@shian

Yep, no one will be asking.
Most probably they'll try 48p as intermediary format and jump to 60p afterwards.

As it had been already said, smooth motion and more sharp individual frames helps with 3D.

Things look good when the frame period matches the exposure period. That's not the case when 24p is sped up to 120 Hz. It's too smooth. The picture floats, and it's disorienting. But 1/60 and 1/60 - I like that a lot, and I'll take it over 24p any day, for any kind of content.

As for 120 Hz looking like '80s Dr. Who... Well, if Dr. Who had looked good, you wouldn't have such a negative reaction to this, would you?. ;) After years of watching TV and movies, you've been programmed to make certain associations. Time to reprogram your brain, and abandon the limitations of early 20th-century technology.

The legacy of film cannot help but affect us. Had we never seen film, we wouldn't know what we're missing, but we have seen it. Film undeniably produces a dramatic dimension that straight video does not.
I stayed away from video for decades after making Super 8 home movies on Kodachrome, for exactly this reason. Then the GH2 arrived, and made it possible for a person with ordinary means to make movies exactly suited to their own personal vision. At 24P, it produces that film look at resolution superior to 16mm.
Right now, I'm working with HBR, trying to get smoother motion and keep that look.

@shian you're not alone mate ;) but you are a minority

120hz tv's? here are already up to 800hz.........., it is really a moving foto...............

you are not alone sir, 48 and 120hz looks like total crap. And while we are at it, full shows in 3D suck ass too (3D in art installations is great).

i live in pal land, and that will have to do something with it.

@shian - "...When I see 48p, I see the same thing. It looks like CHEAP video."

I'm not sure if I've ever seen 24p actually displayed at 48p anywhere outside a movie theater.

OTOH, 24p telecined into interlaced 60i is what screams VIDEO to my eyes...

@stonebat Rather than presenting my opinions on the debate, here area few factors to consider that don't seem to be getting much attention in the argument.

1) Video games and films face fundamentally different challenges in providing immersive environments.

1a) In video games, lower frame rates often do not have compensations made to the shutter (and only recently compensatory motion blur). Part of the success of the early Burnout series, in regards to its depiction of speed, had to do with the way it implemented motion blur, even against competitors with either higher resolutions or framerates. In live action cinema, a modified frame rate is typically compensated for by a different shutter speed and motion blur is affected by default.

1b) In video games, response latency (the time between a player providing input and the time the game shows a visual response) is affected by frame rate. The higher the frame rate, the lower the minimum time required to show a reaction to the player's input is.

1c) In video games, a balance must be struck between conveying a style and preventing data in a fashion the player can quickly make use of. Angles that may be more subjective and immersive for a passive viewer (up close to a face, not showing much of the environment, etc.) can sometimes be impractical during gameplay because they do not convey enough data about the rest of the situation for the player to... well, play. Other times, the sudden removal of the customary information can be used to make the player feel helpless, but extensive use of the effect generally frustrates players and leads to negative reviews. In a film, the decisions about angles can be made based purely on narrative, stylistic and practical production concerns without requiring that audience be able to parse enough information to "interact" with the environment (in the video game sense of the word).

Why do I bring this up? Because it should be noted (emphatically) that whether 48 fps (or higher) succeeds for films is entirely distinct from whether it works well for video games. The recent press reaction to The Hobbit screening is entirely different from the initial gamer reaction to the advent 60 fps (and higher) frame rates in commercial video games years ago.

I've spent the overwhelming majority of my life considering questions of human interaction with visual media (with an emphasis on video games since my pre-teens) so this is something I've thought a lot about in the current media climate.

Has anyone considered that maybe there are other factors at work here? Is it possible to just be so used to something that when something different comes along we reject it? I hate to disagree with my boy Shian here but based on what I have seen. I think allot of the "weirdness" is just...for lack of a better word ...shell shock.

Perhaps they(Hobbit footage) just didnt watch ENOUGH of the movie to get used to it?...

Case in point ... watch a 3d movie...about 30 minutes in your brain gets so used to the 3d effect and it really does kinda diminish. I realized this last time I watched one in the theater. My brain compensated better at some point I forgot it was 3d.... I think once your brain gets used to it you will see the advantages. But for now I think people will all have to judge for themselves.... I dont personally think the general public will notice much.

I've watched more than enough 120Hz HD to "get used to it" but just like the smell of shit, it's not something you ever get used to....it's still shit. It smells that way for a reason, so you won't eat it. 48p is shit. A device the purveyors of 3D are trying to use to perpetuate 3D, and justify its existence. "Well the reason it looks bad is 24fps, but wait till we show it to you in 48 or 60, it'll be so clear you won't be able to argue." Great, so now it's not blurry, but it looks like a fucking soap opera. There's a reason Soap operas are snickered at, they are the red headed step children of the entertainment world, why the fuck would you want to make feature films look like soaps? Just stop it with the damn 3D. Other than Avatar and the animated films I've seen in 3D, they all look like shit.

Like I said, there are ways to keep motion blur where needed and eliminate it where it is not. But it requires, thought, and more work in post. I've added motion blur to 60p footage played back at 60fps, and it looks fantastic. But without...it looks like a fucking soap.

Video games look great in 60p, but it doesn't really work for narrative film.

When digital video came out, and there was no 24p, we groaned cuz it looked great, but it didn't move like film...lotsa movies were shot and projected in 30p.... nobody got used to it... we all hated it. 48 and 60 are even smoother than 30... it may actually be more expensive, but it looks cheap.

@thepalalias I concur with you. I meant the new generation would adapt to higher fps contents. 48fps for game might be too slow. 60fps for game sounds good. 120fps game... I can't take it.