I wish they'd push for 4K 60FPS so they could upgrade their releases to this in the future.
I think some of this will change with time as people get more used to the look and the production gets better (effects, costumes, etc.). Music is also an artificial construct from the get-go, even live, but most narrative film is meant to reflect real life in some way, shape, or form. That means that anything out of place is caught immediately by our expert eyes.
All that said, when I was in the industry, one thing I noticed was how easily you could gloss over minor visual details like set dressings or small props (think food on plates), but even the slightest error in sound production was enough to destroy the effect.
It's funny that 2D stereo still works so well. Perhaps that will also change again, with binaural recordings and object-based audio, but that's something I don't see the music industry using anytime soon.
There are some good DVD-A or SACD's with 5.1 audio, but they are niche and expensive.
Well, some people do. But unlike 24 fps vs 60 fps movies, mp3/cd has huge usability improvements against vinyl (not to mention it's free if you pirate or stream), so there's no real competition.
But take musicians for example: even most young electronic musicians, born entirely in the digital era, prefer analog synths for their warmth and bite, or try to emulate it on the PC with external processing or purposeful degradation of the signal.
Or take guitars. Who likes a clean, undistorted signal? Even for jazz, people still prefer a coloured, saturated tone.
Long version if you're interested in why people some people may think vinyl sounds better than CD: http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)
It's hard to compare these two arguments since "CD sound" is the standard these days, whereas the "technically inferior" 24fps is still the cinematic standard. So, while people may label 60fps video as "unnatural", nobody would label a CD recording as such. Also, there are people who've never listened to vinyl to this day, whereas almost anybody will be used to the "film" look of 24fps, which has been the de-facto standard for decades.
The warm sound of vinyl on the other hand is just poor sound quality masquerading as something desirable.
I'd argue it is color grading and wide aspect ratio more than anything that makes movies feel like movies, but 24 FPS and it's less lifelike movement also does make them feel distinct.
On the other hand, no one argues that sports look a lot better in 60 FPS. For home movies I take, I also want at least 60 FPS, because it preserves reality better.
But movies aren't about preserving reality.
We saw the second one in 24fps 2d (we mostly avoid 3D because we rarely care enough about it to pay extra, but it was the only way to see the first one in 48fps) because we both hated the first one's presentation so much, so I don't know whether we'd have experienced it in that one.
I've never had the same impression from TV or home movies which is 50/60 fps.
I for one, don't like that kind of high frame rate motion -- it looks as fake as bad CGI graphics.
I saw all the Hobbit movies in 24fps, and—especially (at least, this is where it first really stuck firmly I in my mind as wrong) in the underground scenes in the first, but also in parts of the other two—had a similar impression.
I think it had to do with some other element of cinematography particular to that film series, though it's quite plausible that 48fps exacerbated it.
Maybe it would be possible to shoot at 60fps or even higher and then dynamically adjust the frame rate to keep the 24fps but smooth some scenes as required?
Film or video shot at high framerates will necessarily have to be shot at higher shutter speeds than films shot at a lower fps. This has an obvious visual impact on the image.
As you need to add VFX, basically all content is shot with as fast a shutter as possible, and you add the motion blur back in post. And, as you rightly mentioned, when you do that you can choose any shutter speed in post.
Dealing with motion blur when rotoscoping is a bitch, btw.
Making it look good is akin to polishing a turd.
Films at 24fps are precisely the same thing. Their lack of detail and realism is precisely what has made the medium so successful over the last 100 years.
I love watching 48/50/60 FPS for psychedelic things or music visualization (and games of course ! like most of gamers) but it should be used carefully and intentionnally by the content director / producer. Some scene/content would require high motion blur and some others scene/content high framerate...
It's a great example of a happy accident, or serendipity.
Ang Lee shot Billy Lynn at 120fps and Sony Pictures had every intention to distribute it in 120fps. In fact they created a version at 24fps for legacy sites, 60fps as well as a 120fps version. At the last minute the studio pulled the 2 HFR versions and released only the 24fps version (note: not pulled for technical reasons) I've seen 20 minutes of the 120fps version and personally did not like the look.
It remains to be seen if James Cameron can utilize HFR in a manner that the general public finds appealing. He has stated that the Avatar features will utilize high framerates in some way.
I can believe that some scenes might benefit from the visual effect of a lower framerate, but I can also imagine other scenes, such as complex action and long horizontal pans might benefit from higher framerates. Also I think the "too real" feeling might work quite well to convey grittier settings.
I do believe someone will crack this nut (as Cameron did with 3D). But it's going to take the right project and very creative filmmaking techniques. Personally, I think the first one that works will be a sci-fi in a sterile setting, so the HFR will work with the narrative, not be a distraction.
True, Post Production is not the largest piece of the pie, but it still adds up to millions of dollars.