Yes, this is the exact same reason that frame smoothing exists. When you walk into a store, all the TVs are lined up showing some random nature show or sports event, and frame smoothing will make your TV look a little more smooth than the others, even though it completely ruins the content.

It's made for making sales, not for making things actually look good.

▲

xnorswap 6 days ago | parent [-]

It doesn't "ruin the content", it's a psychological issue which would be fixed by more high quality productions actually producing high frame-rate content, so the association reverses.

It seems insane to actively make all content worse, having movies worsened down to a lower frame-rate just because we have a hangover from decades old technology.

It's a shame that Peter Jackson's Hobbit wasn't a great movie. Had it been, then maybe it could have been a better driver of high frame-rate movies.

▲

matt-attack 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

Your premise to lower (temporal) detail his automatically worse is a naïve view. I’m certain you’re aware that impressionism is a valid, quite successful form of art. Do you think there are any critics who say a Monet painting would be far better if it, just had more detail? Oh if only Van Gough used a smaller brush his paintings would have been so much better! It needs “more k!”.

Film making at 24fps (while originally selected for pragmatic reasons having to do with film cost and sound fidelity) turned out to be a happy accident. It produces an Impressionistic Effect entirely similar to a money painting. 24fps is absolutely not reality. Our brains know it too. The same way they know that those giant brush strokes in a Van Gough painting are also NOT REALITY. Turns out our brains like to be toyed with. Art is just always “trying to document precisely what our senses would have experienced if we were there”.

That is just a false premise and one they misunderstands art in general.

▲

xnorswap 6 days ago | parent [-]

I reject that, it's a product of familiarity being more comfortable.

24fps was not a deliberate choice that was made a century after we previously had high frame-rate. It was a limitation at the time.

Impressionism was a deliberate choice, it came centuries after more detailed paintings were being done. And there were indeed many critics of the movement at the time.

24fps in movies is just banking on the comfortable, the familiar. It isn't art, it's giving people what they expect and not challenging people. It has about as much artistic merit as the N'th Mission impossible movie or MCU movie.

	▲	matt-attack 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		I totally disagree. If you read my statement I specifically stated that 24 was not designed to be impressionism. It was just a happy accident that it worked out that way. We've since tried all sorts of other frame-rates. Slower is to studdery, faster removes the impressionism and starts biasing towards realism. Once you get to 72fps or higher, it's essentially pure reality, and your brain knows it. Look, detailed photos can be art. Not saying that HFR cannot be art, but we'd all agree that realism and impressionism are simply different forms of art. And often times those who like one, doesn't like the other. So you have to accept that those are find the appeal of 24fps due to its "different than reality" look, they might easily find HFR material to be "boring and hyper real" in the same way I might look at a crystal clear photo of Paris and think the same, whereas a Monet impression of it, is way more appealing.

▲

Sammi 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I loved the first Hobbit movie, which was the only one that was mostly based on the book. It was the first and unfortunately also the only theater experience that I've ever had, that didn't make me feel frustrated that I couldn't make out anything that was happening in the fast sequences.

▲

ptsneves 6 days ago | parent [-]

Ah! I thought I was the only one who felt movies or series change scenes too fast. I often find myself needing a small pause, when it is in Netflix, to recapitulate with my wife what just happened. This happens even in lawyer dramas like Suites.

	▲	Sammi 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		Maybe we're just old XD

▲

queenkjuul 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Lower framerate isn't worse, it's just different.

But the artifacts introduced by TV frame interpolation absolutely can ruin the content completely.

▲

SirMaster 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I disagree with this. Even if the film is shot in HFR I don't like how it looks.

It's just SOE, soap opera effect, and it has nothing to do with any artifacts from motion smoothing, because the look is the same even if it's filmed in HFR. The only things I like in HFR are sports or maybe home videos. Any sort of movie or TV show where I want the suspension of disbelief, I am still much preferring 24fps.

Of course this is just my opinion, but home theater is a big hobby of mine and so I spend a fairly great deal of time looking at different content and analyzing it and thinking about it and how I feel about it or enjoy it.

Not attempting to take anything away from those who do like HFR, but just saying that it's not for everyone.