I have been spending a lot of time watching 24p content this last week. On a friend's lovely new Pioneer Elite 1080p plasma, as well as, of course, on my JVC HD1 projector.

The JVC effectively quadruple-scans the 24p frames to 96p, so I had not realized how much flicker is actually apparent at 24p till I was with the other displays. I guess this is why movies theaters generally double-shoot their 24p films at 48p. The flicker really can be distracting is scenes where there is full-frame camera pans and scans.

After spending this quality time with 24p, I have to say that I am looking further forward now - awaiting the arrival of MCTi from Faroudja. I saw this at CES in January playing some scenes on the very same Pioneer at 72p - and the difference was "night and day"!

There was no comparison - the Faroudja unit took the original 24 frames per second and created 2 additional NEW frames in between each one, with "motion compensated" (hence the name) content - ie - these frames were not the same as the others (unlike "scan doubling").

The result was something that looked more like real life. Picture the smoothest 60p video footage, but smoother.

The clips or Star Trek had a scene where the camera was circling the actors, and the background at 24p was completely impossible to follow visually because of the jumping - it was hard to tell if it was even in focus. But at 72p, with the "tween" frames, the background was crystal clear, and every detail was easy to follow, with seeming 10 times more detail - simply because my eyes and brain were able to track the movement naturally.

Who else has any thoughts on this 24p / 60p / 72p connundrum?

To be frank, I would even prefer 48p, with "tween" frames from MCTi, over 24p, at this point.

A lot of it has to do with how sensitive you are to motion judder from 3:2 pulldown. I, for one, am very affected by it. Slow to medium paced pans drive me crazy. Ending credits in a movie make me feel nauseus.

When the XA2 gets 1080p24, I'll hop on it. My Pioneer plasma will do 72 in advanced mode when fed 1080p24, unfortunately my G1 HD-A1 can't be upgraded to do 1080p24...and from what I've seen everywhere, the big hitters in video processors (even the all-mighty Anthem D2) STILL can't get the conversion from 1080i60 ---> 1080p24 right (although they all say "they're working on it," "coming soon," "shouldn't be too hard," "it's still a tad bit buggy, but getting there"....etc, etc...)

The Sony and the 1st and 2nd Gen pioneer BD players give you 1080p24, I'm just waiting for the profiles to solidify before plunking down the money for one of those dedicated players.

Rdjam,

How are you watching 1080p/24? What is your source??

Rdjam,

How are you watching 1080p/24? What is your source??
A Home Theater PC I recently put together with an ADD2 HDMI card.

A lot of it has to do with how sensitive you are to motion judder from 3:2 pulldown. I, for one, am very affected by it. Slow to medium paced pans drive me crazy. Ending credits in a movie make me feel nauseus.Some movies are worse than others when displayed at 60p from a 24p HD/BD.

But I was referring to the flickering when displaying at 24p. It's worse than I had thought it would be. Scan-doubling (-tripling, -quadrupling, etc) helps, but it still isn't what I had hoped.

However, the MCTi is now the "holy grail" for me. I am really surpised that there is not more coverage/talk about this new development.

You know you can enjoy quite a few 1080p/24 movies at the moment with a blu ray player??? :D

Seriously, I have been watching 24fps for about 8 months on my Sony Pearl projector. It is a noticeably smoother picture on pans and movement.

I personally wish hollywood would update the outdated 24fps standard to 30 or 60 fps. I have always been bothered by flicker at the cinema.

Well not so sure you experience flicker due to 24fps, the projector rolls at 72fps.

24fps is also a very good for all TV standards. 30 and 60 is not.

Plus we want filmlook and movie magic, that dont work well on 60fps.

The motion picture projector uses a double bladed shutter, and rolls at 48 fps. Shooting at 24 fps is a throwback to save film, nothing more.

Well not so sure you experience flicker due to 24fps, the projector rolls at 72fps.

24fps is also a very good for all TV standards. 30 and 60 is not.

Plus we want filmlook and movie magic, that dont work well on 60fps.

I'm fine with 24, microscopic detail could end up being a distraction on the three-foot nose of Anthony Hopkins.

Once you see a demo of this MCTi, you'll understand why I am so excited about it. It's such a difference that one will never look at 24p (or 3:2 60p) the same again.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=808104

I really, seriously, want this box right now. The thought that I could be watching all this 24p content via MCTi has me all excited for this release.

