From: "Vadim Pokotilov" <vpoko AT earthlink DOT net>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Allegro and dirty rectangles and fps
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 12:51:22 -0500
References: <Pine DOT SOL DOT 3 DOT 95 DOT 990217080711 DOT 2544A-100000 AT uxmcc8> <36CB8E75 DOT 3599 AT club-internet DOT fr> <MPG DOT 11364a01a0b45ebf98a4a9 AT news DOT freeserve DOT net>
X-Posted-Path-Was: not-for-mail
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
X-ELN-Date: 19 Feb 1999 17:50:42 GMT
X-ELN-Insert-Date: Fri Feb 19 10:45:08 1999
Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3
Lines: 23
NNTP-Posting-Host: port224-58.dial.cambridge.l3.net
Message-ID: <7ak89i$2bn$1@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Also, just to add to this thread, any framerate over 60fps is unrealistic
because the human eye, on average, only refreshes 60 times per second.

Cinema film is recorded at 24 frames per second.

TV is recorded at 60 FIELDS per second. 60 times a second, every OTHER line
refreshes. That's why it looks smoother than it is.

Andrew R. Gillett wrote in message ...
>In comp.os.msdos.djgpp, Ludvig Larsson wrote:
>> Well, you need about 24 fps to get something good enough to fool
>> the brain, Film at cinema has a 24fps and Most european TV 25fps(IIRC).
>
>I saw a post in another recently which perfectly explained why TV/film
>look so realistic even though they have a low refresh rate: motion blur.
>So in a game, you ideally want more than 40fps, as motion blur is not
>present.
>
>--
>Andrew Gillett       http://argnet.fatal-design.com/      ICQ: See homepage
>"Aaaaaaah. My poor lamb. But do you not understand?" - Richard Herring