I pit 48 fps

Usually I find fast action scenes at the cinema unpleasant because they’re really blurry and confusing (especially if the camera does the dramatic wobblely thing).
In the Hobbit, such scenes seemed really smooth. And in the calm scenes, I didn’t notice a difference.

I think there is a psychological effect at play here where when certain people sit down expecting it to look radically different they convince themselves that characters are moving faster than normal or whatever.
I’d be interested in an experiment where they claim a movie is going to be 96fps say and then just show a regular 24fps movie, and get feedback afterwards. My prediction is about 2/3rds of people would notice a significant improvement or reduction in quality.

Oh there were plenty fo crazies back in 2006-2008. Try a google search or two, I’m sure you’ll find them in forum archives all over the world.

They too tried to equate the superior picture/technology with a subjective quality. They simply “preferred” DVD and that was that.

Yeah, I’m going to have to see links to believe that. “Google it yourself” isn’t an answer.

This isn’t GD or GQ. I am certainly not going to be the one catering to your laziness.

Also, do you really doubt it? There are people asserting the existence of ghosts and proclaiming to be cured of cancer do to - insert woo - in these very forums. This would be a mild case of ignorance, IMHO.

So, you are unable to back up your outrageous claim easily?

Any assertion presented without evidence can be dismissed with none.

There are people who seriously claim that vinyl records are a superior media to lossless digital. (The first three google hits for “vinyl vs flac” are all depressing)

I don’t find it implausible that there were (hell, probably still are) some arguing that DVD is better than Bluray because of some poorly-informed woo superstition.

( Checking to see if they took down that “Fighting Ignorance” banner at the top… nope. }

Look, I’m one of those people who love the sound of vinyl. I have over 200 LPs, and I treasure the pops, the clicks, the background hiss, everything short of skipping.

But when I get all starry-eyed about the “warmth” of vinyl, I know damn well that it’s the imperfection inherent in the medium that’s causing it. I mean, you’re dragging a needle through a groove in some plastic – how could it be more accurate than digital?

So it’d be hard to find a flesh-and-blood person (not just a curmudgeon who likes to act superior and ignorant online) that would argue FOR the “technological superiority” of LPs. And nigh on impossible to find “people saying that DVDs are technologically superior to Blu-rays”.

Don’t make us say “Cite?” or you’re in the club.

(the club Of People Who Get Sneered At Because Ages Ago They Didn’t Back Up A Baseless Claim But Now They Know Better And They Wish They Could Go Back And Edit Their Post A Year Later But They’d Still Be In The Club)

I also own a few hundred LPs but, sadly, I haven’t owned a turntable for almost a decade. Yet, I somehow can’t bring myself part with those remainders of my past musical life. On the other hand, I have somewhere north of 1200 CDs as well as thousands of purely digital downloads.

That said, there’s an advantage to vinyl over digital in that it forces audio engineers to master albums much more carefully and subtly to compensate for the limitations of the medium. With digital recording, engineers have been going WAY overboard with audio compression, introducing undesirable artifacts such as clipping. Google “loudness wars” for a whole host of examples.

Although, I find this far more depressing than the “vinyl vs. flac” discussions mentioned above, I understand that it’s not because vinyl is innately superior but rather that digital recording tech is easily, and too often, abused.

To bring this back around to 48fps, as with vinyl vs. digital, maybe the problem isn’t inherently with the technology but, rather, with how it’s being used. Lighting, filming and special effects techniques will surely evolve to compensate for any perceived shortcomings.

Good grief, that trailer looked awful. At times, it looked like a Benny Hill chase sequence.

I watched the Hobbit in normal 2D, and noticed that some of the pans across scenery looked absolutely terrible. I wonder whether this was a result of the frame rate being halved?

No that’s just regular old judder.

I still can’t believe people are seriously arguing for a medium which essentially blocks your view of certain scenes. In VISUAL medium, it prevents you from seeing what is hoing on. Clearly superior!

Its so much more epic not being able to see what’s going on in a huge battle, instead of seeing everything, every detail of what’s happening. So boring! Why i personally just close my eyes when i go to the movies and just listen to the action. So much more immersive. Imagination for the win!