Sounds a lot like the plugin that Windvd or Powerdvd has. Makes 24fps material look like 60i. Really smooth and fluid. It's actually pretty interesting to watch but I wouldn't sit thru a whole movie with it engaged.

Can someone post a link to explain the differences of 24P and 30i, 60i,etc? Why does 24p look better than 30 or 60i?

Rdjam, like Kram Sacul said, Windvd does have a feature that is similar to this. Could you try it out and see how it compares to MCTi?

When I tried it out, I initally like the effect, but as I watched it more I couldn't shake the feeling that it felt like I was watching documentaries all the time rather than movies.

Aren't you confusing recorded motion resolution (24 fps) with projected flicker (hz)? Humans are more sensitive to flicker than to motion resolution. Show people a movie recorded at 18 fps and projected at a flicker rate of 72 hz and most of them won't notice anything weird.

Reduce the hz to below 45 though, and most humans will complain of "unstable" picture.

Actually, there's no scientific reason dictating why we are using 24 fps as standard.

Instead, the main cause was the transition to sound movies, where the optical sound strip embedded inte film stock required a certain speed through the apparature to record/play the soundtrack in the correct manner. Ever since -- whether emerging sound technology needed this or not -- the 24 fps-standard has been mandatory.

(During the silent era, film was mostly recorded in 18 fps.)

In answer to the above posts :)

The reason that higher frame rates look better is basically because the brain and eye are able to track the movement better, and so the movement is better perceived. With lower frame rates, you become very conciously aware that there are big jumps in movement of some contents of the scene.

For example, watch a scene in Planet Earth or a show where there is a camera circling an object in a scene (ie a mountain) and there are other objects in the scene (ie trees or other mountains) - with lower frame rates, you can readily identify conciously that the objects with the greatest movement are making big jumps in position, which causes iritation in trying to follow it and identify details in it.

With 24p material being played at 60p - most of the blame for this is placed on "judder", but in truth, judder is an artifact of "hurry up and slow down" - the smoother 60p presentation has to stop on the same 24p frame often enough that your brain sees it.

With MCTi, extra frames are created which look at all the movement of various objects in the frames before and after, and these new frames are actually different to the original frames, placing the object where MCTi thinks they would have been at those in-between times.

The result is amazing. At 72 hz, it is like watching something live - suddenly your brain is not aware of the jumping of some of the action, and the movies look very natural.

Kram - I was not aware of a plugin for PowerDVD or WinDVD that does this - can you tell me more? I'd be very interested in trying this out. I doubt it is the same, as the processing horsepower required for creating these new frames is immense, BUT I'd definitely check it out if it is similar.

I know that Windows Media Player usually gives me very smooth playback on more movies than I got from other stock players, and always wondered if this was due to any extra tweaks - but I suspected it was maybe "averaging" in-btween frames at the expense of detail, due to the horsepower that would be required to do more.

If you or zbuff could tell me more I'll absolutely look into it.

Lightivity is correct - 24p is more an accident of history than a frame rate that was scientifically developed. Although 72hz might seem too smooth to some, I am not one of them. The extra detail that one perceives and the "ease" with which one can enjoy all the fast action scenes is very rewarding, IMO.

So does MTCi allow you to play regular DVD or HDM content or do you need special software that knows how to interface with it?

My guess (and it's only a guess at this point) is that an MCTi box would be able to perform 3:2 pulldown on regular 60i sources of 24p films also, then taking the 24p and up-sampling to 48p or 72p.

The real issue may actually be whether one has a display that can support these higher display rates that MCTi will output.

However, if I was the developer, it would be a no-brainer for me to ensure that there were some modes to allow MCTi to produce 50p and 60p output also, so that my acces to market would be secured by a braoder customer base.

How many frames per second can the human eye see?

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

From Basic Instinct II (see above article - example of Motion Blur):

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x66/LeeAStewart/motionblur2.jpg

From Wiki - Frame rates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate

I have been using 24fps for over 8 months and have said from the beginning that I feel it ads considerable detail on panning and action scenes.

As far as DVD to 24fps I think it would do more harm than good. I think that your source needs to be 24fps of which both Blu Ray and HD DVD are. Of course you need the output to be 24fps, which no HD DVD player can do at the moment. The XA2 is rumoured to get the upgrade this fall.

