Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

Was it that the public were uninterested, or that they weren't interested ENOUGH for the studios to justify the large extra expense of film stock? I suspect the latter - and now the extra expense of 48fps over that of 24fps is nowhere near what it was in the days of celluloid film, it's no longer of question of why do it, but why not do it!?!

I'd also disagree about 3D. I think general audiences like the idea in principle - but the good bits come with bad. Glasses is probably the most obvious, brightness levels another, but my own experience is whatever you think of 24fps for 2D movies, it's totally inadequate for 3D with any real movement at all. A headache causer. Eventually, I'd expect the other objections to be overcome via technology and that's when 3D will become really mainstream, but better than 24fps will certainly make a big advance IMO.

I also agree with the views in the discussion in the previous link - 24fps came about not through any "magical" or psychological reason, purely that it was a compromise between quality and economy.

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

No doubt that 24p came about due to technological compromises, but I think it has flourished due to its subtle appeal. Had films since The Jazz Singer been shot at 48 fps, maybe our society would think that 48fps is a cue for the magical world of Hollywood. Who knows? I just know that my personal experience is that fast frame rates make things look real, and that narrative film is more effective when things are pseudo-real. Heck, we wouldn't grade scenes to be dark, orange-teal or silver-green netherworlds if we wanted reality. Dracula would show up at the drug store and the wolfman would raid Starbucks if reality were the goal. ("Is that Frankenstein in the SUV next to us, honey?")

One could also say that we are conditioned to have comedies brightly lit, dramas darker, and horror darkest. Conditioning or not, it's effective.

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

I think the reason it's flourished is simply because it was "the standard", end of story. Shoot film, it's 24fps, simple as that.
Yes!
Fully agreed, but I suspect a decent psychologist would be able to tell you exactly why it "works" for a comedy to be bright, a serious drama darker, etc, why such are fundamental to human psychology. Same for many attributes which are to do with individual frames - "edginess" of detail, dynamic range etc.

But framerate is different, more a conditioned attitude than an intrinsic one. We've got used to 24fps in the cinema, therefore 24fps is associated with cinema. But such can be unlearnt in a way that the former can't.

All this is nothing new, and similar remarks were made with the coming of sound and the coming of colour, they certainly weren't universally welcomed at the time.

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

But does the "why" matter? 24 fps feels hypnotic and dreamy. High frame rates feel real and dull. Whether intrinsic or learned, it's true for our audience.

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

And I think we all agree that future audiences (i.e. children of today) will be able to assimilate 48p without issue--the question is, whether the adult public can "unlearn" and embrace. As I indicated before, the only factor that counts is ticket sales. I highly doubt whether I can ever unlearn my associations of 24 fps vs 48 or 60 etc; it's ingrained in me as a viewer and as a cinematographer. It's not like 48 fps video is going to be a whole new look; obviously I've seen and shot 60i and 60p footage for years so it's not something I have to get used to. When shooting high speed material on HD, the easiest way for me to tell that the camera is switched to the right mode is because it looks "newsy" on the monitor. I hate watching movies on a plasma or LCD that has 120hz mode (certainly it's the first thing I turn off when I buy a display, but I see glimpses in department stores or bars etc. and it's literally unpleasant for me to watch).

David--to clarify my comparison of an F900 in 24p mode vs an Epic in 48p: the point I was trying to make is that while the Epic as a camera may be more inherently filmic in the various ways you detailed--better dynamic range, resolution, shallower depth of field etc., the F900 footage in 24p frame rate would, in my estimation, cause more laypeople to consider that a more filmic image than the Epic. My argument being that frame rate is the most critical visual cue that separates narrative from news/sports/reality.

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

In a fictional film then all the tricks to get the audience involved are usable. Frame rate colouring etc great. But when its a record of a live event then in my mind it should be at the highest frame rate and resolution. The audience need to feel they are there. Unfortunately a lot of people think that if 24p is good for film its good for everything. Even if their camera work is terrible. That's when you need to switch on the 120hz or 240hz interpolation to make the picture viewable !!! For TV my Sony 240hz LCD interpolation is switched on all the time !!

Ron Evans

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

"Real and dull"? Maybe the first, but I don't go along with the second - rather the opposite. Some past TV dramas have deliberately been shot with video techniques (even when film may have been the norm) to get not only a "real" look, but to heighten the excitement.

Even if your points about 24fps are accepted, is it really a good thing for the majority of films to have a "hypnotic and dreamy" look to them? And the harsh reality that you may be ascribing to 48fps can be dulled down by some grading techniques.

