[skore]

> Terms like "artificating" and "juttering" are terms still best known among hardcore tech heads, not moviegoers, and frankly, that's because when most people watch movies, they aren't seeing those "problems."

I suppose they just have to ask my mother "Hey, what did you think of the first minutes of Quantum of Solace?"

The argument for 48fps is a simple one to make: With faster cuts and pans, photographing a scene 24 times a second only gets you so far.

24p was mostly an economical decision - made decades ago. Unlike, for example, digital audio, which is modeled after the maximum detail that the human ear can perceive, 24 fps was simply set at that limit because that's when people stopped noticing the flicker - in movies at that time.

I would say that any change as big as this will take a while for directors to get used to. I don't think it will get quite as ugly as 3D, though, and I'm not sure why people are trying to make this connection. A lot of digital content is already in in frame rates far beyond 24 fps, so we're getting more and more used to this every day. Finally, this new technology is just another tool - now it's up to the directors to use it in a way that entertains audiences.