No they actually lined out reasons, stating that it looks like a soap opera, or that the sets look fake, and some people also praised parts of it. If soap operas are "different" and they don't like that, then maybe it is that simple.

As for the flaws inherent during 24 fps, it can be the case that the audience is used to those flaws after having been exposed to them for a lifetime, and sees them as normal, thus this different approach is indeed jarring to them. Especially if that audience is comprised of theater owners who deal with that everyday. If you're used to something (even if it's "wrong") and see something look different then that could be jarring, especially if it's perceived as being the next big thing.

Also the fact remains that they have seen it and we have not, so I don't know if I can add much by thinking about what people thought they saw when they saw the footage.

Yes, I read those "reasons", and they simply don't hold together as a rational, logical argument against the technology. Hence my assertion that the complaints are based purely on emotion, and I therefore don't give much credence to them.

As for the rest of your comments, you have only reaffirmed what I already wrote -- namely that preferring something that is bad over something that is better, simply because you are "used to it", is a bizarre mindset.

But how are you judging it to be better, (aside from pure numbers) without having seen it?

As for the other part, I don't find it bizarre. It might take time for people to get used to a new system, no matter what they think is good or bad prior to that. By and large, people have been used to 24 fps for years. People can be set in their ways and still prefer things that are worse because they're used to it over better advances in technology. Some people still don't care to upgrade to Blu-ray for example. That's their choice.

I never said (aside from the "on paper" aspect) that I am judging it to be better. I merely pointed out that every reason for hating it (and let's be honest, there is some real hatred in some of the complaints) I have read so far has not been a valid reason, but merely a knee-jerk excuse to justify an irrational, emotional response.

I will choose to view the new medium as just that - a new medium.

It's not a new medium. It's a new framerate.

And it looks bad. That's not a knee-jerk reaction, that's an opinion. And it's a valid opinion. Good on those who aren't affected, that's not me though.

Seems to me that when you do a presentation and the majority have a negative reaction, something's wrong.

Since my IMAX will be showing this in plain jane 24fps, I guess I'll never know.

24 fps has a certain warmth to that higher frame rates lack.

To me, it's sort of like the difference between CD and vinyl. CD may, in some ways, be technically superior, but vinyl has a richer, more organic sound than CD. The "soap opera effect" that everyone is going on about introduces a harshness and artificiality to the image and motion. It's like watching the "Twilight Zone" and how those handful of episodes that were shot on video look so horrible even though the image might be sharper and contrast higher.

When I watch HDTVs with the motion interpolation on, the image is technically superior, but it looks slippery and lacks the warmth of lower frame rates. Taking motion blur out of film is like removing grain. It might be more reatlistic, but it lacks the warmth of film.

I don't have an opinion either way (since I haven't seen it), but saying it looks like a "Korean soap opera" is one of the funniest put-downs I can think of.

It's funny that people say vinyl had a richer and more organic sound when vinyl had extremely limited dynamic range and poor frequency response. When master recordings for vinyl were made, the highs were boosted to make up for the deficiencies of the format. That's why masters made for vynil sounded like crap when ported over to CD (whereas the vynil discs themselves sounded identical if recorded directly to CD).

Twilight Zone on video looks worse because, despite the higher frame rate, video was far lower resolution than film.

As for motion interpolation, although the judder is reduced, the image isn't superior at all since the inbetween frames are estimated by the device doing the interpolation.

Shooting 48 fps on the other hand doesn't require making up new frames. And that is an improvement.

24 fps was just an economical decision of "how low/cheap can we go before movemement looks absolutely horrible" since more fps means longer reels. These days it might be viewed aesthetically pleasing by some but that was never the intent.

As for film grain, since that's basically to film what pixels are to video, removing grain from film actually yields a worse picture.

Listen RoboDork, emotional response is the entire point. That's what movies are all about. If people respond emotionally to this change in a negative way, then they are right. This isn't science class.

Really.

How about you leave this discussion for the grownups, mmmkay? There's a good boy.

It seems clear to me that cinema (or cinema as I define it) is dying. No film. No film projection. Smaller scale productions created entirely with digital equipment, where the production value comes from a computer that does all of the heavy lifting. Anything a person has to do is randomly thrown together as quickly as possible with little regard to craft (storyboarding, blocking, camerawork, editing). "We'll fix it in post." Where there is no difference between TV and "the movies." Visible digital pixels and 48fps in a movie theater and people don't care...as long as The Hulk shows up to smash some shit in the latest comic book turd (with RoboDad and his RoboBrats cheering obnoxiously).

Except...that professional production values are alive and well.

Brought to you by Apple.

Thanks to Final Cut Pro, yeah.

Oooo. You're going to be popular around here, mister.

Anything that makes it easier to make Ghost Rider 2 is a good thing, right?

A tool can be used for both good and bad purposes depending on the filmmaker? Stop the presses! And here I was thinking the Moviola never edited an Ed Wood movie!

Fewer people had access to a moviola and it was harder to operate so there was at least a natural process of weeding out more incompetent people. Now any damn fool can do it.

What's wrong with that? Smaller companies can't afford lots of film stock, production crew and the like. digital equipment has allowed lots of smaller movies to be made.

Being creative should not be limited to how much money you have.

I can accept that, but that's not to say that FCP cannot have uses. Even if anybody can use it (or any other tool), that doesn't mean that people dedicated to the craft can't use those same tools well. The incompetent editors could indeed have been weeded out better in the past, but they could still edit movies that were themselves not that good.

You have it backwards: 48fps doesn't introduce artificiality, but removes it; the motion blur in 24fps is an added artificiality. I think what you may have been getting at here is that 48fps may reveal some artificiality that was previously masked by the 24fps motion blur.

As for the Twilight Zone, the videotaped episodes definitely are not sharper than the film ones, and I don't think the contrast is much better. Video had inherent resolution limits back then, and if you look at the Blu-ray releases, the film episodes are definitely sharper and clearer. Video also had other drawbacks at the time, that they've since fixed. From a Wikipedia entry on one of the episodes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Who..._Twilight_Zone)
Video has come along way since then. Even back then, with all the visual problems shooting on video presented, I don't think the faster framerate was really considered one of them.
I would argue that motion interpolation isn't technically superior, it introduces unwanted artifacts. I view motion interpolation as the "colorization" of framerates. Its altering existing material to a format that it was never intended for. I don't think you can criticize faster framerates based on motion interpolation anymore than you can criticize all color films based on colorized ones.

Most people are against grain removal because it alters something existing, and has undesired side effects. Films have always had varying levels of grain, and most people don't complain about, say, 70mm films or newer films having less grain than older films or films shot on 16mm, or films shot digitally having no grain at all. Ultimately, the progress of film technology has been largely towards the reduction of grain, excepting for some who use it in certain situations for aesthetic effect. But there's a difference between shooting with low grain film and using "grain removal" on an old film, same with shooting color vs colorization, and same with shooting in 48fps and motion interpolation.

When it comes to movies, I disagree. Easier, cheaper and more convenient doesn't make talented people better, it makes them lazier. And it removes the barrier of entry to a hell of a lot more untalented people.