To pick up on Charles point about ticket sales, then first point to make is that 48fps PRODUCTION shouldn't cost much more in the digital world than 24fps. And a 24fps end product can be easily and satisfactorily derived from it with no compromise, whilst the reverse is not true. (And regardless of the aesthetic arguments, such will be needed for a long time for legacy technology reasons.)

Second is that whatever the argument may be in the 2D world, 3D is crying out for higher rates, and 48fps would certainly make me much happier about 3D in the cinema.

Yes, glasses is still a current bar to general 3D acceptance, but it's likely technology will solve that in the future. In that case, what a good thing to have high frame rate content as a degree of future proofing?

If you accept all of that, then once the 48fps content starts to get around, the acceptance will start to happen, and it will become the new norm. And eventually 24fps will just end up as jerky and old-fashioned.

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

I'm not sure which video techniques you're talking about, but fast moving "shaky" camera moves go way back to the days of Abel Gance in the early 1920s. Quite a few modern productions would appear pedestrian compared to some of his stuff.

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

I wonder whether the effect 24p has on a viewer is down to more than just conditioning. As has been suggested, it appears to aid audiences with their suspension of disbelief. Does anyone know of research on the subject? I think it is presumptuous to presume either way without it.

In the same way that B&W photography is still sometimes preferable to colour, I think 24p motion cadence will continue to be a subjective preference in the future. Like 24p, B&W also had technical origins, however that alone does not void its artistic merits. With time, higher frame rates may loose their negative stigma but I think 24p will be around for a while yet.

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

Real and dull is my personal experience. Hollywood sets don't look like other worlds. They look like sets. Being on a set is dull to me, while being in Gotham City, or the Shire would be enthralling.

Your experience may differ.

This is why I'm not against high frame rates. I want controllable frame rates. Yes, when things start to fly in 3D, give me 48+ fps. But just as I don't think a 30 degree shutter is appropriate in a dramatic scene, I don't think 48 fps is appropriate in a fantasy film during low motion scenes.

The frame rate should be adjustable like shutter time, aperture, and grading. It doesn't have to be one-size-fits-all.

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

Peter Jackson responds to "48gate:"

48gate - Peter Jackson responds

He's probably right, that we'll get used to it, but it's a BIG risk with a $250 million+ budgeted film. Maybe start small with lower budgeted films that still attract a decent-sized audience, then "hit 'em" at home with DVD, etc.

heath

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

Here's an article on recent image styles:

What is the difference between The Hobbit and the news? Not as much as there should be | Charlie Brooker | Comment is free | The Guardian

I'm waiting on the Mark Kermode take on all this; BBC - Mark Kermode's film blog It should be an amusing Friday afternoon.

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

Not really - it would be very easy to derive a conventional looking 24fps version from it. And I'd assume it will be done anyway, if only to produce film prints.

And whatever the conventional argument, it's almost certain it will help the 3D version.

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

First one clarification:
Film although 24fps has a 48hz flicker, because the shutter blogs the light before and after each frame in order to hide frame movement. Otherwise a descending black line would appear during projection.

In regards to the 24fps vs 48fps argument:
Form antiquity is known that light flickering (ie camp fire) would induce a hypnotic or trance state to mind making the person more docile*1. Therefore, since film and TV*2 is also a medium where still images alternate at high rate and are seen continuous because of the persistence of vision effect, it may induce the same hypnotic effect and make its content more believable.
I presume that 48hz of film projection or 50/60hz of TV viewing falls within the limits of human sensory induction and doubling to 48fps/96hz could lessen the hypnotic and persuasive effect of film projection. Same may apply to upping the Hz rate to 120 or240 on TV.
So the complains against 48fps may not unfounded.

*1 such technics along with repetitive sound effects were used extensively during religious initiations or ceremonies.
*2 how many people want to watch TV before bedtime in order to fall asleep.

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

While the production itself perhaps should not cost more, the post-production, and especally VFX (3D, roto) will definitely cost more. Perhaps not twice as much, but it IS 2 times as many frames to work with. Bigger storage, longer render times, new pipelines to develop, etc.

It's not necessarily an argument against, but it is something to consider.

Interesting times.

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

I forgot to mention that many hypnotists are using pulsing lamps to hypnotize their subjects and I have heard that their frequency is around 20-30 Hz, although I cannot objectively know if the latter is true.

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

I'm with ya Charles. I spent a lot of money sending all of our TV spots and films to Filmlook for processing at that time. Then the process became available in-house, then we got one of the original P&S adaptors and used it with Canon's Frame Mode faux 24p....

