http://www.wired.com/2014/09/cinema-science-frame-rates/

 

" At 48 fps, the rate Jackson used in The Hobbit, the scene looked more like real life and somehow less cinematic. There was less motion blur: Glass vases on a table in the foreground and the text on a poster in the background stayed more sharply focused as the camera panned to follow the waitress. At 60 fps, a rate James Cameronreportedly considered for his upcoming Avatar sequel, this was even more true. "

 

The comments are interesting too so far.  

 

This makes me wonder what things will be like when we can capture in 3D with cameras that record all of the light information instead of a single distance of focus; can it be done omnidirectionally? And then play them back in an oculus rift at 120fps or more.  Imagine being somewhere else completely, at least visually, possibly adding a completely authentic auditory experience too.  Sit on the sidelines of a football game, or chose your seat?  Fly your drone to pick up the groceries that you picked off the shelves virtually?  Go do a different planet: The Moon, Mars (not so much sound), swim under the ice of Titan?  I've had chronic case of wanderlust.  Where do you want to go today?

In movies, motion blur is introduced when recording and has nothing to do with playback. There is little relevance to video game frame rates.

 

 

In movies, motion blur is introduced when recording and has nothing to do with playback.

  The article doesn't disagree with you on that.    I think it is relevant because the old theory was that anything over 25fps couldn't even be seen, made no difference to us.  That anyone that said gaming at 60fps was absolutely necessary for play-ability and immersion was hallucinating.   This article disagrees with that, shows that there is a difference.  

Many people can sense the difference between higher framerates and 24/25 fps in video games. It really depends on how good your eyesight is.

 

I also look forward to some point in time when  3D video is not just a curiosity. Unfortunately, having to wear a headset or special glasses is problem going to keep 3D out of the mainstream for a few more years. But it's coming. There's tons of money to be made for the first company that can produce a 3D display technology that simulates the way we see actual see physical objects. Probably the Chinese, the Koreans or someone working for DARPA already has it.

Unfortunately, having to wear a headset or special glasses is problem going to keep 3D out of the mainstream for a few more years.

   I saw something about a TV at CES 2013 once about a 3D TV that did not require glasses.  

 

 

I worked for the company that invented printing with the prism/Fresnel -like lenses to make a 3D or animation through different angles.  I have samples of the first print of that kind.  multiple images printed through thin strips, the lenses give the impression that the strip is wide and a clear image emerges depending on what angle the prism/lenses bends the light at.

 

 

On the Hisense TV at the end you can kind of see the rippling as the Fresnel like lense on the TV makes it ripple/wave as the camera walks through different angles.