Defend this
Defend this
Other urls found in this thread:
healthline.com
twitter.com
24 fps looks better in movement when simulate real world shutter speed/exposure time
24 fps is more cinematic
user, that's a picture
fucking retard both clearly show 90mph
Left and right look just about the same to me
The human eye literally can't see more than 24 fps, that's why movies are shot in 24 fps.
1 fps
No, one is 24 and the other is 60
not true, it started as a budget decision. we got used to it.
This. The image at 60fps is moving faster than the image at 24.
Defend this
>between 30 and 60 frames per second
healthline.com
Is it better to buy ps2 copies or play ps2 emulator on pc
That's just what a low frame rate like 60 looks like. Anyone can play PUBG at 120+ these days.
24 for games is retarded because games rely on frames for precise controls. This is why plugging a controller for 30 fps is better than using a KBM in 30 fps because of accurate it is.
the minimum threshold for controllers is 30. 60 for KBM.
24 is for movies, anything above looks retarded.
wtf is this real?
Ridiculous, it looks exactly the same. This is what PC fags are screaming about all the time?
They're paying for snake oil, like people that spend $7000 on headphone shit thinking they can hear above 20hz.
i think OP is referring to 24 frames per second (FPS) uses less wattages per hour then 60 FPS's. OP is thinking very green and it's very cash money of him thinking of energy saving(s)
Also, playing racing simulators with a wheel feels like shit at 30 FPS.
depends on race