This is less about RED and more about Peter Jackson and his crew deciding to shoot The Hobbit films in 48p (47.96 fps):

?The Hobbit? Shooting With Technology That James Cameron Called ?The Future of Cinema? | /Film (http://www.slashfilm.com/the-hobbit-shooting-technology-james-cameron-called-future-cinema/)

This is something James Cameron has been pushing. /Film got to see test footage shot and projected in 48p (more film-like) and 60p (I'm guessing it looks like really great 29.97 fps video):

James Cameron Says The Next Revolution in Cinema Is? | /Film (http://www.slashfilm.com/cameron/)

I know the big 20-theater Muvicos in West Palm Beach, FL is 100% digital with Sony 4K projectors, but how many other theaters have made the leap across the world? I'm sure they'll be able to project it in 24 fps without any slow-motion issues.

Heath

I thought you'd like to see what they're using to shoot The Hobbit films:

Andrew Lesnie reveals The Hobbit 3D cinematography set up - Inside Film: Film and Television Industry News and Issues for Australian Content Creators (http://if.com.au/2011/04/04/article/Andrew-Lesnie-reveals-The-Hobbit-3D-cinematography-set-up/XEGCDWWZHJ.html)

heath

The thing that is going to be interesting is hdrx. It will be interesting to see a mountain with the sky perfectly exposed like we've never seen before.

Peter Jackson talks about shooting in 48p:

Peter Jackson Explains Why He?s Shooting ?The Hobbit? at 48 Frames Per Second | /Film (http://www.slashfilm.com/peter-jackson-explains-shooting-the-hobbit-48-frames/)

heath

10 minutes of Hobbit footage was shown in Las Vegas, in 3d at 48fps. Here come the reviews:

" Everything looks crystal clear but it also looks a little too perfect and lifelike and because of that clarity, the fact that we're looking at sets and actors in costumes and make-up seems much more obvious. One of the nice things about film is that it adds a glossy look that smooths out the rough spots in sets, costumes and make-up.

I'd probably compare the look a bit to the old "Doctor Who" television shows in terms of it looking a lot like it was shot on television cameras, which may be hard to adjust to for those used to a certain way of watching films for 80 odd years."

-----------------------------------

Looked like an old Dr Who episode?! Thats a heluva insult! I wonder will this murder 60fps before it has a chance to take hold, and drive another nail in 3Ds coffin?

Have a look:

http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2012/04/...ryone-hated-it
The Hobbit ... Didn't Look So Good - Movies Preview at IGN (http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/122/1223523p1.html)
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/cinem...s.php?id=89583
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movi...pp-gatsby.html

This is the same reaction as there was to Showscan, Douglas Trumbull's 65mm film shot at 60 fps format, they said it looked like video. In the end, it was only used used for theme park rides,

I understand there is a digital Showscan under development.

I thought 48p would've been much more film-like, but I guess not. I hate HDTVs with the hertz level cranked up over 60 Hz, because movies and TV shows (other than sports, news and reality) look like video. It's a psychological thing. 80+ years at 24 fps, and our minds are attuned to pretty much all TV narratives (comedies and soaps were 60i once) and films are 24p.

60p is terrific for sports, in my humble opinion. I don't think, personally, 60p should be used for films, but I thought 48p would've been "it."

heath

10 minutes of Hobbit footage was shown in Las Vegas, in 3d at 48fps. Here come the reviews:

" Everything looks crystal clear but it also looks a little too perfect and lifelike and because of that clarity, the fact that we're looking at sets and actors in costumes and make-up seems much more obvious. One of the nice things about film is that it adds a glossy look that smooths out the rough spots in sets, costumes and make-up.

I'd probably compare the look a bit to the old "Doctor Who" television shows in terms of it looking a lot like it was shot on television cameras, which may be hard to adjust to for those used to a certain way of watching films for 80 odd years."

