Re:Sony and LG stop making 3D TV sets
by overcast on Tuesday January 24, 2017 @11:38AM
(#13472854)
No, you'd complain they'd look blurry, and smoothed out. 60fps makes everything look sterile, and rough. Because you see every single minute detail on everything. Rough edges included. It's like using anti-aliasing and more recently motion blur in games, blur out the edges, and it's more "lifelike". Make everything a billion frames per second, and absolute, and it looks uncanny.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
AA isn't used to make things look more "lifelike", it's to make up for the fact that you're looking at a 1080p image (or lower) and since you're dealing with pixels shit looks jagged without it.
On that note, to hell with motion blur in games. The first thing I look for when I notice a game has it enabled by default is a way to turn it off, I'm not watching a film and responsiveness is much more important when I'm not sitting there mindlessly consuming content being played for me.
Right, so real life isn't made of jagged lines, and blurring that gives illusion they are not.
Regarding motion blur, I agree, it's way overdone in games, and I disable as well.
> Right, so real life isn't made of jagged lines, and blurring that gives illusion they are not.
Blurring is a hack to deal with the fact that higher res is expensive. Higher resolution is preferable over AA if you can afford the monitor and the GPUs to drive it.
How do you know what another person would complain about? I've seen the Hobbit films in both 24 and 48 FPS, and the higher frame rate looked better. Period. I also don't watch soap operas or sports, so I have no aversion to a technically superior image.
>How do you know what another person would complain about?
The same reason we know what people would find too salty or too spicy. Because, outliers aside, humans tend to have the same psychology.