From the Mistika people it seems that a shutter angle of 272deg was used at 48fps. The 24fps masters are created by disentangling. That's a fancy way to say dropping every second frame. This didn't always work well enough so for some shots motion estimation processing was used to get a 24fps master that looked good.

Some comments:
[I]"Can be more expensive because most VFX vendors work in number of frames rather than seconds of screen time....

Having sharper images and more frames of motion makes tracking and roto work easier.

The lack of motion blur also makes it more difficult to hide compositing mistakes. Higher temporal resolution does not forgive sloppy work!"[/I]

http://on-demand.gputechconf.com/gtc/2013/presentations/S3483-HFR-Postproduction-Workflows.pdf

Bob.

OldSmoke said, "I am also sure that 24fps was choosen for a technical reason rather then estatics."

The ONLY reasons why it was chosen was:

(1) Film is very expensive!!! The higher the frame rate, the more film it takes and the higher the costs! And the producers want to keep the costs as low as possible.

(2) 24 fps is the slowest speed that can accommodate good audio. Before sound, it was not uncommon to have slower fps.

We now have new and better technology to use higher rates without excessive costs. And yet, we still have those who want to use the old, defective and limited way just so they can have that old so-called film look?

Maybe the so-called purist who want the so-called film look would like to go back to the even slower frame rates that were once used?

I sincerely wish they would stop including that awful 24p setting in video cameras!

And on another subject, you also have the so-called 'black and white' purist who want everything in black and white. Remember black and white? Why? It was because they did not yet know how to film the movie in color. At least not in a satisfactory way. And even when they did get a satisfactory way, they had a lot of 'cheep' producers who chose the cheep way with black and white.

SIGH!!!!

"

That is where people are very different. Being technically minded and a perfectionist at heart (but not always in practice, according to my wife) technical defects are very obvious to me but not to my wife, who is not technical.

If I am watching a very good movie, I could get lost in at and forget the technical limitations for a while, but often the scenery is significant or the main feature, and in those cases technical defects do intrude.

I have a friend who is very technical, and connectivity and portability are king to him, but not quality. He connected his ipad to my 50 inch TV and showed one of his movies that had been heavily compressed with sub-SD resolution. He was in raptures. I thought it was awful.

Film is projected at 48fps (24x2) each frame shown twice to avoid flicker. That's why they wanted 48fps. The problem is the limitation of current digital cameras, looking like cheap shot on video at 48fps. I watched the first at HFR 4K 3D. The problem was every mistake showed up on screen, from lighting to makeup. Made the entire 150 mill movie look like a low budget shot on video BBC stage production.
But the 48fps CGI animation was astounding, best ever.

The production design for the live action scenes really failed. Once they figure it out, HFR will become the new standard, though 24p will never go away.

The brain remembers and imagines in still images.

I think there may be something about slower frame rates like 24p that allows us to process the images as if they are a memory or fantasy.

Higher frame rates look more like a live feed. That's great for news, sports and documentary because the subject matter is believable. Less good for fiction where a leap of faith is required.

(p.s. The above might be complete nonsense)

As the White Queen said to Alice, "... sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

I'll have what Lewis Carroll was having ...

I believe it all comes down to conditioning, expectations, and a need to reinforce one's own opinions.

I am totally with the members who feel that content overrules frame rate, resolution, etc.

I also know that if I WANT to notice flicker and judder in 24p I can; if I don't want to, I don't. It depends on the mode in which I choose to view the material - critical or absorbed. It's all choice.

I would love to see opinions of the general public (and even "pros" like us) to films such as this were their attention not placed on technical matters such as frame rate even before they view it.

I think sometimes the term "judder" is used to mean the strobing effect on pans, but it was Dr. Schreiber of MIT who emphatically told me that, officially, judder is the term given to the effect of 3-2 pulldown; on a pan the scenery would move across slow-fast-slow-fast since some film frames were given more display time than others. So by definition there would be no judder in film conversions in 50Hz countries.

I've yet to see one of the new films that are shot at a higher framerate but I think I'd probably like the fluid effect. I HATE a fast pan in 24Hz. Yuck. I also hate a 24Hz film with the frames shot at a very short shutter, strobe-like. Very unnatural appearance, in my view.

Agreed on the short shutter speed. That is a real pet peeve. Saving Private Ryan, Drumline, and every current "action" film comes to mind. I WANT to have a seizure just so someone will remove me from the cinema.