]

Funny they should mention Dr. Who. One of my teenage kids discovered the show last month and is totally into it, watching every episode via Netflix through the computer to the TV.

I've seen a fair amount of motion interpolation to high frame rates and it always gives me a "reality" feel, which is wrong for film. I like the "dream" feel of 24 fps because the reality is that we're looking at actors in costumes with props on sets. Anybody who has been on a set or seen a prop or costume up close knows that it just doesn't have that bigger-than-life feel in person. If anything, the real stuff seems cheesy.

That said, fast motion 3D has a real problem with judder at 24 fps. 48 fps should really help with chases, fights, and action.

The ultimate solution might be to double the 48 fps frames to display 24 fps for dramatic scenes and to switch to true 48 fps only during the fast stuff. That might even subconsciously tell us to get jacked up - "so much for that dreamy, story stuff, this freaking dragon is real!"

Being able to flip frame rates within a feature would also let directors insert news, documentary, sports, and old soap segments that really feel like those genres.

Just like we can change shutter speed, grading, DOF, and exposure to give a specific feel, why not change frame rates too? Once technology removes the limitations, good directors will learn how and when to use (and abuse) it.

More on the subject:

Has Peter Jackson Lost it Shooting The Hobbit at 48fps? (http://news.doddleme.com/equipment/has-peter-jackson-lost-it-shooting-the-hobbit-at-48fps/)

heath

I have been so excited for The Hobbit, but can't help but feel this 48p business may completely ruin it for me. Film is all about escapism, 24p is the vessel that takes you there. I am barely over Blu-Ray, it looks too life-like. I don't want to see the wrinkles on Stallone's forehead or the spots on Dicaprio's face. I guess the make-up team will have to be on top-form to pull off The Hobbit.

Still, i reserve judgement until ive seen it with my own eyes. It could be the best thing since sliced bread.

Sounds like a variation on a theme. That theme being, "I'm against change". Isn't this exactly the same stuff that was said about the move from standard def TV to HDTV? Especially the bit about the makeup, the costumes, and the sets? About how every TV news anchor would have to be replaced because they didn't have good enough skin?

Did any of that happen? Did people reject HDTV in droves because it looked "too real"?

And isn't it interesting that so many people in video are resolution nuts, always after that last little bit of resolution. But when it comes to a technology that would actually put that resolution to good use, they start complaining that it will be "too real"?

I suspect the critics of 48Hz doth protest too much.

I never viewed 48p as a magical frame rate because it is basically the same as 50p used in Europe. Perhaps it looks a bit less "real" then 60p but not by as much as one would hope. If you want to know what 48p looks like just render and watch some 50p material.

I am hoping the movie will also be shown on film prints which means it should hopefully convert down to 24p just fine. Assuming the shutter speed is the same as that used for 24p. Then in the end by dropping every other frame it should look the same as if it was shot at 24p.

If this is the case I for one will be watching the good ole 35mm version.

This will go around in a circle because no matter what frame rate you shoot in, new televisions will turn it into an interlaced look.

I agree 48 fps is pretty close to 50p which is pretty fluid. A no-win situation with a lot of people not knowing what 24p even is in the general public.

I like change!

I want the frame rates to be variable so one can show 24fps, 48fps, 60fps or whatever within one feature.

In addition, I've seen enough motion interpolated video to know that high frame rates don't offer the same dreamlike qualities that one gets from 24 fps 2D content. Who knows? Maybe 20 fps is even cooler.

Some time ago, when Internet bandwidth was quite limited and we shot with a 30p camera, we would render 15 fps for low motion shorts (by dropping frames) and 30 fps for high motion stuff. (We often had gun flashes on the action stuff and couldn't skip frames without losing the ocassional flash.) For the dramatic shorts, 15 fps looked good and delivered more bits for each frame. It was a good tradeoff. Hey, when there's no motion 1 fps is enough. :)

Consider shutter speed. We can drag the shutter to near 360 degrees when we're starved for light and there's little motion. We shoot at 180 degrees when we want a "normal" look. And we can shoot a fast shutter when we want a frenetic mood. It's an artistic choice.

