Just got back from seeing The Hobbit. I was lucky enough to have a local theater showing the High Frame Rate 3D version. The 3D effect was amazing, and I do understand Peter Jackson's desire to shoot at 48 fps as a whole host of motion artifacts attendant to 24 fps just aren't there anymore. But something about it just seemed...off. It didn't look like a first rate Hollywood motion picture. It had a look more reminiscent of a second rate BBC production of Dr. Who, shot on stage using video cameras. Personally, I'd rather have the artifacts and the film look I'm accustomed to. What do you guys think?
(On a side note, this puts the nail in the coffin of the argument of what defines the "film look". While good cinematography, grading and other aspects of production certainly go a long way to making the end result look better or more professional, the one single factor that defines a "film look" is the frame rate. Nothing else contributes. 24 fps IS film, anything higher is not.)