I just showed the trailer to my partner and wife without telling her anything. She's a big Tolkein and Jackson fan and she was appalled. She's really been looking froward to the release and is afraid it's been ruined.

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

I doubt he's right. He's definitely not right with me.
I've seen what he's doing my entire life and his look and film look are the polar opposites. It's not only we in the production world that have worked with this differentiation our entire lives but the viewing public has had the same experience going from movies to news, movies to soap operas, movies to reality TV.

I'm not going to get used to paintings on velvet because they're now on 3D, I want to see the magic of the Dutch masters when I watch story telling.

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

I watched "The Jazz Singer" the other night on TMC after having only seen short clips. The transfer was excellent. For those who haven't seen it, the sound is really about the music and singing with most of the dialog done in the silent style. There is only a bit of Foley, like applause and the occasional slap or hit. It's more of a "singie" than a "talkie".

But even without audible dialog, it doesn't look like a silent film. The sync'd sequences were shot at 24 fps, as compared to the 16, 18, or 20 fps undercrank that we associate with silent films. (Some parts were still undercranked, but not the majority.) My understanding is that shooting was often undercranked to reduce film costs, but in the theaters, playback was overcranked to shoehorn in more showings per day.

So the "talkie" era didn't just introduce sound. It also introduced real-time action at a pleasing, consistent 24 fps. Audiences loved it and silent film died almost overnight. I've never read that audiences didn't like the transition from variable frame rates to 24 fps in the late '20s. 24 fps was a clear market success - even though audiences weren't trained to associate 24 fps with the cinema experience.

Anyway, it was an interesting film to watch historically. (And yes, the blackface thing was terribly out of context - and preferably off topic.) I was surprised by how many of the songs I recognized - nearly every one. I'd also recommend Fritz Lang's "M" as an example of an early sound film - it's like they released it before the sound editing was complete. Peter Lorre's court plea, even in German, is spectacular. In both cases, it's as much the 24 fps as the sound that sets them apart from earlier productions.

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

does everyone remember the old days of VHS, how we all watched movies in the 320x288 glory, we thought it looked great! Now when you watch it its like looking through a jam jar.

Well I would suspect once we get use to 48 looking back even though it won't be as exaggerated will probably give rise to the same perspective. Though on a simple note, we are referring to cadence primarily, but we also must consider the video look is given to sharpness and clarity of image.

I hate watching Movies and even free to air on a LED TV, over sharp and nasty, looks 'video'. The plasma by comparison is a lot more pleasing to the eye. If the industry adopts the standard, in 5 to 10 years time, the norm will be shard and clean with judder.. For us old timer traditionalist we probably won't budge from what we know, just like with music styles, standards change, and the new generation which drives the economy won't look back

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

I'm not sure of the science behind any of that - have you got any solid references? It seems equally likely that flickering light and such as beating drums may have the effect of heightening tension and doing anything but instilling a trance - I'm thinking of a mob stirred up even more by the flickering light of burning buildings! And what about going into battle? The beating of drums was hardly intended to make the troops more docile?

I do know someone who will regularly fall asleep watching TV - but reading a book has exactly the same effect!

I've also been reminded that in the US, 24fps material gets shown via TV with 3:2 pulldown - which is not the case in 50Hz countries, or, indeed in the cinema in the 60Hz world. Their point was that to those not accustomed to it (ie people coming from the 50Hz world) the 3:2 pulldown of 24fps does NOT look desirable - rather more that "something is wrong". To anyone who's grown up with it, it's obviously a different matter. The logic therefore follows that for framerate matters it's far more down to conditioning, not anything hard wired into human consciousness? Does this not mean there are two "24fps looks" in the 60Hz world - one via TV, one via film projection?

As far as the specifics go, then regarding the Hobbit trailer itself, I've only seen it online but it did seem to be shot with quite a high key, high contrast look? I wonder if some people don't like that, and are bundling it all in together with the framerate issue for general impression?

I just look forward to seeing for myself. For the future, I suspect it's for better 3D compatability that 48fps production will rapidly increase - whatever version gets then derived for 2D.
The NOMINAL speed for silent films was 16fps - but it seems it was normal to OVERCRANK by a significant amount (18-22fps typically), and for the projectionist to adjust speed so that movement looked correct. The best explanation I've heard is that payment was by the reel, and a higher framerate meant less effort had to be put in to filming to fill the reel - it lasted less time at 22fps than 16!

We now tend to think of them as being undercranked owing to subsequent showing on fixed speed 24fps projectors - it's not how they were seen at the time.