Same for frame rate. It should be an artistic choice. And just as we know not to use a fast shutter speed for a relaxing mood, we know that we don't want a fast frame rate for a fantasy experience. However, a fast frame rate might be perfect for a prison, war or gang movie. In those genres, making it feel absolutely real is often the goal.

The problem is that we don't have frame rate flexibility today. So, rather than an artistic choice, it's seen as a right-or-wrong technical choice.

Hey! Dr. Watson is Bilbo!

Like with 3D showing in 2D, The Hobbit will screen in 24p. Many theaters are digital now, at least in North America.

heath

Funny they should mention Dr. Who. One of my teenage kids discovered the show last month and is totally into it, watching every episode via Netflix through the computer to the TV.

The old series or new?

Boy they were bashing it on Attack of the Show last night – whoever had seen some it said it looked like video and not film or something. The host even seemed to be aware that it was being shot with RED cameras – it’s a tech show on G4 that covers some media/movies.

You folks are probably the cine-science types for this subject.
I've been chatting about this elsewhere. Is the difference really just the reduced motion blur? Does that give us the 'movie' look, really? Or is it other factors as well?
If it is (and that's amazing) do you think it's possible to selectively put some back in post or at the shoot? What if you shot with a wider shutter angle than 180 or something, would that help?
Theorise with me here.

Brian: where did you hear people say Showscan looked like video so they didn't like it? That's interesting. A lot of people are merely waving around the Showscan sales pitch that says it produced more 'emotional engagement' via some unspecified testing they did. I can't help thinking there's more to it than that.

Re Showscan, I recall the looking like video being mentioned at the time it was being introduced.

Trumbull ran tests at various frame rates and found there was no improvement in perception after 72 fps. I suspect it's the interlaced look because of the high frame rate compared to the usual 24 fps caused the video comment... sort of running counter to the whole 24p thing to get the film look. Obliviously, in other aspects, like highlights and colour, it wouldn't look like video

Some more on Showscan:
Remembering Doug Trumbull's "Showscan" - IanFarquhar - My Nero (http://my.nero.com/index.php?__path=Blog%3A%2F%2FDisplayBlogComposite%2FIanFarquhar%2F7100886&NCSS=a104NTrbFyHTUSsKs7UoaQ1PMISuF8Z160pF#0)

Showscan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan)

The more I think about it, the more I want variable presentation rates.

Haven't we all seen films where we are into the story, then somebody throws a ball across the room, and the judder changes from the hypnotic film effect into a series of blurred balls moving across the screen. Boom. That's the moment when 24 fps fails and pulls the viewer out of the story. Roughly a minute later, we're back into the world of the character.

Think about the advantage of having fine control over the rate. You film a fight scene and it looks too slow. Should have undercranked it. Or you undercranked and it looked fake. If you could really control the frame rate moment by moment, we could optimize motion speed without introducing the peg-leg cadence that dropping or doubling frames can give.

Shooting a whole film in 48 fps might be a mistake. But allowing continuous frame rate flexibility could be a killer feature.

Hey! Dr. Watson is Bilbo!

And Sherlock is Smaug...

There's an attitude amongst some people that 24 frames per second is what gives the film look, and therefore doubling it will ruin the whole effect. I don't know whether this is playing out with the Hobbit footage, in that critics have prejudged it, or whether it's a case that we're used to cinema being defined by the artefacts of an obsolete technology.

Personally, I'm wanting to see the film at 48 frames per second. Most theatres round here have moved to digital projectors, and they should be able to cope. Sure, it might look odd to begin with, but in a short while we'll be wondering why we put up with strobing images due to fast movement.

