You see it on television all the time. Sports shows are 60 frames. Those flawless slo-mo playbacks with no smearing. I haven’t seen ‘The Hobbit’ yet, but I do believe it would be nice to get away from 24 frames per second — even just to 30 frames per second. I don’t have a nostalgic longing to stick with the smearing or strobing you get when you pan with a film camera. It’s not nice. It comes from ancient technology that we don’t need anymore. Even upping to 30 might get rid of that, I don’t know why 48 as opposed to 50 or 60, frankly. In a weird way, 48, as double of 24, is still clinging to the old technology.
The legendary director shares his thoughts of the 24 fps vs.48 fps debate (via Indiewire)
Bloody good POINT, David! After all, silent films were at a different FPS rate than “talkies”; and film speed is certainly determined by physical determinations. Whereas I do see advantages of shooting on film stock over pure digital film-making (clearer masters, larger depth of field, etc) I didn’t notice any difference the first time I saw “The Hobbit” (in a large THX theater). I did notice that when I saw it the second time in a smaller theater it seemed to make my eyes tired, but it was also about 20 degrees too warm in the place, and I was coming down with a cold — so either of those might explain the tiredness more so than the clarity of the screen image.