48 frames isn't what we're used to, so it's jarring. Without getting into the technical aspects, it's actually "closer" to "real", but because we're not used to seeing films on the big screen like that, it seems more "fake".
Apparently there were similar complaints when films were moving towards the current 24 fps - people were used to the jerky motion of the 14 fps silent films, and 24 just seemed wrong to them. I'm sure we'll all get used to 48 fps, eventually. Hell, even Edison, back in the day, thought we shouldn't be showing films at anything less than 46 fps.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 7/12/12 17:18 (UTC)Apparently there were similar complaints when films were moving towards the current 24 fps - people were used to the jerky motion of the 14 fps silent films, and 24 just seemed wrong to them. I'm sure we'll all get used to 48 fps, eventually. Hell, even Edison, back in the day, thought we shouldn't be showing films at anything less than 46 fps.