The problem is we've all been watching higher frame rate work now for decades on television, so this is nothing new - and yet we've willingly continued to 'put up with strobing images' in theatrical work for that entire time. More than put up with it, in fact - it's generally been considered superior for dramatic work. So I just don't see this being something where we just have to get used to the new look as it's not really new at all.

Haven't we all seen films where we are into the story, then somebody throws a ball across the room, and the judder changes from the hypnotic film effect into a series of blurred balls moving across the screen. Boom. That's the moment when 24 fps fails and pulls the viewer out of the story.

I've personally never had this experience. However I can remember several times where a shot or two in a film shot digitally used a 360 degree shutter and the sudden shift to 'video' look pulled me completely out of the world of the film - Apacalypto is a specific example with a few shots like this, the latest Bourne film had some too. I have a feeling any shift of motion rendering mid-film could have the similar effect.

I believe the argument goes that at 24 fps (with the way brain works), it seems to create a dream like effect, possibly created by the need to fill in the temporal gaps. While with interlace TV and higher frame rates it's more realistic looking.

Of course, 3D 48 fps its trying to solve an issue found in the 3D format and is different to using 48 fps on 2D

Of course, 3D 48 fps its trying to solve an issue found in the 3D format and is different to using 48 fps on 2D

Its a great business model; sell them (the cinemas) something that they say they need keep in business, and then sell them more stuff to compensate for the original products shortcomings!

Yes; sell them stuff that the customers didn't actually ask for; I mean when did anyone ever really ever complain about 2D and 24fps? Its not like the cinema going public at large were asking for it. They might have been asking for better quality movies, better scripts perhaps, but not better 'technical' gimmicks.

What happened to if it aint' broke don't fix it? Its just a bad business model I guess.

Here is an interesting article by David Bordwell:

Observations on film art : It’s good to be the King of the World (http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2012/04/22/its-good-to-be-the-king-of-the-world/)

It was a business model that gave us 24p in the first place. Just about the slowest ( least celluloid used) frame rate that gave usable sound for the new sound movies. It did not meet either need well but just sufficient to make the business work. People have got used to the deficiencies and sound has been solved in other ways. Seems like history is repeating itself to find a frame rate that presents a usable 3D experience !!!

For people who like live theatre they will prefer 60P but then again there are not too many closeups in live theatre !!! 4K video at 60P gives the option for a theatre or any show performance of just using one full stage camera and let the viewer decide to move around the image with the pan control on their TV just like in the live theatre !!! All sorts of options with technology.

Ron Evans

48fps would be perfect for Laurence Olivier's style of direction of Shakespeare films - it's all wide master shots. Even though 1955's Richard III was shot on VistaVision film, it looks like a live stage play. It flopped at the box office on initial release. Rather than being drawn into the story, I always felt like I was watching it from a distance. I didn't make it through the nearly 3 hour run time.

Let's discount the filmmakers and look at the audience; if they hate The Hobbit and complain, WB is in trouble. Best example I have is many of my friends with HDTVs that have the Hz rate at 120 by default complain the movies look "weird." Without saying a word about what's happening, I adjust it down to 60 Hz, and they say it looks normal. Then I explain what's happening.

heath

I like change!

I want the frame rates to be variable so one can show 24fps, 48fps, 60fps or whatever within one feature.

The problem is that we don't have frame rate flexibility today. So, rather than an artistic choice, it's seen as a right-or-wrong technical choice.

Please, someone help Jon ( and me) with this problem.

Or would just projecting (edit to half ) of 48fps ( every second frame shown twice if projected at 48fps) = 24fps; and however many multiples of 1 frame = 1fps be right?

Yeah, that's the saving grace for Peter Jackson. He can play every other frame twice and will end up with 24 fps. In fact, cinema projectors already double or triple fire the frames. The screen flashes at 48 fps or 72 fps, but you see the same image two or three times. That keeps you from seeing the room flicker dark and light but preserves the 24 fps motion.

