User blog comment:Zolnir/60 Frames Per Second/@comment-9090085-20141213104539

It actually looked "clunky-er" half the time at 60 fps. Granted, that might be because I'm using a Window XP dinosaur; or because I'm using Firefox; or because I've got 200+ tabs up.

Or because Youtube caps out at 30 fps.

The distinction between interactive and non-interactive mediums is actually pretty important in regards to framerate: Games running at 60fps really are smother then 30fps(alas, I can only tell the difference when the two are side by side), but the big difference is that a 60fps game is more responsive. It's the reason just about all fighting games run at 60fps, because tighter controls are absolutely vital for the split-second timing in those games.

On the other hand, the advantage of more fps in a movie can be ethereal or even detrimental: When I first watched The Hobbit, the first five minutes were so blurry it hurt my eyes so bad I couldn't watch properly. But after those five minutes, it looked just like any other movie to me. Similarly, when I watched The Disappearance of Haruhi Suzumiya, the scene near the start when Kyon climbed the stairs stood out to me because it looked sluggish and even unnatural - it was also the only time I could tell that it had a higher framerate at all, looking like a better-drawn version of the show the rest of the time.

I guess in my case increased fps in movies is a little like 3D - in a few scenes it'll look good(where the layers wrap you up and suck you in); in a bunch of scenes it'll look terrible(where you can see the individual layers like a cheap pop-up book); and rest of the time you won't notice the difference(where the layers merge together becoming largely indistinguishable). (At least that's the conclusion I came to after watching several movies(including The Hobbit) both with and without 3D.)