On a digital display there really isn't any difference between 24/48/72Hz for 24fps film material, flicker due to low frame rates isn't an issue on digital displays.

It's easier to get to 48 or 72Hz from 24p but with the right equipment 60i converted to 48/72 Hz works equally as well. I've been using 48/72Hz for DVD for many years, works great.

I beg to differ with those who feel there is no difference between 24 fps and 72 (or even 60, for that matter).

The Pioneer I've been watching triple-scans, but the 24p "studder" effect (sorry, best term I could think of on the spot) is still apparent. The frame rate is just too low. Even on Harry Potter when he is being chased through the woods, the trees seem to blur by, yet there is a lot of detail that are just not registering.

I wish I could demo the difference this MCTi makes - I'll see if I can link any demo material. Most of us have 60 or 72hz monitors, so I'll see what I can find.

Sorry, obviously if some sort of processing is done there will be a difference, but if it is purely repeating the frame 2 or 3 times there won't be.

No probs, Jeffy.

I'm going to see if I can get some demo material that illustrates this tech.

Anyone got more info for me on the WinDVD plug-in?

Sony has had the "Advanced 100hz motion" interplotation for years, where it creates frames along the temporal axis. I feel it makes movies look like home videos. Great for sports though.

I tend to agree with the original poster.
We spend so much time obsessing about resolution and audio-fidelity that nobody really talks about the outdated framerate of movies. With short shutter times the stuttering in camera-pans can be very distracting to me. Especially with modern Highdefinition progressive-camcorders. You can either have blurry smooth motion or sharp stuttering motion. Not both.

I do of course realize that this poses the problem of preserving the original, "intended" look of films. (But how can it be intended when 24 frames per second is the only choice?) Take Star Wars Episode 3 for example: The lightsaber battle at the end is so fast that you can distinguish the single frames of the moving sabers. If this had been shot at, say, 60 frames per second, the battle would look a lot more fluid and you could actually tell what kind of moves exactly they are doing.
I have been shooting some progressive HDV-footage lately at 25 frames per second and at 1/100 shutter time, the stuttering gets really distracting. I heard that James Cameron has also expressed interest in higher framerates of digital cinema.

The problem that has been mentioned above is, that we are used to movies looking like that. When we see fluid motion, we think: Video! When we see progressive images, we think: Film!
I have never seen one of these new frame-interpolation HDTVs. Maybe I´ll see one at this year´s IFA in Berlin. But I think, if it is done well, I´d prefer watching movies with more frames than 24 per second. In my personal opinion, anything that eliminates distractions and brings the movie-watching closer to our real-life experience is a good thing: Sharper images, larger images, life-like colours, better blacks, clearer sound, less grain and more frames.

The last two points are very controversial and I understand everyone who thinks otherwise. Maybe more fluid motion would rob movies of their "character", I don´t know yet since I haven´t seen anything above 25 frames per second yet but I say: At least give movie-makers and watchers a choice!

No freaking way. I don't want movies looking like video. Please for the love of God stick with 48,72,96,120 w/o interpolation. What the hell is happening here?

48 fps, as a potential HD capture format for HD disc delivery, is discussed in this current thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=889872). The two sublinks in the thread's intro paragraph outline Maxivision 48, a 48-fps (capture) film format, in detail. My long-archived view (http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=3085589#post3085589) is that even 60-field-per-second movies--while awaiting 60p practicality--are better than 24p, although suggesting 60i dramas evokes the usual why-it's-not-possible objections. -- John

24P aand 120Hz are just beginning to appear on LCD's. The issue at hand is the response time of the LCD crystals. They are not instanteanous like PDP and CRT are.

^^^ And some of the new 120 Hz LCDs spec 6 ms response time. Should be enough.

BTW it seems that the added interpolated frames feature can be turned on or off by the user for some models.

To those who doubt this thing - seeing is believing.

Extra "new" frames to 72 hz or higher looks FAR better than 24 fps. 24 fps was never an artistic choice, it was the only choice. And so much of the flickering gives me a headache in some scenes.

Having the extra frames makes the whole experience MUCH more enjoyable. It's very difficult to describe until you see it, but it becomes one of those "DOH!" moments, as in "why didn't they think of that before?!" It's not an issue of "video" versus "film", as the interpolated framerate would exceed video. It's just plain better, IMO.