If I were Jackson, I'd do some 24 fps prints and some 48 fps prints - as well as some that are mixed with 48 fps only for fast motion scenes. Take those three versions, show them to test audiences, and see how they react.

Sign me up. I want to see all three!

Here's an interview with Douglas Trumbull about high frame rates, poor screen brightness and what he's doing now:

Episode IV: THE NEW CINEMA OF DOUGLAS TRUMBULL - AIN'T IT COOL With Harry Knowles - YouTube

I have some friends that aren't too happy about the 48 fps news... but to me it seems like it would be going from 60hz to 120hz. I got used to it pretty quickly.

The article I read about The Hobbit is that it will be available in SIX formats. lol.

It was a business model that gave us 24p in the first place. Just about the slowest ( least celluloid used) frame rate that gave usable sound for the new sound movies. It did not meet either need well but just sufficient to make the business work. People have got used to the deficiencies and sound has been solved in other ways.
Exactly so - 24 frames per second was never chosen for "magical" artistic reasons - it was purely for economic ones, the lowest that could be gotten away with come sound. The studios would have preferred to continue with 16(ish)fps as in silent days and a three bladed shutter to keep the flicker down. The move to 24fps was purely driven by the need for a higher than 12ips linear speed for sound, and 24fps met the criteria for (just) acceptable sound, ease of implementation (change a 3 blade shutter to 2 blade) etc, whilst being the minimum possible for economy.

If 48fps hadn't meant doubling the film stock usage (and hence cost) it's pretty certain it would have been adopted then. It's pretty funny to hear 24fps now being given all these artistic attributes.

Yes, there used to be a big difference between "film look" and "video look", but it was way more significant than frame rate. Contrast range, highlight handling, interframe lag, comet tailing, artificial detail enhancement are just a few of the ways that made "video" look that way, and a way that most people found inferior artistically. (Rightly, IMO.)

But now it's vastly different. Electronic camera design has improved to the point where electronic cameras can match film in most of those respects - and higher frame rates don't come at the price penalties that film imposed. Unfortunately, frame rate has got added into the equation, not because 24fp is really better, but it's what people are used to.

I suspect that all production will inevitably move to 48fps, and it won't be long before it becomes the norm. At some point, a future generation will look back at those "old" films and say "don't they look jerky!" - a bit like we may now do with silent films.

Yes, there used to be a big difference between "film look" and "video look", but it was way more significant than frame rate. Contrast range, highlight handling, interframe lag, comet tailing, artificial detail enhancement are just a few of the ways that made "video" look that way, and a way that most people found inferior artistically. (Rightly, IMO.)

I have to disagree that those factors were more significant than frame rate. In the late 80's when I was working at a small production company, I discovered that switching a frame synchronizer to "field" output from "frame" output effectively produced a 30 fps effect and the company started marketing the results to clients as a low cost alternative to film. I was also doing whatever I could on the camera side of things to mask the video look as well--lots of filtering, avoiding highlights, lighting film-style etc., but until I ran that footage through the processor, it just looked like well-shot video. A few years later I started sending projects to Filmlook who had the original 60i to 24p processing facility, which became my new "secret sauce".

The F900 and subsequent prosumer cameras like the DVX100 were far improved over the Plumbicon camera I was using back in those days, but those too suffered from highlight clipping etc. Still, they were good enough to fool a lot of people into thinking they were seeing film-originated footage.

If you were to put an F900 in 24p mode against a 48fp Epic and if you were to ask the average viewer which looked more filmic, which more resembled the news or live TV, my money would be on the 24p footage.

Really, the whole thing comes down to a programmed response as noted in posts above. I have no doubt that young kids who have grown up around 120hz TV's will take to high frame rate origination without much fuss. It may take a while to re-program the general majority and some will never feel that it is quite right, so I wouldn't expect that this will take hold overnight. People like what they like, and their wallets do the talking. If 3D had been the slamdunk financial success that the industry hoped it would be, you'd be seeing far more 3D movies and programming today.

