Well, if you coincidentally look in the moment the picture changes it is better to have a TV with 100 or 200
Fps is not Fps.
An old tube based Monitor needs a higher update frequency
then an LCD screen, simply to make a steady picture.
If you look with a slow motion camera at a tybe monitor,
you will see it flickering, because
the illuminated pixels loose their shining quicker than
the new update comes.
In an LCD screen, the pixel keeps the same brigness, as
it is illuminated by a lamp.
In cinema movies, as said, there are only 25 frames per second used.
but the movement that where fimed, are not static pictues,
as you might think like in a 3d engine. They are exposiors
of moving objects onto film. So their movement is blurred
(motion blurr)
in a 3D engine, the objects usually have no blurr, and
are just the same as if the object stands still.
The human eye can recognise a difference between
objects that are moving tick by tick, as single frames
(as in 3d engines) and as a blurred motion over time as in
normal filmography.
George Lucas used a moving camera for each frame
when making the shots in Star-Wars. During the flight
on the death-star.
The motionblurr was captured with a moving camera, and long
exposure time for each frame.
Thats why it looks cooler than normal frame-by-frame animation
movies.
3d engines should have a high framecount, to simulate the motionblurr effect. As the single objectpositions cant be seen
in such a high framecount.
---
If someone comes up with a cool motion-blurr postprocessing
for a 3D engine, you yould have fluitly playing (looking) games
at 25 FPS...
Maybe one day that will be a GFX card function.
But its not mere smearing. It needs to somehow morph
moving objects over the screen, as if they where
composed of multiple inbetween-motions.
