nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kyqpqvwr5s27ye0f8a267awgl07zwkwshtqkg9ywnx8ltx2as39v5kcyskvy6jc nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kyqpqfqt6u50t2gahulvv25d5s88ltcvqr5y...
@Ube @Phobos @nprofile1q... @Denpa mode :flag: :cute__i: I can tell the difference between 50Hz, 60Hz, 120Hz, 144Hz and 165Hz.
The reason ~25 fps was historically chosen, was because that was the minimum refresh rate that would be perceived as motion, without inducing much motion sickness, by most people, while also not using too much film (after all, 25 film frames a second is a lot).
Decent video is at minimum 60fps.
The human eye is not a camera - it doesn't have a refresh rate - although above 1000-1500Hz, you can't tell a difference with more Hz.
The reason ~25 fps was historically chosen, was because that was the minimum refresh rate that would be perceived as motion, without inducing much motion sickness, by most people, while also not using too much film (after all, 25 film frames a second is a lot).
Decent video is at minimum 60fps.
The human eye is not a camera - it doesn't have a refresh rate - although above 1000-1500Hz, you can't tell a difference with more Hz.
1