On a sidenote and relating to the Filmlook process I mentioned above, it's a pretty fascinating story: a guy running a small post house in Burbank gets a patent for the 24p reverse telecine process, and subsequently all of the manufacturers of 24p cameras have had to pay him licensing fees since. You can well imagine he's not hoping for the 48 fps standard to popularize.

I have to disagree that those factors were more significant than frame rate. In the late 80's when I was working at a small production company, I discovered that switching a frame synchronizer to "field" output from "frame" output effectively produced a 30 fps effect and the company started marketing the results to clients as a low cost alternative to film. I was also .......but until I ran that footage through the processor, it just looked like well-shot video. .
I don't disagree with any of that - if you wanted to make conventional video appear to look more like film, then yes, you need to change frame rate.

But it needs to be asked WHY anyone may think "film look" is better in the first place, WHY anyone may prefer the "look" of film. I'd argue it's there where the points I raised are significant. If film had run at 48fps ever since sound came in, I highly doubt that we'd be having this discussion - it would just be seen as the (desirable) norm.

Imagine film had always been 48fps, video had come along with 24p by default. Do you think any single person would be arguing along the lines of "well, the film look is nicer in a lot of ways, but I really prefer the "judder" of video"? (I suspect this is what Charles may mean with "If you were to put an F900 in 24p mode against a 48fp Epic ......."?)

I'd argue that the process Charles describes got used because film productions tended to be higher budget (and hence likely better produced). The "film effect" here was a psychological trick of the time to help make people subconsciously think the film was a higher budget than in reality - it had little to do with real quality. Hopefully, we can now get beyond that.

Go back 20 years and some attributes of film were unarguably superior to video - dynamic range, lack of edginess, etc. In other ways some film attributes were unarguably inferior - grain, weave in the gate, scratches etc. Frame rate may have been seen as a difference - but not necessarily one in favour of film. It's time now to stop thinking of making electronic cameras look just like film used to, and aim for the best that each system was known for. I'd argue that means letting 24fps R.I.P.

In the end our DVD and Blu-ray copies of the Hobbit will be 24p anyway since I'm not sure you could cram 48p onto those mediums very well. A lot of streaming video technologies cannot really go above 30p either. I guess you could convert 48p to a 50i disc but what the heck would you want that for? I will never buy it if they went 50i over 24p or 25p.

Here's a piece of mischief to chuck into the stew. To optically trick the human eyeball into seeing smooth motion, cinema projection rotary shutters have been as I understand it 48FPS for years as in two flashes of the 24FPS frame.

So if every second frame is filmed out and projected from film conventionally it should look more "normal" except perhaps for a higher apparent shutter speed which will make it appear a bit more stuttery as in "Saving Private Ryan" battle scenes.

There will be post-production fixes if there is severe audience resistance. My guess is, with time we shall become accustomed to it.

24FPS is probably a conditioned default trigger in the brain to suspend "reality". Enhanced reality in reproduced images may therefore paradoxically defeat the ability of audiences to suspend belief and embrace the fictional world they are being taken into. I imagine that peripheral vision tricks to induce scares will work better.

Lucas got his wish for digital cinema.
Cameron has brought back 3D.
Jackson brought back high frame rates.
I guess that only leaves us Spielberg to bring back smell-o-vision?

The funny thing is that most of this is rehashing older concepts that have already failed:

3D is nothing new in theory, its been and gone a number of times. The public usually lost interest after the novelty wore off.

Higher frame rates ware successfully demonstrated with Showscan. The public was uninterested after much the same response that was encountered at the Hobbit screening.

I'm definitely going to try and catch The Hobbit in the format that Jackson is recommending to give it the benefit of the doubt. But history has a way of repeating itself...

Personally I'll wait and see for myself before I make any conclusions. I've seen some horrible 24FPS slow motion work in films that makes me wonder how film makers get away passing that crap commercially. Cinematic is not a frame rate, it's story, acting, lighting, camera motion, set design, blah blah bla....

