Talking a bit, people mostly agreed that, while 24fps is a standard for a reason, it does indeed have its flaws as it is too low for mid-low speed pans, which end up being noticeably jerky. On the other hand we also were saying how 60fps can be really excessive as some content feels weird when seen at 60fps, like if it's too smooth and unnatural. So I said "what about doing something like 48fps? It could have enough smoothness for the pans while not being as fast as 60 so perhaps it wouldn't give the occasional "too smooth" feeling," at which trythil replied with something like "you know, James Cameron actually wanted to shoot Avatar as 48fps AND 3D, but was only able to get the 3D to pass." He then provided a link to the article, so we discussed the thing briefly, and after a short while, Niotex volunteered making a framerate test. He made a simple animation in after effects with a few expressions, and rendered it at 24.00fps, 48.00fps, and 59.94fps, so we could effectively compare what it would feel like to see the three in motion and what we thought actually looked best for movies and such (obviously watching a movie is not like playing videogames, where you'll always want the highest framerate possible by all means).
Here are the links to the clips:
24.00fps
48.00fps
59.94fps
Since they were already rendered at the viewing framerate, this proves as a simple but effective and proper comparison, as the frames weren't interpolated or decimated to get to a certain framerate. One thing to note is that, if I recall correctly, only the right cube in the animation has motion blur applied. This is something that Niotex did on purposes as another thing to test (how good does motion blur or lack thereof look at the various framerates).
So well, here you have the preamble. Now we'd like to know what you think about it!
Please note: video does have audio too, you might want to turn down the volume of your speakers/headphones as it is somewhat loud.
