This is exactly what I was trying to say. I don't understand how 24 fps is inherently "better" than 60 fps....can anyon help me out here????
Well, there's simply no doubt that there's a *difference* between the two frame rates. That's trivially easy to show. Both look more or less smooth, but different "kinds" of smoothness. But the question is whether one is "better"...
Given that there is some difference, one could assume people just have a preference, or you could say that the original format should always be respected.
On the other hand:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117503451.html?categoryid=5&cs=1
"Very roughly speaking, film creates an alpha state of reverie due to its imperceptible flickering, therefore creating a more emotional and intense reaction Television, by contrast, creates a beta state that is constant and more hypnotic, which is why people can sit in front of the TV screen for hours at a stretch."
Roger Ebert talks about this from time to time. Maybe a stretch, as I can't seem to track down the original source for this sort of idea, but I thought I'd throw that out there. This whole "feel" business may - possibly - have a pretty important neural difference. Maybe.
Ah, a little bit more info I just found:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117503451.html?categoryid=5&cs=1
"He mentioned data (cited in Jerry Mander’s famous polemic Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television) indicating that film creates a beta state of alert reverie in the brain, where tv provokes an alpha state of passive suggestibility. Is it possible, Ebert wonders, that the subliminal catnip that people value in movies is being thrown out with the celluloid, and that audiences will soon abandon digital movies because they’re too much like tv?"
Clearly these are multiple steps removed from real data (and one of them gets the details reversed). But maybe there is something important about 24fps?
