Right after you show me a 30 fps video that looks more like film than 24 fps. If you are talking about interlaced vs. progressive, that's different than talking about frames per second.
I did, post #15. I never said 30fps looks more like film/24fps. I said 30fps looks closer to 24fps than it does to 60i. Even simple math backs up this opinion
Naw, it's a post thing. When people tell us they're going to shoot at 30fps, we ask, "do you mean TRUE 30fps -- which can't easily be broadcast -- or do you mean 29.97fps, which can?" There are cheap crappy still cameras that can do both, or just one of them. Sync can become a big issue if you mix the two.
My point was that that 30 fps film looks more like video than 24 fps film. Most video any of us have ever watched in the US has been 30i. (Actually 29.97, but who's counting )
I would drive a pretty good distance to see something like that I’d they still did it. That said, the bluray restoration of the Todd-AO is pretty great. Made me want to buy a bigger TV!
After watching the PBS Nova doc on the brain and how it processes visual stimuli, I was reminded of the rubber pencil trick I learned back in grade school and also demonstrated by Elaine on a Seinfeld episode. Anyone can do this trick which demonstrates how our visual system and our brain isn't as fast was we would think in that 24 frames per second looks normal to us while anything over 30 fps looks weird and for me makes me feel queezy in the stomach if I watch it too long. I also tested this by waving my index finger left to right back lit by the white page of my computer monitor and focused on the edge of my finger and noticed trailing and slightly blurred edges that indicated a slight latency in how my brain perceived movement. This latency of trailing edges (or motion blur) is what Spielberg liked about shooting film at 24fps I read on an article about the appeal of shooting movies on film.
Could be semantics or preferred nomenclature, but 29.97i as used in NTSC video historically has meant 29.97 frames per second and 59.94 fields per second.
Real life is coming at you in analog with infinite temporal resolution (also in 3D ). The limitations of our ability to perceive temporal resolution are a function of our eyes and nervous systems, but it is certainly higher than 24 frames per second. I think the reason very high frame rates can be disorienting has to do with both the conditioning over years to seeing films presented at 24 fps and with the way seeing something at hyper-real temporal resolution exposes the artifice of a photographed representation of reality due to how we perceive things like lenses with different focal lengths, lighting set-ups, etc.
I think the human reaction to 24fps images helps sell the "fantasy world" for people getting getting absorbed by a motion picture story. We want it to look dreamy and not-quite-real. I don't buy that a high-frame-rate video game look or "live TV look" is what we need for scripted films. I think they're fine at 24fps.
