Oliver Seitz wrote: >> 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. Is there any proof of this an where can this proof be found, I'm very interested. > So I don't agree that > such a frame rate is just sold as a pseudo-benefit to rise the price. > > Greets, > Kiste > > _______________________________________________ > MPlayer-users mailing list > MPlayer-users at mplayerhq.hu > https://lists.mplayerhq.hu/mailman/listinfo/mplayer-users
