I have no opinion on 48 frames a second at all. I'd be completely unsuitable to talk about that.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I didn't want people to sit there and watch 10 minutes of film,and all they write about is 48 frames.
The wonderful thing about 48 fps is the integration of live action and CG elements; that is something I learned from 'The Hobbit.' We are so used to 24 fps and the romance of celluloid... but at 48 fps, you cannot deny the existence of these CG creations in the same time frame and space and environment as the live action.
I couldn't tell if any frames were removed. Seen as a whole it shows that I have seen. Seeing you have 18 frames a second you can take out one or two and I couldn't tell.
Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out.
A picture story just doesn't run like a film. It doesn't have 24 frames per second. It doesn't deal with this illusion of movement.
In film, you have the luxury of accomplishing what you need in 24 frames every second. Comics, you only have five or six panels a page to do that.
The thing about '48 Hrs.' that really isn't thought about much is that's the first film where the black and the white criticize each other.
48 frames per second is something you have to get used to. I've got absolute belief and faith in 48 frames... it's something that could have ramifications for the entire industry. 'The Hobbit' really is the test of that.
Jean-Luc Godard said that cinema is the truth 24 frames a second. I think cinema is lies 24 frames a second.
Forty-eight frames per second is a way, way better way to look at 3D. It's so much more comfortable on the eyes.