> For some [filmmakers], HFR will be a potential new tool in their arsenal for telling certain types of stories in a new and exciting way, while others will be reminded of why the 2D format at 24 fps has stood the test of time for so long.

Just like dial-up for Internet and horses for transportation stood the test of time for so long. This is such an unabashed argument that "it should stay this way because it has been this at for so long" that I feel sympathetic embarrassment upon reading it.

The author's failure to be immersed is clearly due to his a priori insistence that 24 FPS is the way movie should be shot and projected. He says that himself. But there is more:

> In the opening hour of The Hobbit shown in 3D HFR – I don’t recall hearing a single sigh, or laugh. Not one. When I went to see the exact same seen with an audience of the same size on a 2D projection – I heard regular chuckles and laughter… why?

Here's why: because there are really high odds that of all the people across the world that watched the movie in both formats, at least one person would experience this. Why did Bob win the lottery? Is it because he's good at guessing lottery numbers, or is it because the odds were high that someone would win the lottery, and we chose Bob for analysis after learning that he won? In case anyone wants a counter-anecdote, I watched The Hobbit in both formats and there was a lot of laughter in both theaters. I don't have any real evidence, but I suspect most showings in all formats had considerable laughter.

> It’s like being on a film set in person: all of the magic is lost. You get to see behind the curtain and you’re no longer under the spell…

I think most critics and movie buffs are well aware that "the magic" comes from the viewer's deliberate choice to suspend disbelief. If this weren't the case, then filmmakers themselves would be unable to enjoy a film, since they would fully understand most aspects of how the film was produced. Again, this just reaffirms the author's own admission that he will only choose to be immersed if a film is projected in 24 FPS.

> The makeup wasn’t as terrible as some people say, and most of the VFX were stunning but not all. When I saw them in 2D however – it was almost like seeing another film. My attention wasn’t drawn to them … As I was focusing on central action. That challenges the "Suspension of Disbelief" theory that we all need to believe what we are seeing on screen and to get lost in it…

Oh boy. The author seems unaware that all or nearly all modern theory about suspension of disbelief places most of the responsibility on the viewer, not the artist. No artist can forcefully make you forget or ignore the fact that you're sitting down in a dark room with a bunch of other people.

I suppose I cannot dispute the author's claims about experiencing physical pain from the 3D. Perhaps there truly is some sort variation in people's visual systems that causes this. Other than the slight physical discomfort from wearing 3D glasses over my corrective glasses, all I can say is I haven't experienced that. If this were his central criticism, then it would be valid, although depending on the rate of occurrence of this medical condition it may or may not be reasonable to expect a blockbuster filmmaker to accommodate those who suffer from it.

Alternatively you could say "Orcs are unreal, so there isn't an uncanny valley at all for them"

I don't have the relevant links available to me currently, but suffice to say the eye can pick up on far, far more than 60 fps.

The fast forward look is just an adjustment period, you experience the same watching videos of games at 60fps (even though they're played in 60fps normally, it's a very odd thing).

But yes, It would be neat to experience some legitimate side-by-side comparison of frame rates / motion blurs. Such a comparison has subtleties that make it hard to do fairly and cheaply.

http://100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm (edit to fix small typo)

As used in the current film, 48FPS diminishes selectivity of detail, one of the most important attributes of any artform. In this film it is ALL detail, ALL the time.

For an analogy, think of it in literary terms: 48FPS is akin to a writer endlessly pouring over every minute detail of his scene, at the expense of plot, characterization, theme, etc. In literature, that might become a hallmark of style (Dickens), but even so, when the plot needs to move, one dials down the descriptiveness. In film, we're swept along at the movie's pace, and there isn't always time to process the blanket intensity of detail at 48 FPS. It can easily draw our attention to non-essential parts of the shot, and overwhelm visual attention at the expense of auditory story-tracking.

FWIW, I saw the film in 48 FPS 3D, and I truly tried to be as open minded and objective about what I was viewing, trying to approach the content, style, and technology on its own terms. (I find this is often the way to get the most enjoyable experience out of a movie.) There were moments when I found the level of detail breathtaking. Unfortunately, there were more where I found it to be distracting, and the motion strangely awkward. For the most part, I did appreciate the lack of motion blur on panning shots.

Perhaps what is needed is a new method of dialing the detail up or down within the shot when using HFR, beyond the current means of focus, depth of field, and lighting. Like a painter selectively using detailed rendering techniques on different faces within a scene, filmmakers shooting at 48 FPS could then more easily direct their audience's glance and attention according to the aims of the narrative.

But as in any art, there's no easy answer here. It's always going to be about tradeoffs.

About a week ago I was at the Microsoft campus in Redmond and had a chance to watch an action scene from the last Batman movie in one of their living room studios. The TV was pretty new and was showing the movie in interpolation mode or something. Subjectively, it looked like the Hobbit did. It didn't seem natural and kept pulling me out of enjoying the film. This comes with the comparison that I saw the same Batman movie in the theater this year and it looked much better at the slower frame rate.

I believe the optimal goal for fps is to mimic exactly what the human brain perceives with vision. Movies and/or video games should eventually seem like you're a spectator or looking through a window.

I just read through this page and it provides some good background, http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm.

Basically, I think what was lacking in the Hobbit was a significant amount of motion blur. That's what we get naturally at a lower frame rate like 24fps. Simply pumping up the fps to 48 without adjusting for motion blur is what makes it feel weird. It definitely provides more visual detail, but that isn't optimal for the viewing experience.

I think an interesting experiment to do in the next few months will be to take the 48fps non-3D version of the Hobbit and add motion blur in certain test scenes while maintaining the higher frame rate. I hypothesize this will let us see more detail and make the images richer while appearing more natural to the brain.

Well, it depends. For one, it coincides better with the ~1/25 rate of which a retina persists an afterimage, which might give it a better perceptual look over a higher frame rate.

And perhaps it's not the "as much fidelity" part that is asked of the film medium, but the illusion of a different world, which better fidelity would destroy.

>and that type of argument could be (and probably was) used to argue against audio ("talkies"), color, surround sound, digital color correction, etc.

Well, from a purely artistic perspective, the argument is not incomprehensible at all, even against audio, color, surround sound and such, depending on the prevailing theory of art.

And, purely empirically, I'd go on to say that the more technologically advanced a movie, the worse film it is. But I come from a European/French perspective on the art of cinema, and I wouldn't consider Avatar or LoTR as a "good" film at all.

This is like a reverse slippery slope argument. I have not seen one quote, newspaper article, book excerpt, and so on that would back up the claim that there was widespread opposition to audio or color.