[highwaylights]

Not well versed in video production but really interested layperson.

I understand that the two main reasons for 23.976/24 fps are that it’s:

1) been the standard for a really long time so you know everything will more or less support it (cinemas/vod/broadcast tv).

2) is now in people minds as what film should look like (in that 60 fps somehow looks “off” because we’re trained to expect 24 fps).

Given that analogue broadcast tv is dying off and that digital OTA tv is a similar case to vod in terms of codecs (maybe not receiver support?), wouldn’t a stopgap be some multiple of 24 fps (e.g. 48fps) that would allow better motion handling without the pace seeming off?

[wwalexander]

I think the real reason HFR isn’t used much in cinema is that it ends up exposing a lot of the choreography, set design, special effects, etc. as fake, where before our brains filled in the details due to the low information rate and blurry frames.

Watch either of Ang Lee’s HFR movies (Billy Lynn/Gemini Man) and you’ll understand what I mean. HFR breaks suspension of disbelief. I didn’t want this to be true but I’ve come to accept that it doesn’t really have a place in cinema at least for now.

[Thlom]

Wasn’t HFR mostly used in 3D films to get rid of the skipping in high paced scenes? If I remember correctly the first HFR film was The Hobbit?

(I worked in the industry at the time on the technical side, but I’m not a film buff, so the details are forgotten a long time ago. All I remember is that there was a huge amount of work involved to get all the equipment upgraded to support HFR. Cinemas had to upgrade both their playback servers and projectors for thousands of dollars. All for less than a handful of films.)

[jgtrosh]

At 48fps, a movie already looks way too smooth and uncinematic

I'm quite convincented you already notice it at 30fps (but I'd have to check again)