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

IMHO, 2D narrative and animation looks and feels best at 24 (plus all the technical reasons why: easiest path to PAL, 3:2 pulldown). However, 3D narrative and animation looks and feels better at higher frame rates.

I currently turn off "motion flow" on panasonic plasma when I watch 2D material. I turn it on when I watch 3D. The 3D "feels" so much better at higher frame rates to me.

Again. Just my opinion.

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

i don't know all the technicalities, but after seeing all of the press on "48gate" i decided to take a look at the trailer. I know the trailer is in 24P (or i've read this), but it definitely looks very "videoy" and too bright. Definitely does not look "filmy" at all (whatever that may mean). Besides the video look, did anyone notice the mattes? They are horrible. I can see all of the edges whenever they are greenscreening and adding a fake or digital matte (they even appear jagged or jaggy at the edges, although maybe this is due to compression?). It looks horrible. You can see the lines in the mattes it looks very fake. It completely looks like oldschool greenscreen where you can tell the actors are obviously not there. I don't know if this has to do with the 48fps or the sheer quality of the "film" but it looks horrible and completely breaks the 4th wall and takes me out of the film. If they cannot make the mattes more realistic and blend them with live action I can say for myself I have absolutely no desire to see this movie. Everything looks fake... really fake and not sci-fi fake. It is hard enough to suspend reality with all of the digital effects and characters, but with the bad matte jobs, it is completely unwatchable to me.

Also on a side note is it me or do the title screens look like 3D circa 1984? Very old school 3D. On an old school Indiana Jones cheesy 3D map? Almost like the crappy Motion templates. I am not saying I could produce anything like this, but for a budget in the hundreds of millions I feel it looks very amateur, very crisp, very high quality, great actors (the real ones) but very amateur. If they can't up the believability of the digital artifacts, they've lost my ticket sale.

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

I watched the trailer. Looked fine to me. Makes me want to see this movie, and I'm not a big Hobbit fan.

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

This is what I meant by ".......regarding the Hobbit trailer itself, I've only seen it online but it did seem to be shot with quite a high key, high contrast look?" Online, I'm sure I'm not seeing it at 48fps, but the flaws I perceive are nothing to do with that - it's the same on a still frame! I'm inclined to think the whole 48fps debate is a bit of a red herring........

Tend to agree with Matt, ignore the video aspects, still frames just look "wrong" - unbelievable - nothing to do with framerate.

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

Agreed David. I watched the trailer again and completely agree with you. Very bright. I can't tell you exactly for certain why it does not look like film, but I will say that I feel that the art direction is completely off-whack when you think about the context of this film. I don't know much about these films (sorry not a fan of fantasy especially digital fantasy) but I am guessing and it feels like it takes place in an old mystic land, yet the image is bright and crisp with super-sharp edges? Shouldn't it be more mute, dingy and organic? I just think as far as art direction they have it all wrong and at this point who really cares about the 24 / 48 question. If you want to transport someone to a faraway land the feeling of the visuals should evoke this. Bright, cheerful and crisp makes it too current. Perfect for Love Story 2, but completely the wrong "texture" for a fantasy film taking place in a faraway mystical land. Soooo not impressed. It is the perfect look for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, where the sets are kinda supposed to look fake, cartoony, childish, but is not fitting for this film. Too bright, too crisp, too detailed. Sets, makeup and costumes look very, very fake.

Also I've attached some low-res screenshots of the trailer on YouTube. Is it me or does this look like the worst greenscreen job you have ever seen. He clearly does not look like he is even there, not even close. How am I supposed to suspend my disbelief what the film looks as 2 different elements. There are lines all around his body disconnecting him form the background. And a super fake looking hair-light causing the outer perimeter of his hat to glow that much? What is the light source? A dark cloudy sky? Did they not see this in post? Very cheesy. In fact All of the greenscreen shots look very bad to me. Might be because of YT quality not sure. Again sorry for nit-picking but the overall look of this film is very amateur. May be a great as as a made for TV movie, but with the technologies he has in his arsenal and the astronomical budgets, it feels as though these films are beginning to digress instead of progress.

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

Shame we can't see the actor's face in those shots Matt but I suppose these new fangled camera's don't need any light so you don't need a DOP! ;0)

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

I agree with Glen, looked fine to me. If the critics have the same comments as some of you guys it will be a great success !!! Remember on a PC it will not be 24p or 48P and may well have been made a little brighter for the internet anyway. If the trailer is intended to be watched on a smart phone or tablet it needs to be brighter than it may be in the cinema and the details you see zooming into a still frame are not of importance.

