Dude, if you had theoretical TV displaying full HD at 1000 fps using 1/10000000 sec shutter speed your eyes would motion-blur themselves. That's the way it works in reality ;) You are just used to see motion blur "baked in" on film...due to measly 24fps rate. 24fps isn't THE golden standard. It's just the lowest (= cheapest regarding to film stock) framerate that is still somewhat watchable. I say to hell with it...manufacturers can always update the firmware in telly to give punters stuttery 24fps "action" by averaging frames ;)

P.S. For the record, I almost always shoot 720p50 instead if 1080p25 on GH2. I don't want "filmic", I want it as near "reality" as possible :D Now when everyone and the dog shoots "filmic" 1080p25 full-frame bokehcake, I like high framerate more and more :-P

lol @pdlumina Hey, man what you do in the privacy of your own house, with the hooker of your choice...is up to you.

But clearly still a fringe fetish... like hopefully this whole 48/60p crap will be.

@LPowell BUT projecting footage with 24p motion blur. It's the motion blur man. All about the motion blur. Like I said, leave it out during action sequences where's theres tons of camera movement, but put it back in on the slow sweeping shots, the talking heads, the subtle moments.... every tool in it's place....the right tool for the right job. You don't shoot with a gradient filter on ALL THE TIME, it would look stupid...

@Grunf

I can clearly imagine big communities about "True Film Era". Special software suites that remove 3D and converts common 4K 120fps into simulated 2K 24fps (as no monitor or TV will support 24fps).

48p will be da shit for 3D. All movies I watched in theaters last year were 3D. If 48p can enhance the experience, sure I will pay for the tickets.

@rozroz yes. see this article for the details

http://badassdigest.com/2012/04/24/cinemacon-2012-the-hobbit-underwhelms-at-48-frames-per-secon/

@jrd In regards to video games, note my earlier comment. :)

And as regards theaters: normally 24 frames per second content projected with a refresh rate of 48Hz or 72Hz. We shouldn't muddy the water by confusing the frame rate (i.e. the rate at which the content changes) with the refresh rate (the rate at which the display updates).

There is no reason why a 120 Hz TV should look "worse" (that is to say, have such a different aesthetic that it frustrates people accustomed to lower refresh rates. Most of us watch 24P on displays with refresh rates from 60Hz and upward. On a CRT, anything below 75Hz is likely to increase the rate at which visual fatigue develops and refresh rates of 85Hz and above were common on many CRT monitors even a decade ago.

"Motion Interpolation", "Smooth Motion" or whatever the manufacturer calls it, is an additional form of filtering/processing. Just like I generally don't want the consumer to view my content with very, very heavily distorted colors (e.g. "I'm going to try Per's video with a Van Gogh 'Starry Night' approach") I also don't like for a TV to add filtering without regard to my content.

Native high frame rate content is a different issue, but frankly the smoothing SHOULD be turned off by default. Why? Because it represents a distortion of the original presentation, and not only did the creator not have a say in the modification, not even the content distributor did. So are we going to say the TV manufacturers should dictate the motion of our content instead of the content creators? I think that's insane.

If someone likes the look and wants to turn it on, then fine. But it should be off by default - just like you don't ship receivers set to "Concert Hall 1" surround settings, etc.

@shian

That, or secret persecuted communes which watch 24p in the catacombs....

Motion blur is related much more to shutter angle and speed than the 24fps thing. But Yes at a 180 shutter shooting at 24fps you get smooth motion blur "baked in" however change the angle the angle to say 90 degrees at the same frame rate you will have much sharper frames(shorter exposure time per frame). Often this is done in films like war scenes where the want the action to look more intense.. sharp etc... like a beach assault scene.

wow I was like 10 posts behind sorry...

@bwhitz The latter part of what you are talking about sounds like the "Uncanny Valley". Anyone remember the optimism about realistic computer animated characters before the film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within's financial failure? It was one of two films that shaped the face of computer animation in movie to this day.

If Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within had been well received that year, and Shrek had been poorly received, we would have been more likely to see realistic computer animation in animated features, as opposed to the simpler and more stylized approach seen in films like Madagascar, Hop, Kung-Fu Panda, etc.

Whichever side you may be rooting for, do not underestimate the long-term impact of the public's initial reaction to native 48P content in the cinemas. It could potentially determine the trend for the majority of major releases for the next decade.

Most people claim not to notice the 120hz and yet the end up buying the new TVs anyway. Behold the power of marketing

@thepalalias "The latter part of what you are talking about sounds like the "Uncanny Valley". Anyone remember the optimism about realistic computer animated characters before the film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within's financial failure? It was one of two films that shaped the face of computer animation in movie to this day."

Yes, nice job pointing that out. I think it's exactly the same thing happening as the uncanny valley. If something just "represents" reality, but a clear distinction can be made... we can enjoy it. If something gets too close though, our brains start spazing out and the illusion is lost. The film-motion of 24fps helps keep the movie world separate and allows us to interpret what we're watching as a story... and NOT a real event unfolding. Real life events just don't unfold as film events do. We don't have personal soundtracks, scores, and music cues. Rooms don't adjust their lighting to reflect the mood we're in. We don't just skip over certain days events and leave conversations after the emotional apex. Films just aren't supposed to be real!

Like when I saw Avatar in 3D. Sure it was a cool effect. But my brain knew all along that people's heads are not 30feet tall in real life. So the 3D cinematography trying to make the experience more realistic was just a lost cause. Even if Avatar 2 is 120fps and perfect 3D... it still won't work in theaters... because people aren't that big! Being more life-like just makes it less realistic!!! It doesn't work!

I like 24p for storytelling because I think people forget when you do get into 60p ect. It does get very real looking and well it looks "fake" because you are actually shooting something that isn't real. It is an "act" which is imitation or fake real life which the camera captures correctly as fake. 60p sports looks awesome. 24p to storytelling is like a slight soft effects filter to shoot a hot model, you don't want to see every skin pore or blemish! Anyway just my opinion, you should shoot what you like.

When we first got our new Samsung TV we loved it - and we did what I guess anyone does when they get a new TV, which is to flick around the channels and watch evertything and congratulate ourselves on what a wonderful purchase we'd made. Later that evening we came across something that seemed really expensively done, but the camera work was really bad - sort of "soap opera" ish. We discovered it was a respected film (not one I knew) and the horrible effect was caused by the TV doing motion interpolation. It looked so terrible even the children commented on it! Nice crane moves were turned into a sort of low-budget, cheesy, video version. It looked like parts of the move were speeded-up. After poking around in the menus and experimenting, we disabled the motion interpolation "feature". Movies now look like they are meant to, and so does TV studio / sports broadcasting. So part of the horrible effects we see could well be some TV that's been set up to look good on sports but not movies.

I think our preferences for particular frame rates has a lot to do with our experiences. For example, for as long as I can remember I have been fascinated by video, and in particular, tv broadcasting, and I really hated 24p - particularly when pictures were deliberately (as I thought) downgraded to give that progressive look. I mean, you can have 50 interlaced pictures a second, why deliberately make it half as good? But having played with shooting and editing in 24p I now totally agree that it gives a certain "look" which we associate with "the movies". Of course, that may change, and probably will, as standards change.

But I also wanted to comment on what @shian wrote about 24 being a "sweet spot", because it related to other things with "24" as part of the measurement. I liked that. The units @crunchy uses above are merely scientific ways of pinning down these old measurements using a current system that is more universally agreed. But we shouldn't make fun of the old hours / days / miles / feet / inches. They have a very, very long history - some are adaptations of extremely old, "folk" units, which are based on things related to parts of our bodies or to the things we experience happening, so to me they're more "human" somehow, if that makes sense. These old units arose out of our need to make sense of the world and work with others; it just happens that they don't quite work as precisely as modern scientific definitions so we tend to use them less and less. For example, in our current house-building project I talk in metres and millimetres but in everyday life I use miles, inches, gallons etc - somehow they seem to be better units for the average everyday things you talk about. I know that probably sounds a bit weird.