You know life is about always looking for
something better than you have now and television is no exception In this case “better” means pictures which
are more like real life and we could do this in several ways One is to add more detail, more definition
to the picture, the other is to use 3D but we can also increase the number of
pictures per second we see. How does this work? Let’s go back to the building blocks. Television is a series of
consecutive images and the more there are per second,
the better. This is a still picture, so, if you like, it’s zero images
per second. Now let’s have a look at two
images per second… It’s better.
Five images per second… It’s better. Ten images per second…
Better. Twenty-five images per second…
It’s looking pretty good. And you know in television we also
use fifty and sixty. So you may wonder why we might want
to increase the number of pictures per second beyond these kind of values.
There are good reasons. So the first reason for more pictures
per second may be to improve what we may call the look of reality. When we look at a real object our mind
takes pictures at a rate which changes and the light entering our eye is
actually a continuous stream, so that whenever our mind wants a picture
it’s ready and waiting to be grabbed. Now if we increase the number of images
per second in a television system we get closer and closer to that situation
that whenever our mind wants a picture it’s there. And this is why increasing
the picture rate makes the pictures look like more real life, because it makes the
image stream look more like a continuous stream. Now there is a second reason for increasing
the number of images per second and we may call this improving the way
movement is seen in television. Now we can create movement in a scene very
simply just by panning a camera across a secene. When you do this you’ll see that there is
judder in the pictures. This is because we simply don’t have enough pictures to
make the motion go smoothly. And here’s another way to show you how the number of pictures per second affects
the movement that we see on television. Have a look at this bicycle wheel. Now
if I turn the wheel very slowly you’ll see things exactly as I do,
with the spokes moving around. But if I go a little bit faster well for you the spokes are going to be
more blurred than they are for me. And then if I go really fast for you the spokes are going to
appear to move backwards. All of these things, the blurring and
the backward movement can be helped by having a higher number
of pictures per second. So there are two overall ways in which
having more pictures per second helps. First of all by making the movement
more natural, and secondly by making the whole
experience better, because the light enters your eye in the same way as it
does in normal viewing conditions. So how many pictures the second will we
need? Well 100 and 120 are candidates, And some people are thinking about 300
and 600. But there’s a lot of studying to be done
and for the moment we can only say that the only way is up!

Only registered users can comment.

1. LordAugastus says:

With the higher frame rate than 60. I wouldnt know how much higher >1000 perhaps, but I am wondering if there would be sync. issues with the rate at which the brain processes images vs the rate it takes those images in. Im sure it would just be a headache/ eye ache from having such exposure would be interesting to test with fps higher than 10,000.

2. C B says:

does this guy know how to ride a bike?

4. George Martin says:

I'm sold.

5. franktherabbit says:

Now this is the question that needs to be answered.

6. LordAugastus says:

I was merely referring to the film based fps, not the digital imagery. There will always be the dark area between the images on the film, but it is difficult to create such high fps, as film can melt due to various factor. If we recreate that condition in digital film and play the tape than there (in my theatrical understanding) could be a sync issues with the brain reading black/image screens

7. bashbrannigan says:

When you go to a movie you don't want reality anyways.

To an extent true, however I suppose it depends more specifically on the film and genre.

Interesting comment found on Wikipedia on the subject: "Criticisms of the format include assertions that the "cinematic look" is lost with the use of high frame rates. Film critics have complained that 3D HFR looks like video games, HDTV, live theater or a cheap home movie."

10. eleanor bron says:

Is it weird that I find David Wood extremely attractive? Yes, I am a female nerd 🙂

11. NM64 says:

Now that YouTube supports 60fps videos for HD resolutions, perhaps a new follow-up video that also demonstrates said 60fps is in order?

12. guily6669 says:

The problem is all videos I see at 60 FPS look more artificial than the 2430 ones.

I prefer the blured ones than the 60 fake crap videos that look like Real life going like a Ferrari on track, it even seems that real life is speeding up a lot on the 60 FPS videos… And hell, in real life I see VERY different to those 60 FPS videos, in my eyes it actually looks more like those 30FPS videos, but just without much blur, the 60 FPS already look like a game with fake 3D strange motion.

Now for gaming, 120FPS is the best, but the problem is really having raw power to run upcoming games locked at that rates…… €€€€€€€€€€€€€€€

ps: In my opinion I dont think movies will win anything by being filmed at 60 FPS, unless they ended up having to add fake motion blur over the video again to look like its cinematic again…

13. ThatGuy Man says:

I thought extremely high frame rates = slow motion