[bawolff]

I'm confused.

You don't think having 2x the visual data is better independent of experience?

> Obviously there are 2x the visual data because there are 2x the frames, but that's borderline tautological.

Isn't any straight forward application of a dictionary definition borderline tautological?

[Veen]

> You don't think having 2x the visual data is better independent of experience?

What does "better independent of experience" mean? The experience is the whole point, and its quality is not linearly proportional to the amount of data on screen.

[ryandrake]

That's like saying white images are better than black ones, because white is encoded as 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, which is numerically greater than 0x00, 0x00, 0x00. Quantifiably better! We're taking a totally subjective preference and saying one is objectively better, based entirely on some arbitrary measure of the "amount of visual data". I personally think "greater visual data" looks worse than "less visual data." This is a totally subjective preference! Is this preference objectively wrong?

[bawolff]

I'd say its like saying white images are whiter than black ones. Whether or not you want a white image is subjective. How white a white image is objective.

[vehemenz]

Better for whom or for what purpose? Remember, we are using value-laden terms here.

The parent essentially said higher frame rate is better because higher frame rate is better.

There are many reasons for which higher frame rate is worse.

2x frame rate requires twice the file size. It makes CGI, practical effects, costuming, and lighting more difficult. Most importantly, the audience doesn't like it.

[rightbyte]

Higher frame rate makes CGI special effects harder to make convincing. E.g. the Hobbit.