Crispy™ Why doesn't real life look like it's above 60 FPS?

[Frozen]

Because God runs on console.

 

[KateMicucci]

After watching movies in 60 fps I start noticing how low the framerate is in real life.

 

[iqzulk]

Short answer: no motion blur. That's what primarily creates that distinctive "60fps feel". I did some testing with demoscenic demos and a tool called "kkapture" some years ago. Captured the footage from a chosen demo at 960 frames per second (not in realtime, obviously), then transformed it into 60fps footage by blending each 16 consecutive input frames into one median output one in order to simulate "true" motion blur. Like, input frames numbers 1 to 16 would form the output frame number 1, input frames numbers 17 to 32 would form the output frame number 2, and so on. Guess what, the resulting 960fps-to-60fps footage looked much softer and much more "lifelike", than the raw 60fps footage that didn't have that kind of specifically retained "true" motion blur.

One of the early examples of my 960-to-60 experiments can be seen here. It's a footage corresponding to a something like the first third (a bit less maybe) of a demoscene production, called Rupture. That demo, as far as I remember, doesn't employ any techniques for faking motion blur, so you can easily learn what it looks like in true 60fps, without any motion blur, just by watching any 60fps youtube video of it, or by running the actual executable of it on a 60fps monitor or in 60fps mode.

P.S. By the way, in case of cinema, for 24 fps, you can observe the difference between almost fully retained motion blur and no motion blur quite simply. No motion blur happens in low budget sci-fi movies with some cheap CGI. There is a very characteristic choppiness to that very CGI that's very easy to spot, once you know what it generally looks like, that occurs specifically because the intermediary frames for realistic motion blur trails haven't been rendered (and subsequently blended in) due to budgetary constraints. For full motion blur your would need. Well, basically, this thing is called "360 degree shutter" and it is only achievable with digital cameras, so that it only became more or less prominent in movies in the last 10 years. An excellent example of this technique can be seen in Michael Mann's "Blackhat", one of the last scenes in the movie, that takes place during a festival.

 

[janior]

have you tried updating your drivers or restarting the pc?

 

[Makabb]

God made the world 30 fps because all the power went into graphics, mmo and simulation.

God knows his priorities, everyone who buys a 144hz gsync monitors, don't.

 

[Zarniwoop]

What was the point behind 144Hz anyway when 120Hz monitors already existed? I mean besides milking idiots out of their money of course.

The same as 120hz when 60 already existed. Milking idiots out of their money.

 

[Lutte]

Retinas have incredibly shitty resolution

Actually, the resolution is pretty amazing.. but only at the center of our vision. A small area in the center can capture a very sharp image, while our peripheral vision is actually so bad we can -barely- see anything and it is as you spoke, the brain reconstructing the image based on memory. The only thing we use our peripheral vision for is movement detection to a certain extent. Brain bugs during image reconstruction is how static 2d image can have illusions that move when your eyes move.

The thing about watching a computer monitor's fluidity of movement is that we can basically mostly rely on our most capable part of our central vision to capture the image. Unless you're like sitting in front of a 200" monitor or something.