96fps? 100fps? 192fps?

[Josh Snyder]

If the PJ is right and the evolution of movies is to get the most realistic looking footage possible i.e "looking out from the window" it means that the fps will need to go over 100 to the level human eye won't recognize the difference anymore. What do you think is the final fps we will settle?

 

[Andy Jarosz]

It's pretty accepted that the human eye can't really discern anything above 60 frames per second.

 

[Tobias Ashenheim]

settled.

 

[Jaakko Rinne]

It's pretty accepted that the human eye can't really discern anything above 60 frames per second.

At least in the world of computer games it's pretty easy to spot the difference between 60 and 120fps when viewed side by side.

 

[Demetri Zuev]

the fps will need to go over 100 to the level human eye won't recognize the difference anymore.

Pretty sure that's the future for video games.

Movies? Doubt it.

 

[Chuck Z]

At least in the world of computer games it's pretty easy to spot the difference between 60 and 120fps when viewed side by side.

+++++++

 

[Josh Snyder]

Pretty sure that's the future for video games.

Movies? Doubt it.

Why? It's more like looking out of the window (than 48fps) and that seems to be the new thing.

 

[Les Dittert]

BBC research did tests and determined that number to be closer to 300 fps.

It's pretty accepted that the human eye can't really discern anything above 60 frames per second.

 

[Christopher Mills]

Are we back to the start again, with no SMPTE standard of aquisition and playback?
We will need to deal with the very real concerns of managing the data flow and volume.
More frames per second=more data per second

Also, looks have to catch on to be requested by directors, producers, etc..

Got about a century of audience training for film, 60 years for analog video.. 15 for digital image capture....

Don't have an axe to grind, and was not sitting in the theater..

BUT... just watched some very poorly managed digital projection at a festival, alternating with some well managed, and some well managed emulsion projection... bad exhibition is distracting, no matter what format...
and is yet another part of the experience that needs careful attention.

 

[Erich Ocean]

Heh, I'm running tests right now @ 20fps for a film intended for the iPhone/iPad/iPod, since it's a clean multiple of the actual refresh rate (60Hz) and not the dreaded 30fps "look".

24fps has the judder from the occasional frame getting displayed three cycles instead of two, which I don't like.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Didn't Trumbull say it was 120 or something like that?

 

[PatrickFaith]

Gamma wave binding (i.e. the frequency that we match two sensors), is between 40-100 hz. Sensor "fatigue" can be over 200 hz (i.e. some of the operations are time based on fatigue). The general problem of 3D is that the "binding" problem is very complex, and people are not the same (i.e. thus the range in gamma waves). It get's really tricky when people "prefer" an eye(they primarily see out of one eye, and use the 2nd eye for various sub-functions), thus the binding problem is unique to an individual. Gamma wave wiki ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_wave and more on where research is on binding problems ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_thalamo-cortical_resonance .