Interesting discussion...
Great Frame Rate Debate - Part 2 - Schubin, Trumbull - YouTube

Higher frame rates ware successfully demonstrated with Showscan. The public was uninterested after much the same response that was encountered at the Hobbit screening
Was it that the public were uninterested, or that they weren't interested ENOUGH for the studios to justify the large extra expense of film stock? I suspect the latter - and now the extra expense of 48fps over that of 24fps is nowhere near what it was in the days of celluloid film, it's no longer of question of why do it, but why not do it!?!

I'd also disagree about 3D. I think general audiences like the idea in principle - but the good bits come with bad. Glasses is probably the most obvious, brightness levels another, but my own experience is whatever you think of 24fps for 2D movies, it's totally inadequate for 3D with any real movement at all. A headache causer. Eventually, I'd expect the other objections to be overcome via technology and that's when 3D will become really mainstream, but better than 24fps will certainly make a big advance IMO.

I also agree with the views in the discussion in the previous link - 24fps came about not through any "magical" or psychological reason, purely that it was a compromise between quality and economy.

No doubt that 24p came about due to technological compromises, but I think it has flourished due to its subtle appeal. Had films since The Jazz Singer been shot at 48 fps, maybe our society would think that 48fps is a cue for the magical world of Hollywood. Who knows? I just know that my personal experience is that fast frame rates make things look real, and that narrative film is more effective when things are pseudo-real. Heck, we wouldn't grade scenes to be dark, orange-teal or silver-green netherworlds if we wanted reality. Dracula would show up at the drug store and the wolfman would raid Starbucks if reality were the goal. ("Is that Frankenstein in the SUV next to us, honey?")

One could also say that we are conditioned to have comedies brightly lit, dramas darker, and horror darkest. Conditioning or not, it's effective.

No doubt that 24p came about due to technological compromises, but I think it has flourished due to its subtle appeal.
I think the reason it's flourished is simply because it was "the standard", end of story. Shoot film, it's 24fps, simple as that.
Had films since The Jazz Singer been shot at 48 fps, maybe our society would think that 48fps is a cue for the magical world of Hollywood. Who knows?
Yes!
Heck, we wouldn't grade scenes to be dark, orange-teal or silver-green netherworlds if we wanted reality.
.....
One could also say that we are conditioned to have comedies brightly lit, dramas darker, and horror darkest. Conditioning or not, it's effective.
Fully agreed, but I suspect a decent psychologist would be able to tell you exactly why it "works" for a comedy to be bright, a serious drama darker, etc, why such are fundamental to human psychology. Same for many attributes which are to do with individual frames - "edginess" of detail, dynamic range etc.

But framerate is different, more a conditioned attitude than an intrinsic one. We've got used to 24fps in the cinema, therefore 24fps is associated with cinema. But such can be unlearnt in a way that the former can't.

All this is nothing new, and similar remarks were made with the coming of sound and the coming of colour, they certainly weren't universally welcomed at the time.

But does the "why" matter? 24 fps feels hypnotic and dreamy. High frame rates feel real and dull. Whether intrinsic or learned, it's true for our audience.

And I think we all agree that future audiences (i.e. children of today) will be able to assimilate 48p without issue--the question is, whether the adult public can "unlearn" and embrace. As I indicated before, the only factor that counts is ticket sales. I highly doubt whether I can ever unlearn my associations of 24 fps vs 48 or 60 etc; it's ingrained in me as a viewer and as a cinematographer. It's not like 48 fps video is going to be a whole new look; obviously I've seen and shot 60i and 60p footage for years so it's not something I have to get used to. When shooting high speed material on HD, the easiest way for me to tell that the camera is switched to the right mode is because it looks "newsy" on the monitor. I hate watching movies on a plasma or LCD that has 120hz mode (certainly it's the first thing I turn off when I buy a display, but I see glimpses in department stores or bars etc. and it's literally unpleasant for me to watch).

