> The original choice of 24 frames per second was most probably dictated
> by practicality (it's about the minimum framerate that makes the movie
> look fluid to the human brain, and back in the day it was hard enough
> to create such cameras to be trying anything significantly higher), but
> it might turn out to be a case of serendipity: Maybe it's not only just
> a question of economy (ie. the minimum framerate you can get away with
> so that you don't have to make your camera more complicated and thus
> expensive), but it just happens to be that the motion blur that it causes
> is close to *perfect* for the human brain because it might be close to
> what the brain sees when you move your eyes/head around.
>

I don't think "make the camera more complicated" was the main driver... 
"Minimized the amount of film needed" was probably more important.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message