I seriously doubt that the Sony mentioned above creates any new frames as the technology is so new that Faroudja has not launched it yet, and it would cost more than that TV does. I'm guessing the Sony would simply just repeat the frames (ie frame doubling) like many other products do right now - rather than creating wholly new interpolated frames where each object has its independent movement tracked and adjusted.

I have made a comparison video between 24 and 60 frames per second.
The RAR-File is 35 MB.
Downloading it is simple: Click on "free" and enter the code.
http://rapidshare.com/files/49164979/Rowlander-24VS60fps-1.rar.html

I should describe how I made this video:
The source is a 25 fps video that was sped up inside a 60 frame project to match the framerate. Since the source was a very slow pan, the speed-up doesn´t really matter.
What should be mentioned though is that the 24 frame version was exported from this 60-frame project which means that the video "simulates" a shorter shutter-speed and has a few small interlace-problems. It´s not entirely accurate but it still shows the difference realistically in my opinion. This is just to show the difference in framerate in general. Just focus on the stuttering-effect, not other parts of the image quality.

What do you think?

I could make more videos like this if people request it but I would have to find usefull material where the camera isn´t shaking and people are moving slowly in the shot. ;)

T I'm guessing the Sony would simply just repeat the frames (ie frame doubling) like many other products do right now - rather than creating wholly new interpolated frames where each object has its independent movement tracked and adjusted.


It doesn't just double the frames. It interpolates since there are two modes. One regular which just doubles frames to get 100hz and the other 'advanced' The most I could find online was:

advanced 100Hz Motion Picture Pro technology which doubles the refresh rate and response time to smooth the jerky images during high motion scenes and reduce motion blur.

On some movies it works really well, on others you get these random blocks of noise on edges. But even where it works well, I really do not like the effect and every time I've left it on by accident whoever watches the TV - family, friends *anyone* wonders why the hell everything looks so 'cheap'. Obviously this is anecdotal evidence and not a controlled study and it is probably an indication of how a historic anamoly has resulted in poor evolution.

Random google search on the mode as it's called on my TV: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22adv+dig+motion%22&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enGB177GB231

I can't say I'd mind if movies were shot and displayed @ 60 Hz and had no inherent film grain. But given that, I must say I find the pans on 24fps movies smoother since I got my ps3 firmware upgraded to allow that. I didn't think I'd really notice, but I do, and am glad I don't have to look at 3:2 pulldown anymore.

The goal of movies isn't to show as much real-world detail as possible, but to move you from reality into a wonderland for the duration of the movie. If something is obviously blurry or soft in a scene, it was probably intentional to convey a specific idea or emotion.

I seriously doubt that the Sony mentioned above creates any new frames as the technology is so new that Faroudja has not launched it yet, and it would cost more than that TV does. I'm guessing the Sony would simply just repeat the frames (ie frame doubling) like many other products do right now - rather than creating wholly new interpolated frames where each object has its independent movement tracked and adjusted.

I was at Sony dealer training just this morning. We got a presentation on "Smooth Motion", Sony's newest video processing which incorporates frame interpolation with 120Hz refresh. Yes, Sony's new technology, according to them, actually creates four new frames between each of the native 24 fps of film-based material. Based on the clip we say demonstrated with Smooth Motion and without side by side, this appears to be 120Hz done right. It looked very, very good.

Smooth Motion has three settings, "off", "standard", and "high". "High" give the image a bit more of a "video" look but "standard" looked great on film-sourced material.

To those who doubt this thing - seeing is believing.

Extra "new" frames to 72 hz or higher looks FAR better than 24 fps. 24 fps was never an artistic choice, it was the only choice. And so much of the flickering gives me a headache in some scenes.

Shooting a film at high framerate is very possible today, playing it back at a good old cineplex is another story though.

Check out some beautiful shot Japanese pop song music video. Many scenes are shot on high framerate such as 120fps, exactly for artistic choice! Then playback at the normal 30fps. The result is a super smooth, sharp and high resolution slow motion effect.

regards,

Li On

I can't say I'd mind if movies were shot and displayed @ 60 Hz and had no inherent film grain. But given that, I must say I find the pans on 24fps movies smoother since I got my ps3 firmware upgraded to allow that. I didn't think I'd really notice, but I do, and am glad I don't have to look at 3:2 pulldown anymore.
Unless your display refreshes at a multiple of 24 Hz you still see the judder effect. You are the victim of the placebo effect if you honestly think otherwise.

