It took me about half an hour to stop noticing the oddness of it.
> You will someday specifically notice 24 fps and say, wow, how did I ever watch that.
I watched The Hobbit in 24fps a week later and even little initial things like Bilbo sitting on his porch and waving his hands at Gandalf were noticeably flickery and inferior. But after half an hour or so I got used to it ;)
In 24fps, it was noticeable how much of the screen was completely dark or so close to it in indoor and night scenes that it yielded nothing of interest. And the opposite in 48fps: Everything, everywhere had well-lit detail, even when it moved. It was occasionally too much.
I totally agree with the article that the film people haven't yet worked out how to best light indoor 48fps scenes. Too much clarity at 48fps, and not enough at at 24fps. I also totally agree with the article's basic conclusion - this doesn't mean that 48fps is worse, and it isn't. We just don't know how best to make it yet ... or how to see it.
It took me about half an hour to stop noticing the oddness of it.
> You will someday specifically notice 24 fps and say, wow, how did I ever watch that.
I watched The Hobbit in 24fps a week later and even little initial things like Bilbo sitting on his porch and waving his hands at Gandalf were noticeably flickery and inferior. But after half an hour or so I got used to it ;)
In 24fps, it was noticeable how much of the screen was completely dark or so close to it in indoor and night scenes that it yielded nothing of interest. And the opposite in 48fps: Everything, everywhere had well-lit detail, even when it moved. It was occasionally too much.
I totally agree with the article that the film people haven't yet worked out how to best light indoor 48fps scenes. Too much clarity at 48fps, and not enough at at 24fps. I also totally agree with the article's basic conclusion - this doesn't mean that 48fps is worse, and it isn't. We just don't know how best to make it yet ... or how to see it.