I'm not sure I buy the "this isn't as much about perception as expectation" explanation.
I wonder whether the brightness of films--images projected from a powerful lamp onto a white screen; or through a bright LCD screen, etc.--causes our eyes have less natural motion blur between frames, as each frame is so bright that it overpowers the previous frame's residual burn-in.
If that's the case, then coupled with the lack of intrinsic motion blur in high-framerate film, it might explain why it looks so weird: there's no motion blur happening in the film nor in our eyes, and it's simply too crisp.
I wonder whether the brightness of films--images projected from a powerful lamp onto a white screen; or through a bright LCD screen, etc.--causes our eyes have less natural motion blur between frames, as each frame is so bright that it overpowers the previous frame's residual burn-in.
If that's the case, then coupled with the lack of intrinsic motion blur in high-framerate film, it might explain why it looks so weird: there's no motion blur happening in the film nor in our eyes, and it's simply too crisp.