L Paul
With all due respect, I completely disagree with almost all of your points. 3D movies are virtually unwatchable at 24FPS. There is no artistic value to having objects judder across the screen or limit the filmmakers ability to create content that has over slightly than no camera movement due to unwanted motion artifacts. 24FPS for 2D is not much better either as these artifacts are present and motion blur is added to make it watchable. Judder can be outright painful and distracting to watch even in 2D unless massive amounts of motion blur are added. I like to see action and the details and have it look natural. That is what this movie does better than everything that has come before it. Even personal conversations without fast action feel much more natural and engaging in this format. It is not only for action scenes. It feels like you are there.

Films have been stuck at 24FPS since talkies were invented since the optical soundtrack needed to be fast enough to sound acceptable. 92 years later, it is time to move forward and give audiences a reason to go to a theater and expect a more engaging experience than what they can have on their home theater or phone/tablet.

I agree with you that high frame rate does have a different look...but it is not sudo high frame rate like a TV interpolating frames. This is much closer to how it looks if I was there In the moment. it is exciting and captivating. It was captured in 3D with dual cameras and at full resolution and frame rate.

Society said the same thing when we transitioned from “SD” TV to HDTV. At the beginning things did look bad. The lighting, makeup and sets all had to change...and they did improve the process and people also got used to the look. No one wants to go back to scan
lines and low resolution for TV. Now it is 4K at home (and pushing to 8K). Life changes, technology changes. 24 frames per second is not fast enough for higher and higher static resolution. With the increase of static resolution and fidelity, one must increase frame rates or the artifacts just become more pronounced.

If you want to see the film at 24FPS go ahead and see it in 2D, but the film is far more engaging if you see it in 3D with high frame rates. It will not be shown in 3D at less than 60FPS, but 2D is 24FPS.

This is 2019, not 1927. While I have great respect for the classics, move forward and open your mind and ideas to a new cinematic language for the future. It is time to remove the artifacts of slow frame rate and enable all cinematographers, directors and stereographers and visionaries to create movies that can tell stories in new ways than what is possible at 24FPS with new audiences.
Brian M
There is a big difference between story telling and the technology used. A good story at Standard TV resolution will always be better than 4K at 120 FPS.

So care has to be taken when trying to compare what appears to be a mediocre film that is using a high tech , is it the film story, the way its been shot or the tech - probably in Gemini its the way its been shot that is the issue - bad use of technology I can so I will doesn't always work?

If everything is very crisp then this is not reality, visual scenes by us are very far from that. We focus our eyes at different distance, our vision (for most anyway) is not perfect so things are often not razor sharp and we compensate for that maybe even squint. Selectively defocusing areas of an image is often a technique for make things more realistic - Anyone bought an expensive large aperture lens for that? guilty!

There is also the laws of diminishing returns - can definitely see the difference between standard TV and HD, but between HD and 2K not so much when viewed at a sensible distance for screen size.
L Paul
With all due respect, I completely disagree with almost all of your points. 3D movies are virtually unwatchable at 24FPS. There is no artistic value to having objects judder across the screen or limit the filmmakers ability to create content that has over slightly than no camera movement due to unwanted motion artifacts. 24FPS for 2D is not much better either as these artifacts are present and motion blur is added to make it watchable. Judder can be outright painful and distracting to watch even in 2D unless massive amounts of motion blur are added. I like to see action and the details and have it look natural. That is what this movie does better than everything that has come before it. Even personal conversations without fast action feel much more natural and engaging in this format. It is not only for action scenes. It feels like you are there.

Films have been stuck at 24FPS since talkies were invented since the optical soundtrack needed to be fast enough to sound acceptable. 92 years later, it is time to move forward and give audiences a reason to go to a theater and expect a more engaging experience than what they can have on their home theater or phone/tablet.

I agree with you that high frame rate does have a different look...but it is not sudo high frame rate like a TV interpolating frames. This is much closer to how it looks if I was there In the moment. it is exciting and captivating.

Society said the same thing when we transitioned from “SD” TV to HDTV. At the beginning things did look bad. The lighting, makeup and sets all had to change...and they did improve the process and people also got used to the look. No one wants to go back to scan
lines and low resolution for TV. Now it is 4K at home (and pushing to 8K). Life changes, technology changes. 24 frames per second is not fast enough for higher and higher static resolution. With the increase of static resolution and fidelity, one must increase frame rates or the artifacts just become more pronounced.

If you want to see the film at 24FPS go ahead and see it in 2D, but the film is far more engaging if you see it in 3D with high frame rates. It will not be shown in 3D at less than 60FPS.

This is 2019, not 1927. While I have great respect for the classics, move forward and open your mind and ideas to a new cinematic language for the future. It is time to remove the artifacts of slow frame rate and enable all cinematographers, directors and stereographers and visionaries to create movies that can tell stories in new ways than what is possible at 24FPS with new audiences.
piperTom
As I type, I'm looking out a window, seeing some trees and grass that is "disconcertingly crisp". There's too much detail! It looks cheap.
Boothby171
Tom, you can always look at the yard through a window-screen to knock down the resolution to something more realistic.
guzmanchinky
I. Hate. Judder. I film with my GoPro at 4k60. And when my TV can't keep up it looks terrible. But when it does keep up, it looks smooth and fantastic. Sure, maybe slow drama talking scenes are "better looking" at a slow frame rate, but I want to see something the way I would see it in real life. Smooth and full of detail.
Koolski
I wonder if this is an age thing? Rich put into words the disconnect between my brain and my 65 inch 4k 120fps tv. I'm 54 so I grew up with aluminum foil on the rabbit ears and me being the channel changer when my parents wanted it changed. That being said I'm a techy guy so I want to fully embrace the technology -- but I have moments where I'm standing there with the actors because it looks "too good" and emersive experience is lost. I haven't ever experienced that in a video game yet so that might be a clue; crisp, clear unreality verses crisp, clear reality. Or maybe I'm just older than I think I am?

Perhaps as others have said, how you do the tech will improve and the magical experience will return.
LesBorean
The most suspenseful film I ever watched, the one that had me most on edge, was.....

Doctor Strangelove.

A Kubrick B&W film in 60s technology.
Tech does not make up for lack of film maker talent.

High tech DETRACTS from story quality in film.
Eddy
Purely as a cinema goer, am I correct in saying from the comments above that higher frame rates equal no depth of field variations as these concentrate the eye for me and greatly add to my enjoyment of a film.
I am all for higher definition, 1280 is enough for me as I do not sit on top of the screen but I do not want to lose the depth of field effects thanks film makers.
Thud
"As it stands, high frame rates are only for those that absolutely love the motion smoothing setting on television sets"

This exemplifies the lack of understanding on the part of many when it comes to high quality high frame rate video. Your experience of true reality in life is at an uninterrupted smooth rate. Frame interpolation is not the aim or the result of high frame rate recording. Interpolation causes obvious disconcerting anomalies. Conflating the two technologies is misleading and misinformed.