Delete.

I am looking into the Sony "advanced digital motion" to see what it does, tho reviews are quite mixed. http://www.agoraquest.com/viewtopic.php?topic=11114&forum=35&start=190&select_page_number=20

Samsung have also announced an "interpolation technology" on their new 120 hz TV sets, so it may be similar or identical to that.

However, I do have to wonder about how these two technologies would match up to what is about to be rolled out by Faroudja, given the difference in price and whether it uses the same MCTi.

Did anyone else here attend CES in january and see MCTi on display?

If anyone is going to the CEDIA show in Denver in September, I'd love you to give your impression here.

Might be interesting to compare scenes using new consumer-level frame interpolation/duplication techniques with the same scene captured at higher frame rates. I mentioned the 48-fps Maxivision film technique earlier above. This older blog entry (http://telirati.blogspot.com/2004/08/telirati-newsletter-48.html) (1/2 down the page, beginning, "We see actor Peter Billingsley..."), details some of the great improvements in visible detail possible with higher-frame-rate capture (48 fps) compared to 24 fps.

Most of the 'wow effect" video seen in 1080i documentaries/travelogues is captured at 60 interlaced TV fields per second (540 lines), which shouldn't be too dissimilar from 60p (full frame) capture. No difficulties here imagining movies captured with boosted frame-rate details; cinematographers have endless means of fuzzing up images for special effects. -- John

They won't be anywhere near the same. Just like an spatial resolution: upscaled images using whatever resize filter is no where near the real thing.

My folks just got a new Samsung 32" which has their 'Movie Plus' interpolation technology. From my point of view, the jury is still out on its benefits.

I observed some footage of a snowboarder in a halfpipe moving from left to right across the frame. At a couple of points, their head looked like a giant block and jaggies were evident around their body (fairly easy to tell against the solid white background). It was only for a small duration, but it was distracting none the less.

For the most part, they are watching dramas that have very little motion and camera movement. The effect of the extra frames can be quite striking and there is very little fatigue to the image (they've graduated from a CRT, so its substantually different to what they are acustom to).

I'm looking forward to checking out some sports on the display because I think that might be a very different story. The question being, will the occasional artifacts be harder to stomach than consistant blurriness? The good thing is, the interpolation mode can be disabled, so its nice to have the choice.

I'm in a PAL country and for years we have had '100Hz' CRT's (line doubling with dubious marketing). Initially these sets were just awful to look at, it was just a jaggy mess, but as time went on, it became more and more common and towards the end of the CRT's glory days, they had pretty much got it to a point that it was acceptable to most people. I think this new interpolation tech will be exactly the same and it will continue to improve and become more accepted.

As far as LCD - it may very well be a case of not a fast enough response time for the LCD crystals to react.

One of the reasons I bought my Loewe Aconda TV is that it has this "super mode" that seems to be interpolating frames or something to produce extremely smooth motion. Some of the Beovision TVs used this Loewe technology as well. The results have to be seen to be believed. The only problem on my TV is that this mode only really works well with 480i inputs and has a lot of artifacting with faster motion. It would be really cool if somebody is applying the latest technology in an attempt to advance this approach. Sure it might not look like film, but hey, have you ever been to a live theatrical performance? Shouldn't that be the real goal of this AV technology? Don't forget that film used to be "high technology" about 100 years ago.

I observed some footage of a snowboarder in a halfpipe moving from left to right across the frame. At a couple of points, their head looked like a giant block and jaggies were evident around their body (fairly easy to tell against the solid white background). It was only for a small duration, but it was distracting none the less.



Yah that happens in a few films/shows. It's nothing to do with LCD response time as it happens on my CRT too, it's just the technology isn't working fully yet. I know the Troy DVD exhibited these pretty badly but LOTR worked great.

And indeed it is amazing on sport, watching hockey in super smooth motion is awesome. I mean already it's at 50 fields per sec, or 60, but this just makes it even smoother.

... At a couple of points, their head looked like a giant block and jaggies were evident around their body (fairly easy to tell against the solid white background). It was only for a small duration, but it was distracting none the less.
...
I am skeptical too whether this technology can work well in real time. If it introduces any kind of artifacts, it´s worthless in my opinion.

