rs said:
However, a video is more than just the scene compressed into a two dimensional output medium. It has the added dimension of time. Just like X and Y resolution, the more there is, the more likely it is to trick the eye into appearing like reality.
I will agree that it has "added dimension of time," as I have already pointed out that frames per second is a "function of time."
I will also agree that it does "trick the eye," but it doesn't take much to trick the eye. For example, you ever heard the phrase "the hand is quicker than the eye"? Just wave your hand across your face (just once), did you see it? No? Or how about this illusion -> take a pen, hold it in the middle and wiggle it fast... you will see the pen bend.
Ok.. with that out of the way... I do not, however, agree with the following statement...
To say the way one of the captured dimensions is divided into individual elements is not a resolution is a misnomer.
...and we can agree to disagree if you want...
I see frames per second as individual and as separate from resolution.
24 individual pictures with slight movements inbetween them, and large movements from first picture to the last picture, shown to us in 1 second is what constitutes "motion pictures"
Like this:
Can you see more detail in 30p as opposed to 24p, yes...
Is it going to be more sharper, yes...
But that's cause you have more pictures within a second to inspect...
Now, can you see even more detail and sharpness in 60p as opposed to 30p, it should if it is part of resolution and if you believe that the more pictures you have within a second the more you have to inspect... but it doesn't... I strongly believe that there is a point of no return with more and more fps. It becomes too fast for the eye to inspect...
Lastly, just cause you're eyes doesn't see it doesn't mean that resolution is lowered or becomes higher.
720p will remain 720p...
1080p will remain 1080p...
4K will remain 4K...
and so on...