@bwhitz The latter part of what you are talking about sounds like the "Uncanny Valley". Anyone remember the optimism about realistic computer animated characters before the film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within's financial failure? It was one of two films that shaped the face of computer animation in movie to this day.

If Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within had been well received that year, and Shrek had been poorly received, we would have been more likely to see realistic computer animation in animated features, as opposed to the simpler and more stylized approach seen in films like Madagascar, Hop, Kung-Fu Panda, etc.

Whichever side you may be rooting for, do not underestimate the long-term impact of the public's initial reaction to native 48P content in the cinemas. It could potentially determine the trend for the majority of major releases for the next decade.

Motion blur is related much more to shutter angle and speed than the 24fps thing. But Yes at a 180 shutter shooting at 24fps you get smooth motion blur "baked in" however change the angle the angle to say 90 degrees at the same frame rate you will have much sharper frames(shorter exposure time per frame). Often this is done in films like war scenes where the want the action to look more intense.. sharp etc... like a beach assault scene.

wow I was like 10 posts behind sorry...

@shian

That, or secret persecuted communes which watch 24p in the catacombs....

@jrd In regards to video games, note my earlier comment. :)

And as regards theaters: normally 24 frames per second content projected with a refresh rate of 48Hz or 72Hz. We shouldn't muddy the water by confusing the frame rate (i.e. the rate at which the content changes) with the refresh rate (the rate at which the display updates).

There is no reason why a 120 Hz TV should look "worse" (that is to say, have such a different aesthetic that it frustrates people accustomed to lower refresh rates. Most of us watch 24P on displays with refresh rates from 60Hz and upward. On a CRT, anything below 75Hz is likely to increase the rate at which visual fatigue develops and refresh rates of 85Hz and above were common on many CRT monitors even a decade ago.

"Motion Interpolation", "Smooth Motion" or whatever the manufacturer calls it, is an additional form of filtering/processing. Just like I generally don't want the consumer to view my content with very, very heavily distorted colors (e.g. "I'm going to try Per's video with a Van Gogh 'Starry Night' approach") I also don't like for a TV to add filtering without regard to my content.

Native high frame rate content is a different issue, but frankly the smoothing SHOULD be turned off by default. Why? Because it represents a distortion of the original presentation, and not only did the creator not have a say in the modification, not even the content distributor did. So are we going to say the TV manufacturers should dictate the motion of our content instead of the content creators? I think that's insane.

If someone likes the look and wants to turn it on, then fine. But it should be off by default - just like you don't ship receivers set to "Concert Hall 1" surround settings, etc.

@rozroz yes. see this article for the details

http://badassdigest.com/2012/04/24/cinemacon-2012-the-hobbit-underwhelms-at-48-frames-per-secon/

48p will be da shit for 3D. All movies I watched in theaters last year were 3D. If 48p can enhance the experience, sure I will pay for the tickets.

@Grunf

I can clearly imagine big communities about "True Film Era". Special software suites that remove 3D and converts common 4K 120fps into simulated 2K 24fps (as no monitor or TV will support 24fps).

lol @pdlumina Hey, man what you do in the privacy of your own house, with the hooker of your choice...is up to you.

But clearly still a fringe fetish... like hopefully this whole 48/60p crap will be.

@LPowell BUT projecting footage with 24p motion blur. It's the motion blur man. All about the motion blur. Like I said, leave it out during action sequences where's theres tons of camera movement, but put it back in on the slow sweeping shots, the talking heads, the subtle moments.... every tool in it's place....the right tool for the right job. You don't shoot with a gradient filter on ALL THE TIME, it would look stupid...

Dude, if you had theoretical TV displaying full HD at 1000 fps using 1/10000000 sec shutter speed your eyes would motion-blur themselves. That's the way it works in reality ;) You are just used to see motion blur "baked in" on film...due to measly 24fps rate. 24fps isn't THE golden standard. It's just the lowest (= cheapest regarding to film stock) framerate that is still somewhat watchable. I say to hell with it...manufacturers can always update the firmware in telly to give punters stuttery 24fps "action" by averaging frames ;)

P.S. For the record, I almost always shoot 720p50 instead if 1080p25 on GH2. I don't want "filmic", I want it as near "reality" as possible :D Now when everyone and the dog shoots "filmic" 1080p25 full-frame bokehcake, I like high framerate more and more :-P

@thepalalias I concur with you. I meant the new generation would adapt to higher fps contents. 48fps for game might be too slow. 60fps for game sounds good. 120fps game... I can't take it.

I've watched more than enough 120Hz HD to "get used to it" but just like the smell of shit, it's not something you ever get used to....it's still shit. It smells that way for a reason, so you won't eat it. 48p is shit. A device the purveyors of 3D are trying to use to perpetuate 3D, and justify its existence. "Well the reason it looks bad is 24fps, but wait till we show it to you in 48 or 60, it'll be so clear you won't be able to argue." Great, so now it's not blurry, but it looks like a fucking soap opera. There's a reason Soap operas are snickered at, they are the red headed step children of the entertainment world, why the fuck would you want to make feature films look like soaps? Just stop it with the damn 3D. Other than Avatar and the animated films I've seen in 3D, they all look like shit.

Like I said, there are ways to keep motion blur where needed and eliminate it where it is not. But it requires, thought, and more work in post. I've added motion blur to 60p footage played back at 60fps, and it looks fantastic. But without...it looks like a fucking soap.

Video games look great in 60p, but it doesn't really work for narrative film.

When digital video came out, and there was no 24p, we groaned cuz it looked great, but it didn't move like film...lotsa movies were shot and projected in 30p.... nobody got used to it... we all hated it. 48 and 60 are even smoother than 30... it may actually be more expensive, but it looks cheap.

Has anyone considered that maybe there are other factors at work here? Is it possible to just be so used to something that when something different comes along we reject it? I hate to disagree with my boy Shian here but based on what I have seen. I think allot of the "weirdness" is just...for lack of a better word ...shell shock.

Perhaps they(Hobbit footage) just didnt watch ENOUGH of the movie to get used to it?...

Case in point ... watch a 3d movie...about 30 minutes in your brain gets so used to the 3d effect and it really does kinda diminish. I realized this last time I watched one in the theater. My brain compensated better at some point I forgot it was 3d.... I think once your brain gets used to it you will see the advantages. But for now I think people will all have to judge for themselves.... I dont personally think the general public will notice much.