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)
Someone explain this?
@nerdavia — FPS stands for Frames per Second. It refers to the speed that 35mm (or higher) film stock is feed through the camera to record the image. (The moving image of film is an illusion – actually it’s a series of still images). Traditionally, modern films with sound are shot at 24 FPS. Jackson doubled that to 48 FPS, and it probably has to do with the sheer number of digital effects in the film.