The industry standard framerate for TV shows and movies is 24 fps. This creates the "movie" feeling that distinguishes a fictional product from a reality TV show like Cops. However, all smart TVs currently come with a feature with various names like "motion smoothing" that creates fake frames to "upscale" movies to 48 fps or 60 fps. This results in a bizarre visual effect that makes everything look closer to real life, so instead of enjoying suspense of disbelief you feel like you're watching a bunch of actors play dress-up in a backyard (which is what they are doing, yes).
Personally I can't stand this, I have no idea what kind of idiotic impulse led to its creation, and I try to turn it off every time I see it (which requires wading around in submenus because there's no industry standard name for it), but at this point I've run into multiple people who don't even seem to detect a difference between 24 and 48 fps. To me this is one of those things that make me question if some individuals are living in a different reality. I can't imagine watching an entire movie that's been "upscaled" to look like a AA-tier in-engine game cutscene.
Scaling anime fight clips to 60 fps and 4K has become a cottage industry on youtube as well. The best you can hope for is that it doesn't hurt the original content too much.
I find that ignorance or indifference to this is tied to a person's tolerance for slop like soap operas or Netflix originals. It's genuinely disturbing.
I don't have a smart TV, so I can't compare in regards to upscaling. I can say that 60 FPS can look really weird if not done well for TV/movies, but the one definite advantage that springs to mind is panning.
Panning sometimes looks fucking ass at 24 FPS, and I can't stand it. I think I'll prefer higher FPS, once they manage to make it not also look ass.
I'm also not an expert though, so if someone can convince me why 24 FPS is superior, I'm all ears. If they can make 60 look as good as 24, but providing better camera movement, that's a win.
For now, though, I agree, OP. 24 > 60 FPS, in my limited experience. For video, of course. Games, the higher the better. I'm spoiled now, and disappointed when I'm dropping below 165...but I'm retarded so...
The argument I've always heard is once you hit a certain point*, you subconsciously switch from "I'm watching a film" to "I'm watching a recording of events" and start to perceive it as actors performing on a stage instead of a display of fiction. It punches a hole in the suspension of disbelief. Doesn't happen the exact same for games because they're not photorealistic to start with.
* And it's not the same point for every person.
60fps is "lifelike" in that it is almost indistinguishable from movement in reality. (Going higher than 60 improves the effect, but not dramatically).
Lifelike sounds great as a term but it's actually bad because what's the fictional medium where you can see actors at unlimited fps? Stage plays. Which can have amazing production values but still look goofier than movies because all the ungainliness of human movement is there to see.
24 fps has an elegance that uplifts the action on screen.
Re: 60fps in animation, it's actually great when used in intervals of a fraction of a second for comedic or action purposes. Otherwise it diminishes the impact of keyframes, which are the impactful frames of the animation that stick in your mind.
See my post above or below about attempting to apply framegen to a movie, with the caveat that it's an opinion I formed literally last night.
Panning is actually what tipped me over into trying to apply framegen to the movie, because I agree with you that the low fps is most noticeable there. However with the fps increased, during the same pan I felt like I was able to sense every tremor and inconsistency in the cameraman's hands, which was way more distracting. Anything less than a gimbal or a dolly track might make this inferior in high fps.
Obviously some of this could be a result of the imperfections of AI framegen, but I think it also boils down to the philosophy of cinematic fiction. It's supposed to influence you to believe in certain things while also influencing you to forget certain other things. A low fps jerky pan is an awkward reminder of the craft behind the output, but perhaps low fps also serves to mask other telltales.
I was more talking filming, not interpolation or framegen, for the record. There are definitely serious issues with trying to force in aspects that weren't originally there.
Good point. I just hate the stuttery "Oh, look, I'm perceiving the low FPS" shots when it comes to panning, but I can see the "Oh, look, I can perceive the cameraman" being equally as jarring.
Yup. It's a delicate balance, I suppose.