I’m not saying that the resampling is right, but I am super questioning this film rate in a digital age.
I’m also questioning the algorithm that just creates a messy blur of nonsense between two frames. Surely we can create a smarter algorithm
24FPS was chosen as much for economic reasons as anything else - it’s one of the slowest frame rates cinema could get away with while still delivering a satisfactory experience.
Remember that higher frame rates meant higher consumption of expensive film before the digital era. Lowering the FPS to the lowest you could reasonably get away with reduced the cost of materials significantly.
That it’s still popular today is at least partly testament to the conditioning effect of decades of 24FPS movie consumption. Audiences often find the higher FPS look and “feel” strange, at least in a cinema context, such as the backlash the 48 FPS cinema presentation of the Hobbit movies received.
I strongly believe that if industry had settled on say 48FPS as the standard we’d be conditioned to “expect” that look and complain that 24FPS looks strange.
Also: cinematic film is what keeps Kodak alive.
Like the interface and OS I assume the TV manufacturers are mostly using cheap versions of what they think they can get away with without pushing up their costs.
…which was remade into a high-budget Hollywood CGI-laden production, starring Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt. I’m not even joking; it’s called 12 Monkeys, and was released in 1995.