Quote:
Originally Posted by johnmeyer
Finally, the whole issue of interlacing comes up because the human brain really can tell a difference -- and it is not a subtle difference -- between 24 temporal events per second and 60 temporal events per second. As has already been mentioned, it is not as fun to watch sports at 24p or even 30p, as ESPN streams on the web. Therefore there is a lot of incentive to design a system that can transmit and display 60 temporal events per second, but at a price that most people can afford, and with technology that can actually be mass-produced.
|
This is a very funny statement to make because it's a lot easier to just do away with interlacing and go with 60 frames per second, progressive. Sure, bandwidth is doubled, but only in terms of sample count. This is literally not a problem with lossy compression. I'm all ears if you can find a study proving me wrong.
Far as I can tell, feisty2 is the only person in this thread claiming that 24 fps is good enough. I think everyone else agrees that having 60 pictures per second allows for far more fluid motion than just 24 or 30.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnmeyer
Finally, the people here in this forum who seem to "hate" interlacing also claim to never watch TV. I am truly puzzled as to why they even care about something that they don't have to deal with.
|
This is so far off base I don't even know how to reply to this, but lol, you tried.