Like the original Star Wars trilogy, Indiana Jones, etc.
35mm is the standard for films. I wonder what all of the classic films would look like if 70mm was the standard.
I get its prohibitively expensive which is why it's rare for a film to do it.
It's just fun to imagine if 70mm was the standard used by basically every film.
That's just current habit and preconceptions. If you got used to 60 fps you'd hate less than that.
Perhaps post-processing skills aren't up to par, but that can and should get better with time.
But you're attributing things to film that aren't intrinsic to film.
Nah bro, you're not going to pull the social conditioning card on this one. Framerates have the same immutable characteristics as musical chords, which is why super high fps is used sparingly and skillfully in action anime and super low fps is used for SD sequences.
I don't think so. I think it's just cultural.
So you admit it's not objective but something that you need to condition yourself towards?
The opposite. People have been conditioned to preferring lower framerates.
I get seasick watching 60fps.
I can game at 144 fps just fine.
I can watch movies at 24 fps just fine.
I can game at 60fps just fine, too.
But I get physically sick watching 60fps shows and movies. That's not social conditioning, it's physical conditions.
People get seasick playing VR until they get used to it. People get sick at sea until they get used to it. Getting sick because one isn't used to higher framerates is no argument for saying that lower framerates are objectively superior.
That being said, my original point was that film grain is an objective imperfection of a hypothetical perfect picture. There really is no good reason to say that film is better than digital.
So once again, no objectivity, only conditioning.
Again, no.