Professor Zoom wrote:
For me, the argument that 24 fps is "more cinematic" is silly. Its just something we've HAD for a 100 years. That's all. It's something that we are used to. We've been trained to accept as HOW films should look.
But WHY, why does motion blue equal more cinematic?
As far as it being "to realistic," I think as the technology improves, along with the cinematography, costumes and etc, I don't think that will be a problem.
One is not necessarily better than the other, in the absolute sense, but as you indicate, there is a cinematic look, or style if you prefer, that people are used to seeing in 24fps (which, admittedly has always changed and evolved), that is in many ways very different than a stage production. Some people like that style - not just because they are used to it, but because it appeals to them. This isn't new. People are often drawn to a specific artistic style - even when a more "realistic" presentation is available. Else, why black and white photography (or even instagram) when far more realistic captures are available? Why color grading?
I don't think there's an inherent criticism in going to 48fps (aside, perhaps, from the fact that, specifically for The Hobbit
, it changes the aesthetic from LOTR to which The Hobbit
is supposed to be explicitly connected) or striving for the most realistic presentation possible. But the question remains, will audiences (will I) want the stage presentation or the "cinematic" (for lack of a better word) presentation? I happen to think it's a fascinating question, and I'm looking forward to seeing 48fps myself to see what my own reaction will be to it.