30fps videos look very jarring to me, I almost always notice “tearing” or “shuddering” - even when in a cinema. Enabling motion interpolation / frame rate up scaling usually fixes this for me.
It’s so distracting and at times almost painful for me to watch without it that at times I’ll use a tool (Topaz Video AI) to re-render videos to 50-60FPS.
I can't stand motion interpolation. Turned off on every TV I own. Will literally walk away and do something else if it's on a (non-sports) TV in public. There's something "too smooth" about it that irks me.
Biology is weird so I say just give people the options to pick what works for them.
https://www.portsmouthctc.org.uk/a-fighter-pilots-guide-to-s...
I expect refresh rate is similar, given that... if a substantial portion of your subjective perception is mentally fabricated, then your brain physiology contributes, and that's set during childhood.
For reference, I grew up on NTSC screens (29.97 interlaced frames per second).
Considering it as 30 interlaced frames per second isn't really accurate. It's 60 fields per second. A lot of content intended for interlaced broadcast is not 30 fps broken into fields, it's 60 distinct half pictures per second.
(Excuse my rounding)
[0] In urban/bike areas, always open a car door with your opposite hand (e.g. driver's side with right hand). It forces you to turn your body, which allows you to look behind you, which lets you notice bikers approaching from behind before you open the door and splat them.
At the same time, I'm pretty confident that this is a subjective phenomenon. My parents have it on all their TVs and my mother both prefers it and notices immediately if video isn't 60fps or equivalent, while my father says he doesn't notice the difference.
We were watching an action/fighting movie with swords and other martial arts, and I distinctly saw these graceful arcs of the actors' limbs and weapons turned into polygons. The motion interpolation clearly inferred linear transitions between the different positions captured in the actual frames. Imagine a large swing tracing out an octagonal path with all the physical unreality that would entail.
It seemed like I was the only one in the room who perceived this travesty.
Also, you get used to it after a while. At first I was similarly jarred by the smoothness, as if it were fast forwarded, but after a few hours of getting used to it, when I saw 24 FPS content, it was literally unwatchable as it looked like a slideshow to me.
There is something about 24fps that I believe may have something to do with how the eye or brain works that makes viewing more immersive. Perhaps it’s due to historical cultural reasons, but I’m not sure that totally explains it.
FWIW I play valorant on a 390fps monitor so I am not a “the eye can only see 60fps” truther.
Peripheral vision has a lot of rods (instead of cones) which are more sensitive to rapid motion. I can certainly pick up flicker and "perceive the frames" more clearly when looking in my peripheral vision.
Same goes for the old CRT monitors: 60 Hz was an absolute no-no, 85 was tolerable but higher was better.
Edit: CRTs were worse, of course, because they were constantly flashing light-dark, unlike LCDs which simply transition from frame to frame.
Maybe one day the real-time implementation will be good enough, but I find that it’s shockingly bad most of the time.