Should films and other media adopt a higher frame rate?

[TigerGeekGuy 4,662]

Just as the title says, should movies and other media, (such as television), adopt a higher frame rate? Movies currently use a standard of 24fps and little variation has been introduced. Recently, Peter Jackson used 48fps in The Hobbit, and was met with reports of the film looking "weird." Are we simply not used to it? Would a higher frame rate bring about a better experience, or would the resource requirement be too much, (as the argument against it usually is)? In video games, the higher the frame rate, the better, (usually 60fps or higher). Would the same apply to films and other media? Or do you think films should continue to use 24fps?

[StrawCherry 1,673]

Honestly, a higher frame rate video hurts my head for some reason.  But I’m not sure why they shouldn’t do so. I actually thought movies already had a high frame rate.

[shy0wl 484]

I think 60 fps is great for video games and animation.  However, I think 24/30 fps is much better suited for any type of "real life" filming.  Whenever I watch a video on YouTube of any footage from a camera, it always looks off and unrealistic.  I think it's something to do with the way our brain sees reality or something, lol, but 30 for camera recordings always look much better.

So, I think we should adopt 60 fps for animated movies, but keep it at 24/30 for films.

[Azure Envy 1,092]

I'm not a pro, I don't work in the industry, but my 2c is that it has to do with cost. Even if it isn't double, even if it's only 15-20% more -- for your average Hollywood blockbuster that's still a significant cost increase.

That and we're all so used to seeing 24 in theaters and higher framerates for things like sitcoms. At least, that's what I felt when watching Terminator 2 on a 240Hz TV. There were sections (heavy on CGI) that looked like a cheap home movie. Granted, T2 is pretty ancient but I imagine it's gonna take more effort to make convincing CG effects at 60 and not have it look like a sitcom.