Originally Posted by Xijar
I don't get why people defend 24 so much. I don't care about tradition, I want what works the best and makes the most sense. I am honestly amazed it is still a standard. Can we please get some more stuff in at least 30 if not 60 sometime in the near future. 24 is terrible for any film that isn't some slow drama type of thing. We have these awesome 1080p TVs and great hi-def media to play on them, but we're still filming our movies in a way that looks choppy and unnatural to anyone who is actually paying attention?
The problem is that as long as movies on film is shot at 24fps, there's no real choice on what is the optimal way to present it. The problem is a simple one.
On film, 24fps means in any 1 second period, there are 24 individual 'slides' of pictures that make up the illusion of movement. Meaning each slide is displayed roughly 1s/24 = 41.667ms.
If the TV display did not keep each picture on for the same period of time, you will get judder --- meaning some pictures are on for longer periods than others. For those of us who watch DVDs for a long time, our eyes have been 'trained' to compensate for this judder and smooth out the frames, but the effect is not natural, and can still be seen in certain types of movement.
This means really that the only way to see exactly what is in the movie, a display capable of displaying some form of 24p via 120Hz (=24*6=2*60) or other means is required. Anything else would rely on various forms of distortion.