The reason TV produce smooth motion is not because of the blurring effect but because they really work at 60 frames per seconds (NTSC) or 50 fps (PAL).
But the effect is achieved only with interlaced TV (CRT).
The motion on films is not smooth at all, shaky at best. That’s why cameramen make sure not to move their camera too much and use a lot of tricks to avoid "motion sickness". In one hand they do use full frames (aka progressive frames) but only at 24 fps.
That’s not exactly what you call "Motion blur" to be "the biggest reason TV and film get away with smaller framerates".
However, yes, to have a good motion you need to have a good framerate.
It basically says: Perceived resolution = pixels x replacement rate.
and the magic number is known: it’s 48 fps.
The main problem is not only having the game/software logic to send the frames to the display fast enough but also having the display being able to display them!
CRT were able to do it through interlaced frames, but mainstream flat panel technologies (plasma/LCD) basically can't. OLED should do better on the near future.
That said when there is no motion, 1 fps is just fine :-)
Motion blur really is the reason film gets away with smaller framerates. A movie played on a computer's LCD screen (not interlaced) at 24fps simply doesn't look as choppy as a game at 24 fps on the same same screen. This is also the reason CG movies (e.g. Pixar) use motion blur.
1 fps, 1 dpi. This is too low even for a game like "Simon."
As a musician, I consider 1/100 of a second just a bit beyond human perception. 1/48th of a second is something like "magician sleight of hand time" to me.
Of course, for audio, the brain is very sensitive to the lag between left ear and right ear hearing the same sound, as that's part of how sound direction is determined.
>If you were sitting in a dark room, you would notice a flash of bright light a lot shorter than 1/100 of a second.
You can see cosmic rays that last a lot shorter than even that. The real test isn't a single flash of light, but how quickly we can distinguish two separate flashes covering more or less the same spot on the retina. i.e. how high do you have to turn up a strobe light before it starts being perceived like an ordinary light? Since old school fluorescent lights (in good working order) had only slight visible flicker at the edges of peripheral vision, I'd say it is around 120hz.
But measuring the duration of a tone or a light coming on for an interval -- this is of interest to me as a musician. And 1/100th of a second is way too short to notice reliably.
You can notice a single frame of light at faster than 200FPS, but it's a lot harder to notice a frame of darkness at 100FPS. That has more to do with signal response and nerves taking longer to drop down after a lot of stimulus than vice-versa. Appearance of fluidity has to do with a succession of similar frames, not the interjection of a vastly dissimilar one.
I'm not sure what you mean. The inputs (eg. HDMI) don't support the bandwidth necessary for 120 Hz, but if they did, the LCD could display them. Interpolating frames is similar to upscaling DVDs to an HDTV. You make a better picture out of the inputs available.
Since framerate choice is not usually a technical but an editorial decision in order to create a particular effect, then saying interpolated frames create a "better picture" is hugely debatable.
The motion on films is not smooth at all, shaky at best. That’s why cameramen make sure not to move their camera too much and use a lot of tricks to avoid "motion sickness". In one hand they do use full frames (aka progressive frames) but only at 24 fps.
That’s not exactly what you call "Motion blur" to be "the biggest reason TV and film get away with smaller framerates".
However, yes, to have a good motion you need to have a good framerate.
You can read a very good interview of James Cameron about it: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983864.html?categoryid=...
It basically says: Perceived resolution = pixels x replacement rate. and the magic number is known: it’s 48 fps.
The main problem is not only having the game/software logic to send the frames to the display fast enough but also having the display being able to display them!
CRT were able to do it through interlaced frames, but mainstream flat panel technologies (plasma/LCD) basically can't. OLED should do better on the near future.
That said when there is no motion, 1 fps is just fine :-)