I never understood the “grain = realism” thing. my real eyes don’t have grain. I do appreciate the role of grain as an artistic tool though, so this is still cool tech
this is likely the result of ~100 years of film-based filmmaking and projection. hell, we still call it filmmaking.
it would take a generation or more to eradicate this cultural context. casablanca is never going to be in 48fps.
If they start making films in higher frame rates today, that won’t change that fact. Do you think people are going to stop watching films from the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s?
It would take a concerted effort, beginning now, at least an entire generation (30-50 years) to remove or reduce the cultural impact of the 24 frames per second widescreen tradition. No such effort is presently underway, because higher framerates don’t help movies’ visual storytelling, and they may hurt it.
The Hobbit was Peter Jackson’s attempt. It went nowhere.
https://gizmodo.com/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-...
The Hobbit looked great at 48fps. Higher FPS failed only because reactionary people as yourself irrationally rejected it because "it looks weird!".
You need to understand that 24fps is a compromise chosen to save film. It is the bare minimum frame rate to have smooth motion under most but not all circumstances. It really hurts action films because anything moving too fast has excessive motion blur.
The point is the cultural significance, not the specific framerate. The chosen framerate is now significant because of the body of work that has been done in that format, and the inextricable experience of that framerate with that body of work.
It is anything but arbitrary! It’s a very real thing. The tyranny of the installed base is a well-documented phenomenon. In this case the installed base is the fond memories of a few billion people. Pretending that they are all irrational for not wanting higher framerates is plainly objectively incorrect, as a point of fact.