Should movies (especially those with a lot of action) use 60fps instead of 24fps?

Should movies (especially those with a lot of action) use 60fps instead of 24fps?

Definitely. Smoother on the eyes.

No. It feels unnatural.

60fps triggers film traditionalists.

>B-b-but 24fps is more CINEMATIC!

No.

But the 24fps does look a bit dodgy sometimes on digital cameras, especially in faster pan motions.

huh, that webm really fired up my neurons

This.

In 60fps normies will notice bad editing, cgi, etc...

Haha!

Really gets the noggin uncloggin'.

Is it because you have allowed yourself to perceive it that way?

why not compromise and use 43fps?

I hate 60fps. It makes everything look like a tv show or shitty video game, no matter how good the movie/cinematography are. Just destroys it for me.

It feels more natural, but that's the problem. If I wanted to watch reality I'd go outside and watch paint dry.

ideally, it should be decided by the photograph director, on a scene per scene basis.

only thing impeding this to happen are tons of obsolete projection systems installed around the world.

I play games at usually 100+ FPS, but when I see movies at 48+ FPS its fucking awful and headache inducing.

Depends on the movie: if it uses a lot of cgi it looks like a videogame (the hobbit), but with real scenarios is better.

>when I see movies at 48+ FPS its fucking awful and headache inducing.

Are you talking about 24fps movies interpolated to look like 60fps? That isn't the best example. Sadly it is very rare to see movies filmed and distributed at 60fps.

I think the frame rate should vary, giving you a perceived smooth image
so if it's a panning shot, increase the frame rate
if it's a still, keep it at 24fps

A lot of people here (probably traditionalist Tarantino fans) are buttblasted by filmmakers moving from film to digital, do you really expect them to accept something like that?

What is the movie is full CGI?