Originally Posted by sub50hz
Because 60FPS looks like a soap opera.
24 FPS does give a "cinematic" look, but it really seems to limit what can be done. Watch Planet Earth on Blu-ray and you'll get the idea. Every time that camera moves without having a clear, stationary subject, it just becomes painful. Even worse if you don't have a 120 Hz TV.
Originally Posted by Nemesis158
This. thats another reason why i went with the Nikon D5100 over the more expensive D7000. Despite them both having the same sensor, the D5100 can record @ 30FPS (29.997) instead of the D7000's 24.
And im not sure about the thing with 60FPs looking like a soap. I'm pretty sure shows like "Days of our Lives" use very specific camera and lighting equipment to get the effect you see on the screen. 60FPs definitely helps, but the only other thing anyone sees @ 60FPS or higher is video games, and they don't look like soaps. do we really know what a movie will look like at 40 or 60 FPS?
30 FPS is not really an improvement. I want at least
48. It's already displayed at 48Hz, so it seems like that'd be a good starting point. Something like 120 would be epic for fast motion though.
I'm not really sure how a movie would look at a faster framerate. The first couple would probably seems weird because we're used to 24, but I imagine it'd be a dramatic improvement, especially with action movies.
EDIT: Looks like we may find out soon. http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/04/1...peter-jackson/Edited by foothead - 11/3/11 at 9:33pm