I view the increase in frame rate as a good thing. But then my judgement has often been called into question in this forum because my standard for comparison is real life as seen directly with your eyes. This is a vastly different look from the artificial look of 24fps film, displayed on a Plasma video display at 60/72/96Hz.
I've decided that in the world of movie fans, as with most things, people are basicly Luddites. They cling to the familiar, even when something new is widely recognized as superior. This is why you can visit the more esoteric and limited patronage corners of AVS and find people who prize the look of CRT front projection and the sound of vacuum tube audio amplifiers. Those folks even stubbornly insist that what they have is the ultimate in A/V.
This is also why people who don't even know that film video is 24fps, prefer the look of 24fps source as displayed on the most common 60Hz HDTV display - it has the comforting familiarity of and a distinct resemblance to the NTSC CRT direct-view displays we grew up viewing.
Peter Jackson has proved himself to be non-traditional in many ways in the past few years, as has James Cameron, king of 3D technology. The recognition of the superiority of 48fps source over 24fps source is a symptom of people a bit less hide-bound than the majority of folks in the movie-making industry, or the hobby of Home Theater.
48fps is NOT NEW. In fact it can be found in a great many simulator rides at places like Disneyland and Universal Studios - as well as in professional simulations of aircraft, spacecraft, merchant ships, and Army tanks.
Most of us have extolled the virtues of the larger film formats such as 70mm and IMAX here at AVS, including me. If you have to view film, those are the best film formats.
But the BEST candidate for commercial film format I have ever seen by far, was the Maxivision 48 format invented in nearby San Luis Obispo, CA. Even noted cranky critic Roger Ebert liked it:
It can project film at 48 frames per second, twice the existing 24-fps rate. That provides a picture of startling clarity. At 48 frames, it uses 50 percent more film than at present. But MV48 also has an "economy mode" that uses that offers low-budget filmmakers savings of up to 25 percent on film. The MV48 projector design can switch on the fly between 24- and 48-fps formats in the same movie, allowing extra clarity for scenes that can use it. And it can handle any existing 35mm film format - unlike digital projection, which would obsolete a century of old prints. MV48 uses a new system to pull the film past the projector bulb without any jitter or bounce. Goodhill explained that MV48 completely eliminates the jiggle that all current films experience as they dance past the projector bulb.
Watching it, I was startled to see how rock solid the picture was, and how that added to clarity. The result: "We figure it's 500 percent better than existing film." It is also a lot cheaper, because it retrofits existing projectors, uses the original lamp housings and doesn't involve installing high-tech computer equipment. MaxiVision's business plan [at that time] calls for leasing the projectors at $280 a month, but if you wanted to buy one, it would cost you about $10,000. Estimates for high-end digital projectors range from $110,000 to $150,000 per screen.
You can even find if you look hard enough, what I believe is the ultimate film display, IMAX 15/70 simulator rides that project at 48fps. It just doesn't get closer to real life than that, for my money. Too bad film is rapidly disappearing from the earth, it was an unsurpassed analog capture medium in a digital world.
I WANT theatrical movie distribution in 48fps, and I'll be delighted if the original film is captured at that frame rate. I WANT the Blu-Ray standard extended to 48fps, and I want players and displays capable of 48fps in 3D with full 1080p resolution. I'll spend my hard-earned cash on it - as long as it happens in the next 5 or 6 years, before I retire to a lower income level.
In fact, I think that the hobby would be significantly advanced if film - even 35mm film - were captured at 48fps, digitized onto a 48fps 4K digital intermediate, and then distributed in 4K D-Cinema at 48fps. Then the Blu-Ray disks at 1080p48 would be great for hobbyists, while remaining noticeably below theatrical movie quality. 3D I can take or leave, the only film where I really appreciated 3D tech remains Avatar
But I'm not holding my breath. Now all of you Luddites out there, have your say.