24fps - these days - is less about technology and more about standards and aesthetic. There are plenty of reasons why films have been shot in 24fps for the past handful of decades.

When you start increasing that in YOUR film, you lose a sense of familiarity in your audience and their (subconcious) willingness for suspension of disbelief probably goes away with it.

> There are plenty of reasons why films have been shot in 24fps for the past handful of decades.

Really? I don't see any tangible reason why a low framerate would be superior to a higher one. Even on a very basic level high framerate is superior to low framerate and 24 is well...the absolute minimum.

> Really? I don't see any tangible reason why a low framerate would be superior to a higher one.

Bandwidth and data transfer, for example - also many devices eat through battery like nothing else when you feed them with high-framerate stuff, and old-ish TVs may not support high-framerate material properly.

>Bandwidth and data transfer

The bitrate is specified in the specs so that's not it.

>old-ish TVs may not support high-framerate material properly

These are the specs for how it's shot not how it's broadcast.

So were black&white movies.

I have never watched a tv show show and thought "You know what this needs? Not better writing, plotting, story arcs, acting, or directing, but more frames per second or a higher resolution".

You may not have noticed it consciously, but I bet your subconscious noticed it. Once I started to notice motion blur in movies I can't stop noticing it. Often times its really hard to tell what is going in a scene with lots of motion. All objects become unrecognizable blurry smears across the screen. Of course it effects the way scenes are filmed - directors take it into account and film things differently than they otherwise might have at higher fps. Avoiding shots with too much movement or camera panning, that might have been very superior.

Conversely, high frame rate stuff "feels" so much more real. It's hard to explain, but if you look at side by side comparisons, the higher frame rate is definitely preferable. The guy who did the tech demo of full motion video on a 1981 PC had some interesting points about this. He did experiments to find the optimal trade off between frame rate and resolution. He found higher framerate with lower resolution was better than the reverse, and had some nice examples of it. PC gamers have known this forever and are obsessive about high frame rates.

Maybe I'm an outlier, but there have definitely been times (long camera movements/rotations in particular) where I thought "jeez, that's a low framerate".

Some movies have it worse than others, and maybe it's my own fault for training myself to look for it with interactive games, but there are definitely times where it stands out as an outdated technical limitation.

The Onion, almost 20 years ago: http://www.theonion.com/article/high-definition-television-p...

Really? Everytime I watch an action movie and can't understand anything I wish it had more fps.

Bit of a false dichotomy but OK. I want my movies to have all of the above, including more frames.

It's not a requirement, just a specification of minimum bit rate.

Most movies are still presented at 24fps because higher frame rates apparently look different. The Hobbit was released in 60 fps and the reception by critics was mixed. Personally I don't see it but I'm no expert.

> The Hobbit was released in 60 fps and the reception by critics was mixed.

48fps, not 60fps.

>It's not a requirement, just a specification of minimum bit rate.

Sure. Why not specify a progressive 60fps though. Every second fkin phone can do 60fps these days...spec'ing future netflix catalogue at 24fps seems very odd.

People are used to 24fps and don't want to change. The same thing happened when we transitionned to sound or films in colors. Fortunately some directors don't care about this and will probably pave the way for the next generations (james cameron, peter jackson)