|I'm using it. What ya gonna do 'bout it? NUTHIN'!|
If you fall into the latter category, don't worry, the film jargon 48fps vs. 24fps vs. a ludicrous 60fps all means that one is the industry standard (24fps), one allows smoother movement (48fps), and the other features ridiculous fluidity (60fps). Well, just take a look at this visual comparison of the three. It should be noted that there is not 24fps and instead 30fps because once the film has been converted to video, it pretty much becomes 30fps (or rather... 29.97...). Just don't worry about it.
|Their Rider? James Cameron. Obvi.|
Jolly, Giant Jackson's defense of the 48fps was that it gave a smoother look to the film, as 24fps can be less clear especially during fast camera motion. Now, a smoother, clearer, non-blurry motion picture seems awesome, right? So, why is everyone freaking out?
|Kids are going to MOVIES? There's Dancing? Golly gee!|
|Does this make me better than you? |
Yes. Yes it does.
With the introduction of 3D cinema, shooting in 48fps vs. 24fps is just way easier to look at. Seriously, it's bad enough that we have the images popping up at us, we don't need it to be even harder to look at. 48fps allows a clearer, easier viewing of 3D for our brains. And since 3D ain't going away anytime soon, this is a good thing. I will even set aside my hate for 3D, and welcome 48fps or higher if it makes the picture look BETTER.
While the fear of higher frame rates will always be there, it isn't going away. James Cameron has long been an outspoken pioneer when it comes to chopping away at the old industry standards. Cameron has even said he would want to shoot the sequels to Avatar (yes... the sequels) in 60fps. Oh boy...
|Dr. John Watson. Now, where's Sherlock...?|
However, given Cameron's and Jackson's track record, these guys know their way around the technology they are utilizing. It's the guys who come after these two... the less skilled directors... Uh-oh.
|Sherlock? Why are you a dragon?|
And Sauron? Oh wait... ummm....... The Necromancer...