Do you prefer your TV over a cinema screen?

[Pajderman]

SvennoJ said:

The issue is with the lighting and lack of motion blur. Shorter exposure ruins the classic 'film look'. Movies have been playing at higher fps on TV all through the boomer and gen x generations. 3:2 pulldown to put 24fps into 60hz with interlacing. So it's not a dislike of higher frame rates, it's filming in higher frame rates that is the problem / has to mature.

Studio lights having to be brighter to compensate for shorter exposure makes it look different. And less motion blur makes it look more like TV. So in your case better frame insertion is the way to go to reduce stutter.

It would be best of both worlds if the blu-ray master (or streaming) offered 2 tracks. One at 24fps and one with AI enhanced frame insertion at 60 fps. Let a super computer analyze the whole movie (from the source bit rate without compression artifacts) and create intermediate frames, then re-render it all at 60hz.

I think that type of frame insertion is on the way even doing it live by analyzing a few seconds of the movie at a time. Samsung's latest high end TVs have a neural engine and I think with time that will be standard. But mastering the blu-rays with options of different frame rates would be great. Donno how much of an audience there is though. Picture purists - the customers who buy 4K media - generally dislike the high frame rate look and despises any frame insertion algorithms in use.

Good point regarding the exposure time for the picture. For someone like me who have no real experience with photography I stupidly mostly think that a picture moment just is but when that moment is meant to be captured time is needed for the collection of the data.