Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Rudy Fischmann's avatar

So this reminds me of something that has always intrigued me. Historically in the USA and much of Asia, video was always presented at 29.97 frames per second... or you could say "sides" of a visual moment. Film and most video in other parts of the world was always presented at 24 frames per second because it gave a more artistic look (often described as"cinematic") though broadcast format capabilities had something to do with it (NTSC vs PAL). But that has shifted over time as things went from analog to digital and most entertainment anywhere in the world is now presented at 24 fps. but formatted for 60p (it gets super techy but it's kind of a side point in what I'm getting at). Except sports and news, which are now often presented at approximately 60 fps. And surveillance camera footage. Objectively, 60 fps is the most accurate to how humans perceive motion, but our brain appreciates the feel of 24 fps more on an enjoyment level. And most, except me, think 60 fps is great for sports and news. I almost always prefer the more cinematic look in about anything I watch, except maybe security camera footage. But I'm weird. Or maybe I'm not, but this is how video is presented much like your circle example if you were to compare "uncircles" made of 24, 29.97, and 60 sides. I don't really have a question, but I think this "less is more for the brain's perception" idea is really interesting.

Expand full comment
Daniel Nest's avatar

Upon seeing the word "100-sided Polygon," thousands of D&D fans cried out in unison, imagining in horror what the die version of that would look like.

I used to be pretty good at math in school / high-school, although I opted to take mid-level math during my International Baccalaureat to instead take high level Economics and Physics, from what I remember.

Expand full comment
19 more comments...

No posts