David--to clarify my comparison of an F900 in 24p mode vs an Epic in 48p: the point I was trying to make is that while the Epic as a camera may be more inherently filmic in the various ways you detailed--better dynamic range, resolution, shallower depth of field etc., the F900 footage in 24p frame rate would, in my estimation, cause more laypeople to consider that a more filmic image than the Epic. My argument being that frame rate is the most critical visual cue that separates narrative from news/sports/reality.

In a fictional film then all the tricks to get the audience involved are usable. Frame rate colouring etc great. But when its a record of a live event then in my mind it should be at the highest frame rate and resolution. The audience need to feel they are there. Unfortunately a lot of people think that if 24p is good for film its good for everything. Even if their camera work is terrible. That's when you need to switch on the 120hz or 240hz interpolation to make the picture viewable !!! For TV my Sony 240hz LCD interpolation is switched on all the time !!

Ron Evans

But does the "why" matter? 24 fps feels hypnotic and dreamy. High frame rates feel real and dull. Whether intrinsic or learned, it's true for our audience.
"Real and dull"? Maybe the first, but I don't go along with the second - rather the opposite. Some past TV dramas have deliberately been shot with video techniques (even when film may have been the norm) to get not only a "real" look, but to heighten the excitement.

Even if your points about 24fps are accepted, is it really a good thing for the majority of films to have a "hypnotic and dreamy" look to them? And the harsh reality that you may be ascribing to 48fps can be dulled down by some grading techniques.

To pick up on Charles point about ticket sales, then first point to make is that 48fps PRODUCTION shouldn't cost much more in the digital world than 24fps. And a 24fps end product can be easily and satisfactorily derived from it with no compromise, whilst the reverse is not true. (And regardless of the aesthetic arguments, such will be needed for a long time for legacy technology reasons.)

Second is that whatever the argument may be in the 2D world, 3D is crying out for higher rates, and 48fps would certainly make me much happier about 3D in the cinema.

Yes, glasses is still a current bar to general 3D acceptance, but it's likely technology will solve that in the future. In that case, what a good thing to have high frame rate content as a degree of future proofing?

If you accept all of that, then once the 48fps content starts to get around, the acceptance will start to happen, and it will become the new norm. And eventually 24fps will just end up as jerky and old-fashioned.

I'm not sure which video techniques you're talking about, but fast moving "shaky" camera moves go way back to the days of Abel Gance in the early 1920s. Quite a few modern productions would appear pedestrian compared to some of his stuff.

And I think we all agree that future audiences (i.e. children of today) will be able to assimilate 48p without issue--the question is, whether the adult public can "unlearn" and embrace.

I wonder whether the effect 24p has on a viewer is down to more than just conditioning. As has been suggested, it appears to aid audiences with their suspension of disbelief. Does anyone know of research on the subject? I think it is presumptuous to presume either way without it.

In the same way that B&W photography is still sometimes preferable to colour, I think 24p motion cadence will continue to be a subjective preference in the future. Like 24p, B&W also had technical origins, however that alone does not void its artistic merits. With time, higher frame rates may loose their negative stigma but I think 24p will be around for a while yet.

"Real and dull"?

Real and dull is my personal experience. Hollywood sets don't look like other worlds. They look like sets. Being on a set is dull to me, while being in Gotham City, or the Shire would be enthralling.

Your experience may differ.

3D is crying out for higher rates, and 48fps would certainly make me much happier about 3D in the cinema.

This is why I'm not against high frame rates. I want controllable frame rates. Yes, when things start to fly in 3D, give me 48+ fps. But just as I don't think a 30 degree shutter is appropriate in a dramatic scene, I don't think 48 fps is appropriate in a fantasy film during low motion scenes.

The frame rate should be adjustable like shutter time, aperture, and grading. It doesn't have to be one-size-fits-all.