach into my four years of studying telecommunications. Although, I will ask that you not assume. We all know what that makes you and me.
Yes, film started the 24fps standard, because that is where the majority of human beings reach their
filcker fusion threshold, the point at which they no longer perceive the flicker. It has persisted at that rate for so long because it does seem smooth to most people. However a FFT is very subjective from person to person and even animal to animal. This subjectivity would be why to you the difference between 30fps and 60fps is so great while to others it is not. To an Eagle it would be so glaringly obvious that even your super vision would seem weak.
Now, please stop acting like people who have physiological differences from you are suddenly stupid because they can't tell the difference in certain frame rates. Next you'll be calling me four eyes because I wear glasses.
History note: films originally were slower than 24 fps and had a very perceivable flicker, hence why they were given the nickname flicks.
So now you are confusing refresh rate with motion smoothness, which is the whole point of the 30 vs 60 FPS debate.
You seem to have completley ignored what i said about the cameras panning in games, as oposed to the cameras being still, for the most part in movies.
In movies you can clearly see from frame to frame when the cameras is panning, but it's not so easy to pick up when the cameras are still, as the background itself doesnt move, as oposed to changing in evry frame when the camera is actually being panned.
In games however, the camera is allmost never still. It certanly is allmost never still in a racing game, the background is always changing. Which is how it becomes easier to tell the difference and the cameras are always panning. It is also worth noting that motion blur from the film helps ease out the percived effect that 24 FPS looks smooth enough for some people.
(and even WITH motion blur the difference is still very aparent.)
as far as games go, there's very few that have motion blur, and even fewer that implement it well. PGR4 does a very nice job IMO, but it doesn't disguise the fact that it's running at 30 FPS at all, because the background is always changing, and not all of the screen can have motion blur of course. only the parts that are supposed to be moving fast.
Crysis is another example of an awsome use of motion blur, that game of course doesn't run above 30 FPS with all the settings turned on, even on the best computer setup you can come up with right now (assuming settings are all on high.) and yes, even with motion blur the framerate is still very evident. (and i personally can't wait to have a computer that is fast enough to run it at 60 FPS.)
With games with out motion blur it's just even more painfully obvious.
Now, you can even tell the framerate difference in still shots, it's still very noticable. it's just a lot more noticable when the camera is in motion.
And by the way, at 24 FPS flicker might not be that noticable on a film projector, because there's always light. however on a CRT the flicker results on the monitor going black when it's not displaying an image, and the flicker is really noticable on a CRT even at 60 Hz for ANY human being.
When displaying material that isn't as bright like say your desktop while browsing the flicker isn't that annoying on CRT's. (people might find the flicker more obvious while browsing than say, when viewing a video on a CRT.)
By the way i never called you stupid, or insulted you in anyway. i'm mearly pointing out just how wrong i think your argument is.
Before you reply again, at least take the time to go put the debate to test, boot up a game that runs at a constant 60 FPS, and then go with one that is 30 FPS, hell if you have Tekken 5 for the PS2 (or ps3) and PSP you can do it side by side even.
I'll try to find some videos or 3d demos that people can try out if this debate persists.
And here's a good read for people that really do belive that it isn't that different:
http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_1.html
Oh, and another really simple test you can run that i forgot, is that you can simply look at a replay of GT5
, and while looking at it go into one of the "driving" point of views and the game goes from 30 FPS in the replay mode to 60 FPS when in a driving point of view.
If that isn't enough to convince anyone, they are just in denial, i also found a video that people can download, even though i think i can find better examples, this one is ok.
http://mckack.diinoweb.com/files/kimpix-video/
