Note that lack of motion blur is trivially simple to tweak in post-fx to taste.

Not really. I think the general idea is to estimate a motion vector for every pixel or shape, which is actually very close to the same problem as smoothly interpolating between frames in the first place. It's easier to get away with imperfections, though in cases where, for instance, the background is moving relative to the central subject or vice versa, there's no general purpose solution, and in the latter case, there's no solution period, since the moving subjects blur will allow areas of the background to bleed through that may not actually be present in the recorded data.

Obviously there are cases where it's easy to simulate; it's just that there are plenty of cases where there's not just a simple trick you can do.

I suspect that it is going to bother some viewers, and I suspect there will be stories of people bowing out mid-movie and demanding refunds because they'll feel uneasy, possibly developing motion-sickness or vertigo-like symptoms.

People shouldn't develop those symptoms due to a higher frame rate.

In fact, 24 frames per second was chosen for cost reasons in the very distant past. Basically, it was the LOWEST frame rate they could use that would not cause people watching movies to get motion sickness and vomit. How do we know? Because they ran tests way back when to find out. Basically, film was expensive and to reduce the cost of producing a movie one of the ways was to reduce the frame rate. So they ran some trials to find the most acceptable frame rate, and anything below 24 frames per second would cause the audience to experience motion sickness and vomit.

In the digital age of today, this isn't an issue. Unless you're viewing it on film, in which case it still is an issue. You might wonder things like "I play games and sometimes they fall under 24 frames per second and I don't feel sick..." this is because the monitor tends to refresh at a fixed rate which is higher than that, so you can't see the actual sliding of the frame and similar issues that film has. There's actually a very fascinating history (can't find the link at the moment), but ever since they discovered 24fps we've been stuck with it. Its time to move on.

but ever since they discovered 24fps we've been stuck with it. Its time to move on.

Agreed. 48fps has more natural movement, well, because it actually is closer to human perception than 24fps.

The only actual critique i've heard worth a damn against higher framerates in film is that it is harder to trick the audience when using camera effects, since the higher framerate presents the audience with more visual information. My answer to that has always been "And??" since i don't find that by itself worthy of -not- using a higher framerate. As in any other industry: adapt or die.

The thing I don't get is why they'd go to 48fps. TVs generally have support for 24, 30, 60, and 120. I don't understand why they wouldn't go to 30 then 60 etc. Opting instead to double the least compliant minimum frame rate. Wouldn't it be more compatible to just go to the multiples of 30? Now we're going to have to keep dealing with films dropping 3/8s of the frames or showing 1/5 of the frames twice on tv's. Not that it's a HUGE problem, but it's a problem that could be easily solved if we're switching frame rates anyway.

edit: my math may be wrong, but for 30fps I did 30/6 and 48/6 to get 5 frames per 6th of a second and 8 frames per 6th of a second (3/8ths of the frames disappear), and for 60 fps I did similar with 12 to get 5 frames per 12th of a second and 4 frames per 12th of a second for 1/5th of the frames being showed twice. Is it actually 1 fourth of the frames? idk. SOME FRAMES DISAPPEAR AND SOME APPEAR TWICE AS OFTEN.

The only actual critique i've heard worth a damn against higher framerates in film is that it is harder to trick the audience when using camera effects, since the higher framerate presents the audience with more visual information. My answer to that has always been "And??" since i don't find that by itself worthy of -not- using a higher framerate. As in any other industry: adapt or die.

It seems like this argument kind of begs the question. "24fps camera tricks won't work at framerates that aren't 24fps!" Perhaps there are 48fps tricks that work much better than the 24fps tricks, and they just aren't discovered yet?

I think it's important to note that there is a big difference between observing a monitor/TV at a high refresh rate (ie 60hz) vs a near full field of view display like a movie screen. The dreaded FPS nausea is an example of higher frame rate displays and certain motion, i suspect at higher frame rates and large field of view displays this will exacerbate the effect and most movie viewers will not be able to tolerate such displays. It also should be noted that this nausea effect is worse for the observer than the player of FPS, so that's an interesting data point.. Personally I think the low framerate strobbing of 24fps multi-plexed into 48fps creates a hypnotic effect on viewers lulling the conscious mind into a relaxed state and that is what the "movie" feeling is all about. I also suspect unless they artificially add a low hz strobbing effect at higher framerate movies, it won't succeed, imo.

Its actually pretty simple to understand, but you have to read between the lines; the criticism comes from the fact that when viewed at 48fps, it feels like a documentary. 24 is associated with movies and higher framerates, well everything else. This association changes the subtle subjective qualities of the film for the viewer, at least until that association ceases to be relied on.

The movie feel IS there, and it isn't there with TV films, and I always wanted to know why, thanks for letting me know.

I'm sure 48 fps has it's uses in movies (the document film look of Black hawk down WAS awesome), but I guess it's just like that deliberately shaken hand camera thing. It looks good with war film battle scenes, but just with war film battle scenes.

I don't know if I be able to get used to it. I don't think I'm a caveman, I also felt this "TVfilm vs Movie" thing when I was a little kid. 3D is great, I immediately got used to it even with my crossed-eyes.


BTW, was "Gangs of New York" 48 fps also? I had the B cat feel.

there were even critics when they added sound to films

there were even critics when they added sound to films

I'm always amazed by people who declare new technology/approaches as outright non-artistic. The fact of the matter is it could take decades before the potential for said approaches are even fully understood and the be used in a meaningful way.

This is the same for games as well. It's one thing that caught me off guard when Jaffe came out and said games were bad for story telling, because it took almost 25 years for narrative to appear in film. It took around the same amount of time for film cuts to be used in a way that didn't flat out confuse people, and it took another 20 years before narrative and montage were used together in a meaningful emotional way.

It's so naive and ignorant of the past to dismiss current technology the way so many do. I don't think anybody has executed a 3D film to my satisfaction yet, but I'm holding out for a film that doesn't use it as a gimmick (perhaps Avengers tonight? D:)

I don't think anybody has executed a 3D film to my satisfaction yet, but I'm holding out for a film that doesn't use it as a gimmick (perhaps Avengers tonight? D:)

It wasn't a gimmick but based on my viewing last night they didn't have it right either... I don't know how they filmed it but a few times the 3D effects felt 'stuck' on; like a birthday card where part of the front has been raised by putting cardboard behind it to make it 3D.

I suspect I'll enjoy it more when I see it on a normal TV...