I thought it looked fine. Besides, if you use a high framerate you can always sell a downsample and leave open the possibility of a remaster should tastes change later.
The problem is the shutter value, which is another artistic choice that differentiates "film" from video and will contribute to the choppiness.
Standard for film is a 180degree shutter (half open half closed when capturing). Originally, you had to physically advance the film to the next frame while the shutter was closed. Video would be effectively always open giving you a longer blur. If you shoot at a 60fps instead of 24fps you're going to have 2.5x less blur (and also 2.5x less light). So downsampling wouldn't look right at 24 or 30fps.
Re:Motion Smoothing Is Ruining Cinema
by brokenmachine on Thursday July 25, 2019 @02:02AM
(#20522950)
>it might be useful for sports
Nope, it's also terrible for sports.
A few like James Cameron and Peter Jackson have tried. Nobody liked it because it looked like a soap opera. I'm not against higher fps, but film has some historical limitations it clings to that remind us it's "film" such as 24fps and widescreen.
The big complaint is that it's on by default--it's not something people are (explicitly) choosing.
Personally, I hate motion smoothing. It's just a gimmick to add a bullet list to the box. I figure it might be useful for sports (I would say video games, but it generally introduces a noticeable lag). It sucks that it's on by default and not consistent or obvious to turn off. If you're happy to opt-in, you do you.