I made nonrepresentative research on simple inexpirienced people.
They like 60p and frame interpolation (trumotion).
Btw lack of motion interpolation is used by manufacturers for few years to show clear difference of their low end models. last year it was also 3D, but now 3D is present in entry lines, and interpolation + smarttv functions are now artifically disabled :-)

Personally, it reminds me of back in the days when I was playing an unnamed first person shooter game several hours a day, when it was a clear benefit to have more FPS and higher HZ..

For films that are shot with cinema in mind, it can be really unwatchable.

Film/TV - production don't care - if you're hired, you shoot what they want, and then post moan about it lol - day in day out. Deliverables determine your method - and they're decided by a few old blokes smelling of wee in a room in Staines or wherever not by the learned masses (you lot!) Sad but true. Jackson's giving it a go pushing on good luck to him - if it makes money suddenly it's the norm

The plasticky look of 120 plus the shiny monitor plus sports is what sells the TV. After a while, it is tiresome. But different ppl react differently.

The proof of the 48fps pudding will be in the eating.

As the article in Studio Briefing says, the film The Hobbit will indeed be screened in 48fps in a limited number of theatres.

Next, it becomes a bums-on-seats situation as to who else wants to go with it. Never saw a cinema that didn't try to make money.

It's a calculation: to show 48fps you have to invest in new gear. The first 48fps showings weren't so encouraging.

Sometimes a film makes still make its money whatever format it's in. Sometimes a new technology's so good everybody wants it. Often, though, we stick with what works like Betamax/VHS. We miss out on one incremental technological advance, only to leapfrog it with the next - as in why change over to 48fps projectors when there's a rumour about 96 fps on the way?

Starting out small seems to me to be a normal idea.

"When 2001 - a Space Odyssey came out, it didn't play well. ...Some theatre owner called and said to MGM, 'Hey, before you pull this movie, there's something happening here.'...."

And the verdict is in - it looks like crap.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/25695/-hobbit-and-48fps-reviews-pour-forth

I really wonder how a true first time movie-goer will think of it...just like those who were able to watch Star Wars from Episode One FIRST...it's a whole new experience.

My personal take after seeing The Hobbit in 3D HFS (48fps):

The initial 15 minutes was really jarring (Note that I'm not a fan of 120/240hz TV tech). Movement seems strangely sped up; lighting, sets, costumes and make up tend to look more contrived/fake.... but you get used to the 48fps look after a while-to a certain extent. Ultimately I couldn't fully accept the look as cinematic, but I think there are good things and bad things about 48fps tech.

Overall, I thought the 3D CGI action sequences were some of the most exciting and mesmerizing images I've ever seen on the big screen. It didn't quite feel cinematic, not quite real, but definitely other-worldly and intriguing. During those action sequences I didn't feel like I was escaping into a fantasy or dream world, but more like I was on a really cool ride at Disneyland (where you're very much aware that what's happening is fake, but your feelings and sensations about it are real).

Dialogue sequences were a lot more difficult to believe. The whole time I was trying to tell myself to think of it more as live theater than a movie, and accept the new aesthetic of 48p... but in theater you can accept the limitations of an actor on stage, with basic sets and staged lighting, and just get into the story... but with movies, up until now, viewers haven't really been asked to accept these limitations... I don't think I could quite let go the feeling that Gandalf is no longer Gandalf. He's Ian McKellen in costume and fake beard, standing on a set with meticulously beautiful and contrived lighting. Ditto for all the actors and dialogue sequences.

Will it get better? Is it just me? Will we all adjust? I don't know... but whatever the future brings, I hope there will always be a place for production and viewing in 24p.

For what it is worth, the 48fps The Hobbit is the first 3D film I have not received a headache from, and keep in mind it is 3 hours long. I saw The Hobbit in 3D 24fps first, then in 2D 24fps next, and just yesterday I saw it at an official approved HFR theater from The Hobbit's list of theaters. At the first two viewings (both 24fps flavors of the film), I found it to be unforgivably terrible and campy. There were parts of action sequences that turned into indiscernible, blurry mush. The lighting looked contrived, the rocks were clearly styrofoam, and the music was laying on the cheese thick.

When I saw it at 48fps on a high quality screen yesterday, the experience was drastically different. The styrofoam was still there, and the bad lighting. The story and dialogue were still bad. But the cinematic aesthetic was greatly improved. Formerly indistinguishable mush was now clearly visible. (SPOILER ALERT) the first two times I watched the film, I couldn't even figure out what Azog the goblin had going on around his waist. It looked like bloody bare flesh or a waist of dark scar tissue. When I saw it in HFR 3D, I realized that it was just a leather girdle thingy. This is just one example.

3D from here on out really ought to be in 48fps (or even higher). It just makes sense, unlike 24fps' obvious stutter. I noticed that 48fps still isn't fast enough for the big screen. It still breaks up into visible frames at certain fast movements, and when this does happen, things appear to be ramped up or "fast-forwarded" because our eyes are accustomed to slower 24fps stutter.

The only thing that has made me sick is the heinous and unnecessary tampering with the original story.