AW, SHUCKS - 48 FPS SUCKS

The little buggers run around like they're on a coffee high:
Maybe it all part of a plot to get Starbucks as a sponsor.
A certain recent Peter Jackson-directed movie called The Hobbit, which will now be expanded to a trilogy, ala The Lord Of The Rings, uses 48 frames per second - which is very dumb.

(In fact, by comparison it makes the awkward and half-baked success of 3D look like a totally genius idea.)

Frame rates must be adjusted in subtractive or additive form in 6 frame increments only, and 30 fps is the max viewing rate without getting eyeball distraction.

Which is why it has been the standard for most computer video files. 36, 42 or 48 fps is too high. Frame rates over 30 only work for very heavy action, sports and animation.

Sure the 24 fps standard of the film industry could be hiked up a bit to 30 fps, but why bother? The very small bump in clarity it would demonstrate wouldn't really be worth retooling all the systems to display it.

And besides, these days viewers will get a nice high def picture when they soon-after get it on Blu-ray, anyway.

The biggest drawback to 48 is that it kills the cinematic FILM look, and reduces images to a mere "behind the scenes" VIDEO rehearsal look.

You know, folks - what today's newbies repeatedly ignore is the fact that nine out of 10 times there's a very good REASON why certain things haven't been "updated" for many decades:

Because said "updates" in reality have already been tried and found to be major FAILS.

So everybody, just ignore Jackson and go back to 24 fps.