I recall being quite taken aback by it.  It was TOO realistic looking.  The film did ‘star’ afew people, and when they were in conversation, I don’t know how to explain it’ but everything seemed…slow motion.  I THINK because the brain is having to process so much more information.

Although it LOOKED great, almost 3D, it was entirely too realistic and because of the ‘time slowing’ effect, I could not ever imagine seeing a real narrative movie in this format.

The format is fine for narrated IMAX documentaries, but as soon as people open their mouths and move around….it gets weird.  IT’j something that probably has to be experienced to understand.

Tl;dr, I had a feeling once people saw this high frame rate, it would not go over very well.

So, 48fps is in my opinion a good thing.

There should be no difference in motion blur with the new frame rate. The 180º shutter angle used as standard in 24fps motion imaging simply gets shifted to a 360º shutter for the faster frame rate. Now, I recall reading that Lesnie (the cinematographer) had chosen a somewhat sharper shutter angle of 300º, which would make for crisper images with less motion blur, but I don’t know that to be a fact. 

(Shutter angle is a relative measure of shutter speed. 360º at 48fps is the same exposure time as 180º at 24fps … 1/48th of a second. Why cinematographers use relative shutter speed measurements is beyond the scope here, but in brief it allows us to keep similar motion representation as we change frame rates for slow or fast motion.)

As far as the descriptions of contrast or other image defects … its just BS being spewed by conservative “purists.” They are reaching for non-sense descriptions to justify their positions. The very same sort of cameras are used for 24fps film making as are used for 48fps filmmaking. They use the same sensors … and thus have exactly the same contrast ratio, dynamic range, color gamut and every other technical detail. These films were shot with Red’s Epic cameras in 3D. However you can shoot 48fps 3D on 35mm film cameras as well. (I prefer digital for various reasons, especially in 3D.)

As to the makeup and set issues … as already noted here that has nothing to do with the frame rate. It may have to do with the resolution though. Hobbit was shot and edited in 5K resolution. All the visual effects and color correction is being done at 5K. The final output is being projected at 4K … it is very likely the highest resolution image most people have ever seen.

There is an important difference in how the footage is perceived by the audience. Faster frame rate footage feels more real, and the resulting footage looks a lot more like if you walked on a set. This isn’t to do with any characteristic of the image, but rather entirely with how your brain processes images. For the vast majority of film makers this is huge with all sorts of implications… but for most audience members its just more involving. What that means though is that if you are inclined to be critical, you will see more flaws. If you are inclined to simply enjoy the story, you’ll feel more a part of the world.

More than ever films will be about what you as the audience put into watching them.

Still, I suppose I couldn’t say for sure until I see it for myself.