Originally Posted by DaveKennett
The slow shutter speed (1/48 second) in most film cameras blurred the motion, which made the slow 24 fps more tolerable. Video cameras look terrible when using a fast shutter speed at 24 fps!
To me, 24 fps isn't a FEATURE of film, it's a LIMITATION! So we incorporate motion blur in each frame to make motion look smoother with what is a pretty low frame rate? I don't get it! More resolution makes a sharper picture - and that's good. And yet a higher frame rate makes smoother motion - and that's BAD?
Let's imitate the better qualities of film with our video. 24 fps is one of its WORST!
It's just my opinion, but I'm entitled to it!
I'm with you. Motion blur was introduced, long ago, to account for the crippled 24fps. Ever since I was a kid, I've disliked motion blur. I guess my brain is sensitive to it. It's even more noticeable now that we have such high resolution playback, at home. There's a large gap in perceived detail between static and panned images. I live for the day when on screen movement remains just as sharp as static images.
IMO, video needs to take the next step and get away from that old fashioned "film like" quality, and needs to resemble how we see in real life.
I will add that "depth of field" also plays an important role in how we perceive the overall clarity of the image. In real life, we never notice our vision's limited depth of field, because our eyes refocus quickly as we look around. But while watching film, our eyes are free to wonder around the entire image and see all the out of focus areas of the image, which also messes with the brain.