Well... Blessed are the believers, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven)))
Dimitri, 24 frames per second is not enough for smooth motion.
In games the frame rate plays a key role, at 24 fps the movement slows down, at 60 it goes smoothly.
That's why 60 fps is considered standard, with it there is no noticeable jerking.
All films are screened at 24 fps (and shot at 60), and they show the usual lags that we have grown accustomed to since childhood and do not pay attention to.
Look at The Hobbit, they shot it at 48 fps, people commented on it on search engines saying "Not used to it, too slow, it feels like watching the news.
Now, going digital at 25-30 full frames, the picture becomes more jerky than with analogue 50 half-frames.
it's not about digital, it's about the source of the video signal, I wrote - there's a dime a dozen of video formats for filming, and the same number of formats for video playback
and all of these are always converted or interfaced
video will be recorded in these formats and then it needs to be either broadcast on tv or recorded onto a medium - each format has its own format both on tv and on the medium
Each video source format has its own structure both in terms of sampling frequency (MHz) and aspect ratio and .....
Often the video source formats do not coincide with the broadcast formats, so they either solve the problem or get bogged down... In theory this problem should be solved by digital television with the switchover to digital signal sources
Don't confuse God's gift with the egg: the frame rate of the video and the monitor's refresh rate.
My God, 2 pages down, your words "24 frames per second is enough"
I repeat: not enough! Take two monitors, one has 60 hertz and the other 120. On both of them you turn on a movie or a game with 24 frames and 60.
So, on both monitors, 24 frames will stutter, especially in the dynamics. The refresh rate doesn't play a role here, it only says flicker, and if it's less than 60, it's going to slow down.
The question was originally about smoothness of motion, to which you objected.
So, for maximum motion smoothness you need 60 frames and 60 hertz minimum
Justice for All: My God, 2 pages down, your words "24 frames per second is enough"
I repeat: not enough! Take two monitors, one at 60 hertz and the other at 120. On both of them you turn on a movie or a game with 24 frames and 60.
So, on both monitors, 24 frames will stutter, especially in the dynamics. The refresh rate doesn't play a role here, it only says flicker, and if it's less than 60, it's going to slow down.
The question was originally about smoothness of motion, to which you objected.
So, for maximum motion smoothness you need 60 frames and 60 hertz minimum
And what does "slow motion" mean? What is that? A very interesting term from video engineering.
24 fps was and still is enough for normal smoothness. All video has existed at this frequency and continues to do so. Everything around it has been spinning and is still spinning.
Justice for All: Oh my god, page 2 at the bottom, your words "24 frames per second is enough".
I repeat: not enough! Take two monitors, one at 60 hertz and the other at 120. On both of them you turn on a movie or a game with 24 frames and 60.
So, on both monitors, 24 frames will stutter, especially in the dynamics. The refresh rate doesn't play a role here, it only says flicker, and if it's less than 60, it's going to slow down.
The question was originally about smoothness of motion, to which you objected.
So, for maximum motion smoothness you need 60 fps and 60 hertz minimum
Well, your example with the games is not quite correct, there are other problems, but essentially the same: the video source - videocard and receiver - monitor
it's a scientifically established fact that the human eye can see 24 frames per second, there's no need to deny it's a fact
But the difference between 24 fps and whiter is that the eye only sees a change in the saturation and clarity of the picture
The "Hobbit" example is also incorrect - again, there are problems with interfacing / deinterlacing of footage shot on professional camcorders and post-processing
Now I downloaded three videos from YouTube, two of them at 25 fps, and the third at 29.97. The whole world lives with this frame rate and everything is fine, everyone is happy, no one is annoyed.
Dmitry Fedoseev: I have now downloaded three clips from youtube, two of them at 25 fps, and the third at 29.97. The whole world lives with this frame rate and everything is fine, everyone is happy with it, and no one is annoyed.
And if you try to convert these clips simple video converter can not automatically deinterlay correctly render, then on some video will appear periodic jerks - and so in the example, about analog and digital TV, that there that there on the output will be the image source TV, but if it was not done correctly coupled video source, then there will be periodic jerks, so to say compensation for skipping frames
Is that all you know about film and television?
(you're out.)
the drain counts)
Well... Blessed are the believers, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven)))
Well... Blessed are the believers, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven)))
dmitri, 24 frames per second is not enough for smooth motion.
Don't confuse God's gift with the egg: the frame rate of the video and the monitor's refresh rate.
frequencies down 50 to 25, 48 to 24, 60 to 30
Now, going digital at 25-30 full frames, the picture becomes more jerky than with analogue 50 half-frames.
it's not about digital, it's about the source of the video signal, I wrote - there's a dime a dozen of video formats for filming, and the same number of formats for video playback
and all of these are always converted or interfaced
these are the formats for video recording
video will be recorded in these formats and then it needs to be either broadcast on tv or recorded onto a medium - each format has its own format both on tv and on the medium
Each video source format has its own structure both in terms of sampling frequency (MHz) and aspect ratio and .....
Often the video source formats do not coincide with the broadcast formats, so they either solve the problem or get bogged down... In theory this problem should be solved by digital television with the switchover to digital signal sources
Don't confuse God's gift with the egg: the frame rate of the video and the monitor's refresh rate.
My God, 2 pages down, your words "24 frames per second is enough"
And what does "slow motion" mean? What is that? A very interesting term from video engineering.
24 fps was and still is enough for normal smoothness. All video has existed at this frequency and continues to do so. Everything around it has been spinning and is still spinning.
Oh my god, page 2 at the bottom, your words "24 frames per second is enough".
Well, your example with the games is not quite correct, there are other problems, but essentially the same: the video source - videocard and receiver - monitor
it's a scientifically established fact that the human eye can see 24 frames per second, there's no need to deny it's a fact
But the difference between 24 fps and whiter is that the eye only sees a change in the saturation and clarity of the picture
The "Hobbit" example is also incorrect - again, there are problems with interfacing / deinterlacing of footage shot on professional camcorders and post-processing
I have now downloaded three clips from youtube, two of them at 25 fps, and the third at 29.97. The whole world lives with this frame rate and everything is fine, everyone is happy with it, and no one is annoyed.
And if you try to convert these clips simple video converter can not automatically deinterlay correctly render, then on some video will appear periodic jerks - and so in the example, about analog and digital TV, that there that there on the output will be the image source TV, but if it was not done correctly coupled video source, then there will be periodic jerks, so to say compensation for skipping frames