Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!husc6!m2c!wpi!dseah
From: dseah@wpi.wpi.edu (David I Seah)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: "I want my Apple II"
Message-ID: <12753@wpi.wpi.edu>
Date: 8 May 90 06:13:44 GMT
References: <7758@latcs1.oz.au> <1990May3.213048.11195@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu> <12786@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Reply-To: dseah@wpi.wpi.edu (David I Seah)
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester ,MA
Lines: 18

In article <12786@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>In article <1990May3.213048.11195@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu> toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes:
>>[30fps animation with DMA SCSI, or 17fps in software]
>
>Standard movie frame rate is only 24 frames per second, and it is sufficient.
>Faster frame rates get you nothing; the eye doesn't respond that fast.

The key word here is "sufficient".  24fps is sufficient for conveying the
sensation of motion...go much lower than this and the movies would start
looking like a sequence of still pictures.  The human eye can stops
noting differences in frame rate over _60_ fps.  You can definitely see
the difference when you're looking for it, but I'll agree that 24fps
is sufficient.  Faster would be better!  Motion will look smoother and
more realistic, particularly for fast-moving objects.
-- 
Dave Seah | O M N I D Y N E  S Y S T E M S - M |       "Yargh, cats!"
          |   User Friendly Killing Machines   |  
..............................................................................
I-net: dseah@wpi.wpi.edu - America Online: AFC DaveS (Apple II Art & Graphics)