Ang Lee already tried the 120fps thing, it was a colossal flop. No one likes watching movies in anything other than 24fps dude.
Filmmakers filming in 120fps would destroy the film industry overnight because NO ONE would watch what they produced.
Filmmakers filming in 120fps would destroy the film industry overnight because NO ONE would watch what they produced.
I know of at least 6 people who prefer higher framerates, myself included. I don't know anyone who has expressed an opinion the other way. As I said, this whole thread is like some kind of alternative universe to me.
Motion smoothing apparently hasn't stopped people buying TVs.
Like many other things, this is all down to personal preferences; similarly I have friends who can't stand to game at anything <120FPS and one who gets motion sick at 60FPS, while I would rather turn up the graphical detail and survive with 60. Neither opinion is more correct, and you have had several people upthread saying they prefer 24 for films (myself included).
Edit: nope, recreating from higher fps the motion blur that's common in 24 would be way more expensive.
Not true. Something filmed natively at 24 fps and a 180° shutter angle is vastly different in terms of perceived motion than 120 fps converted to 24 fps.
"By far the most common setting for cinema has been a shutter angle near 180°, which equates to a shutter speed near 1/48 of a second at 24 fps." [1]
"A 180° shutter angle is considered normal." [2]
Right, replicating that exactly requires 240fps with fast shutter and discarding half of the frames. Which is a way more expensive proposition.
As for downsampling, I believe your math is off. 120 fps at 360° means each frame is exposed at 1/120s. Conforming that to 24 fps gives you the same exposure duration per frame (you're just throwing out 4/5 frames), so you're effectively at a 72° shutter angle - less than half of what's considered "normal".