I will go to IFA in Berlin in two weeks. Maybe I will see it there in action. Hopefully I´ll remember to look for it.

Just like upscaling to higher resolutions, some companies just do it better than others.

I'm sure that there are various folks who are tackling the "interpolation" issue with different solutions - but some of them are going to do it better than others,

At CES, I saw interpolation products from 3 vendors - the worst I saw was from Philips (AFAICR) who had a clip of Lord Of the Rings playing. The interpolation in THIS demo created VERY noticeable artifacting - notably some big "extra" outcroppings on the mountains in the flyby scene.

But the MCTi from Faroudja was the best of the lot. I will be looking for the MCTi logo on any products that claim to do the same thing... I know this sound like a commercial, but it really was that much better...

Back in the early days of PC DVD players, I remember users changing the refresh-rate of their Windows desktop to 72Hz for movie-playback. The idea being, 72 is an exact multiple of 24fps (or close enough, after clock-tolerances and 23.976 are put into consideration.) I jumped on the bandwagon and did so, too.

US (Region 1) movies played back a little smoother, but not enough that someone who just walked into the room, would even notice.

On the other hand, video-content (60Hz interlaced) looked pretty terrible.

I also tried a refresh-rate of 120Hz (my monitor and VGA card could handle that at 800x600 and below) -- that fixed the video-content jerking. But that scanrate was at the upper-limit of my VGA monitor, so the picture-quality was a bit blurred. So from that point on, I just left my windows-desktop at 85Hz (which was the style of the time), and said 'who cares about video-content anyway.'

Quality is in the eye of the beholder. People who are sensitive to motion-jutter might perceive a dramatic benefit from 60 -> 120 Hz.

Kram - I was not aware of a plugin for PowerDVD or WinDVD that does this - can you tell me more? I'd be very interested in trying this out. I doubt it is the same, as the processing horsepower required for creating these new frames is immense, BUT I'd definitely check it out if it is similar.

It's Trimention DNM, it's not a plugin, it's part of WinDVD (from version 6 IIRC).

To those who doubt this thing - seeing is believing.

Extra "new" frames to 72 hz or higher looks FAR better than 24 fps. 24 fps was never an artistic choice, it was the only choice. And so much of the flickering gives me a headache in some scenes.

I don't think I've ever seen "flicker" on a home display, other than a CRT. What you're talking about is judder that's caused by having to repeat frames.

As far as Motion-Compensated Frame Rate Conversion, I agree with you that it's technically spectacular, and very obvious, however...

[UQOTE]Having the extra frames makes the whole experience MUCH more enjoyable.[/QUOTE]

I categorically disagree with that...

It's very difficult to describe until you see it, but it becomes one of those "DOH!" moments, as in "why didn't they think of that before?!"

I know what you're talking about WRT the "wow" effect of Mocomp FRC, but you really can't evaluate it from just samples. You need to actually watch a few movies with it.

It's not an issue of "video" versus "film", as the interpolated framerate would exceed video. It's just plain better, IMO.

If you haven't watched a whole movie with it, or better yet, several movies with it, I don't think you can really evaluate it.

But it very much is an issue of video vs film, film has a look, and that look is due to it's framerate, period. The moment you change that framerate via MoComp'd FRC, it no longer looks like film, it looks like video. Yes, it looks more "real", but after spending time with MoComp'd FRC, I came to the conclusion that film just isn't meant to look "real", and that MoComp'd FRC changes something fundamental about the movie, and not for the better.

The example I always give when this comes up, is Saving Private Ryan, why? Because MoComp'd FRC (in the form of WinDVD's Trimension DNM) absolutely destroyed that movie. SPR has a very specific look to it, and MoComp'd FRC fundamentally changes that, and thus fundamentally changes the movie.

Now I'm not arguing that 24fps is better, or that it's more "real", what I'm saying is that from the very beginning of production, the creators of the film make countless choices on how it shot, lighting, film speed, arpiture, shutter speed, etc, and all of those choices are made on the foundation of the framerate being 24fps. MoComp'd FRC, while amazing in it's technical prowes, simply cannot account for those creative choices/intentions, and thus fundamentally changes the film, making it different from what the creator(s) intended.