[0xffff2]

I don't know what the methodology of that site is, but it's certainly flawed when it comes to computer monitors. Based on their calculator, I shouldn't notice the difference between 1080p and 2160p when sitting 2 feet from my 16" laptop monitor, but the difference is night and day. I don't want to get into a philosophical debate, but if I can see the difference that your equation says I shouldn't be able to see, the equation is wrong, not reality.

[p1necone]

This reminds me of the pervasive "your eyes can only see 24fps" myth, I guess people crave evidence that what they have is "good enough" and others are just being elitist?

[vetinari]

Well, you will definitely see more than 24 fps, but that might or might not translate to better experience. If you want the cinematic effect for a movie, it will be 24 fps, otherwise you will get the soap opera effect.

For other uses, like fluid animations or games, you want as high as possible.

[p1necone]

I wonder if the "Cinematic" look at ~24fps seeeming less tacky than the "Soap Opera" look at ~60fps has just been trained into us via familiarity though.

If we lived in an alternate universe where cinema was all 60fps and soap operas were 24 would we think that 24fps looked tacky instead?

On the other hand I think there's definitely some objective effects in play here too - CGI is a lot easier to make convincing at a lower framerate and added motion blur.

[jjeaff]

Peter Jackson thinks so. He pushed for 60fps in his movies even though people complained. His theory is that once people acclimate, they will get a better experience.