Originally Posted by morphinapg
I much, much prefer 24fps over anything higher for fictional content. For documentaries, I don't think there's much of a reason to keep it at 24fps, since the benefit of a lower frame rate is all about taking the audience away from reality into a larger-than-life feeling world, and there's no reason to try to convey that sensation in non fiction.
I'm with you here. Granted, Billy Lynn was my only real experience with this (and I guess Meridian?).
Here's the thing, to me the 60fps actually destroyed the immersion/realism, rather than increased it, paradoxically. Here's why...because everything is SO real, that to me it looks like a set, and people play acting. Especially in that scene where they go into the Afghan's hut. The "realism" screams out to me that this is just a set. Who has ever watched a stage play and felt like it was an absolute recreation of real life? Theoretically, a stage play should be the MOST real entertainment experience by these standards. But it isn't...you know it's not a real city, real office, etc. Because you can SEE that it's not.
That was largely my experience watching Billy Lynn, and it was especially egregious in a period piece like Meridian. I have to think it would be death to anything period, and screams "actors playing dress up." The 60fps reminded me more of a Saturday Night Live sketch in terms of reality than that I actually felt like I was immersed.
Obviously there's a cultural/conditioning element in the idea that the slight limitations of reality in 24fps makes it easier to accept it as real. I imagine it's sort of like why a beautiful woman looks more beautiful from 10 feet away than getting 6 inches from her face, or watching a magic show would be more rewarding from the front row than standing directly on the stage one foot in front of the magician. The bottom line is it's NOT real...it's actors, sets, costumes, fake dialogue, etc. So you need to have some space for your mind to fill in the gaps. Whether it's something in our brains, or just something we've been conditioned to, the "filmic" aspect of 24fps creates enough openings of missing data for my mind to fill in the holes and accept it as real. It's like I can accept it as real because I've subliminally accepted the proposition that I can't get 100% of the data.
Now, I will say that there may be better executions that could open my mind up to it more. When I got a 3D TV, one of the first things I watched was the 3D version of Dial M for Murder. In my mind, that's not actually very good Hitchcock, and the 3D was both inappropriate to the story, and executed poorly in a way that didn't advance the storytelling. If that was all I ever saw in 3D, I certainly wouldn't consider that there was ANY potential for 3D to be well used in storytelling, and no matter what you think of 3D, that's clearly not the case. Billy Lynn was, in my opinion, a terrible movie, and poorly served by 60fps, so I'll reserve the possibility that it was the "Dial M for Murder" of 60fps, and there may be more value in it for the future.
For example, I had never thought about it much from a documentary perspective, and agree that might be a wonderful application.