One of the reasons for higher FPS is that it gives artistic freedom to make panning shots etc. High speed panning in 24fps is horrible.

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?

High speed panning is terrible in general.

Making it look good is akin to polishing a turd.

The issue is simply motion blur. You can just shoot in 60fps with a shutter as you’d use for 24fps, you get all the feeling, all the motion blur, and none of the chopiness.

That is simply not possible. While it is possible to render a digital scene at 60fps with any arbitrary shutter speed (e.g. 1/48s the default 180° shutter used in 24fps film productions), it is not possible in real life with a real camera. There are only 48 48ths in each second and you will not be able to start a new frame while you are still capturing the one before it. 60fps limits your availible shutterspeeds to a theoretical maximum of 1/60s or faster. At 24fps you are theoretically limited to 1/24s. In practice there will be a delay between frames so oth numbers will be slightly smaller.

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.

It’s correct that you can’t directly reach the same result, but all media currently produced, for TV and film, is shot at different shutter speeds than it is shown.

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.

My complaint about the 48fps (after going in hyped to see this Spiffy New Format) was that everyone looked like they were speed-walking all the time, which was really distracting. It was like a sped-up silent film. Nothing else I've seen in higher framerates has had that problem, though—just The Hobbit.

I didn't feel like that at all and it surprises me anyone did. Do you have the same problem when you see people walk in real life?

No, and other high-fps video I've watched (all on much smaller screens, though) hasn't had that effect. I've wondered if the sensation was generated by some combination of 3D + 48fps + viewing angle. Or maybe something to do with the post-processing particular to that film. My wife reported the same effect—people walking with a casual gait but seemingly slightly sped up. Also affected other movements of people and objects, but walking was the most noticeable. The level of distraction it induced was similar to when audio and video are slightly out of sync (though, to be clear, they were not, that's just the kind of constant low-level distraction in caused)

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 had the same impression of "speed-walking", and I saw it in 48fps 2D. It almost felt as if the projection was lagging sometimes and then sped up the film to catch up or something, it was very distracting.

I've never had the same impression from TV or home movies which is 50/60 fps.

It's a widely discussed effect that tons of people have complained about, including famous directors -- so one can hardly be surprised others find it as such too.

I for one, don't like that kind of high frame rate motion -- it looks as fake as bad CGI graphics.

Was that the frame rate or just hobbits trying to keep up with Gandalf?

> My complaint about the 48fps (after going in hyped to see this Spiffy New Format) was that everyone looked like they were speed-walking all the time,

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.

I agree. The orc chase across the rock-studded field did not look good. I found it distracting, as the higher frame rate didn't allow my eye/brain to predict their motion.

Hence "in the future" when people feel less strongly about that.

They looked amazing to me and I had the reverse feeling afterwards when watching a 24fps movie. For some time they looked slow and stuttering/laggy until I got used to them again. Can't wait for more 48/60 fps movies ^^