> Dark Shadow wrote: >>> Off-Topic, if one doesn't need slow-motion and the human-eye needs .05 >>> seconds to view a picture, what is the benefit of those very high(er) >>> framerates ? >> >> I am not sure I just thought if I was going to spend a lot of money on >> a camcorder I should get a good one. Plus I thought it may help >> considering I will be recording races and other high speed things with >> it. > You know how marketing-guys think, we customers think ? > More is better, expensive will be better. > The smaller digital cameras got worse when resolution got above > 8mega-pixels, because the physical distance of the pixels caused > interference and for that reason resulted in noticable more noise, which > was compensated for with software-noise reduction, resulting in less > picture quality. Reading/Studying Camera test-results may be a good > thing to invest in some time. There have been improvements that lead to worsening things, but a frame rate of 25fps is not a constant that gives the best impression. It's a number that has been set a long time ago as a compromise between human vision, technical possibilities and cost efficiency. Pushing megapixels to the max is a bad idea while keeping the sensor size the same, I agree. 1920x1080 is about 2 megapixels, that's not to much. But 50-60fps is a number that definitely improves movement reception. So I don't agree that such a frame rate is just sold as a pseudo-benefit to rise the price. Greets, Kiste
