[Nursie]

Cool, so people that want that effect on their movies can use it, it hardly sounds like something everyone would want every time though.

Or is impressionism the only valid art form?

Also -

> happens to be at that perfect balance between ...

Yeah na, it's just what you're used to.

[baryphonic]

> Cool, so people that want that effect on their movies can use it, it hardly sounds like something everyone would want every time though.

That's not what GP said. GP was arguing that 24fps is a genuine artistic choice, and that an argument that 48fps is intrinsically superior is absurd. GP was arguing that frame rate is a choice artists can use to tell their stories, that 24fps is Impressionism and 48fps is realism.

Also, cross examining (e.g. "so, you're saying...") is against HN policies. Misrepresenting what someone said is also not great.

[ClumsyPilot]

> GP was arguing that frame rate is a choice artists can use to tell their stories, that 24fps is Impressionism and 48fps is realism

Okay, where is 77 FPS movie for surrealism, 12 FPS movie for abstractionism, 174 FPS for cubism?

The whole argument is fictitious

[matt-attack]

Well that's just not how the physics works. It's a single dimension that slides from hyper-impressionism (at low low Frame rates) to hyper-realism at high ones. And BTW it's been shown to top out around 75-80fps. Any higher and there's no additional perception of realism. Realism is just the single axis.

[Nursie]

> GP was arguing that 24fps is a genuine artistic choice

Yes, and I'm saying that's spurious argument because if it were an artistic choice we'd have a lot more variation of said choice.

> cross examining (e.g. "so, you're saying...")

Where did I do that? I was making the point that impressionism is not the only art form. I know the GP wasn't arguing it should be, but again, that's where their analogy breaks down.

[matt-attack]

See my other sibling reply regarding the "conditioning" argument.

[Nursie]

I'm afraid I don't really buy that. I know, having lived through the transition away from PAL/NTSC and (worse) VHS that people will make arguments as to how the old tech softened things, made them look nicer, softer etc. How such and such an existing standard is perfect, and does this, this and this to the brain. How HD is unnecessary and just shows off actor's bad skin and who wants that?

Habituation is powerful, and even if this effect you're talking about does exist, well firstly it's not going to be appropriate for every subject matter. Secondly the technological limitations which led the industry to arrive at that standardised framerate, the chance of that landing on some sort of optimum spot... it's just not believable.