Ron Evans

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

** delete **

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

Robert, if you don't agree with other people's opinions, it's really better to make your point without posts filled with insults and dripping with sarcasm.

In this particular case, frame rates directly and exactly create the issue that so many very experienced pros on this forum and in the film world are discussing.

If you don't have the experience to understand why this is the case, there are plenty of well written explanations about the process - none of which will demean or insult you while reading them, I assure you.

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

** DELETE **

Never mind. If having a contrarian opinion is insulting and demeaning to you and you somehow took it personally, I apologize.

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

It's not what people on this forum feel that's relevant - more so is that there is unease by many significant figures within the industry, which can't be simply dismissed. The debate about the trailer started at a CinemaCon screening in Las Vegas - 'Hobbit' preview divides CinemaCon auds - Entertainment News, Film News, Media - Variety

"Variety" reports :
and
I agree with the basis of much the criticism - but am less inclined to put it down to framerate. I see what is implied by "overlit and amplified" on still frame grabs, and low res ones at that.

I'm assuming that at CinemaCon, the screenings that caused the negative comments were done on equipment that's about as good as it gets? So can't be put down to the for web versions that the rest of us are seeing?

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

Definitely not the worst greenscreen job I have ever seen. Not even the worst greenscreen job in the series. Your dark, cloudy sky is bright behind him too, I note. Wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this was shot on a set, knowing Jackson's work.
I've seen the sky throw an edge on someone that looked like they were cut out before. This seems relatively mild and unlikely to do a lot of harm to the viewing experience. The Hobbit is a much more story-book affair than The Lord of the Rings. I suspect that explains certain things about its look (although I do think the apparent clean-ness and the digital presentation might be a bit much all at once)

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

I agree with Robert's sentiment. Peter Jackson clearly states he has not graded the footage to a finished state. He didn't finish the post production and grading of the last movie until 24 hours before it was due to be delivered. A hashed together trailer produced whilst they are still filming shouldn't be judged as a finished product, I see it as the Hobbit v0.5 beta...

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

He may have clearly stated it - it was not clearly reported. Most of the emphasis by far has been placed on the 24-48fps issue, with many reports mentioning nothing else in terms of a different "look". It is worth looking here - Peter Jackson Responds to 'Hobbit' Footage Critics, Explains 48-Frames Strategy - The Hollywood Reporter - which is more thorough than previous reports I'd seen, and backs up what Paul says.
It's hardly surprising that such as Matt and myself (let alone many at CinemaCon) may find it "bright, cheerful and crisp" - it's because it's not been graded! If it did look perfectly OK it would mean a lot of colourists may as well go home now....... :-)

I'm sure the Hobbit footage will look fine come final release - even if it doesn't now. It's unfortunate that showing ungraded material should have unjustly given the 48fps issue bad publicity.

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

Unless we've seen the footage projected, in it's full resolution, in the correct color space, in 3D at 48fps, then this whole conversation is speculative and, quite honestly, silly.

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

Speculative - yes, at least to an extent. Silly - no, far from it. The CinemaCon screenings led to a lot of bad (and inaccurate) rumours going round, and it's worth trying to get to bottom of them.

Opinions have ranged from "nothing wrong with the look of the footage" to "the 48fps look is making it look videoish".

The first opinion is obviously incorrect - from the last link there should be no doubt that what has been seen is ungraded, it would be surprising if it did look perfect! That's straight from Peter Jackson.

On the other hand, the criticisms seem to be along the lines of disliking the footage because it's "overlit and amplified" in one persons words. It's likely their impressions are valid - but what's wrong is blaming the negativity on the framerate rather than simple lack of grading.

Worth reading on down in the Hollywood Reporter article to get some fairly heavyweight opinion SPECIFICALLY about the framerate issue. (Which generally seems positive.) For example:
But OK, final judgement reserved until we've seen the finished product.

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

Having seen 24 fps film motion interpolated on modern televisions, I'm no fan of 2D narrative film at high frame rates. In my experience, it can make things look so real that they feel fake - like the reality that we are looking at a Hollywood set.

Also, having seen fast motion 3D at 24 fps, that's also a fail.

We need to stop thinking about 48 fps at either/or and think about frame rate as a creative control. The question isn't if 48 fps is good or bad. The question is "in what situations, genres, and shots would you use 48 fps for the best effect?" Or even broader: "If you had full control over the playback framerate, what framerate would you use for various situations, genres, and shots and why?"

Directors don't shoot everything at exactly 24 fps (slower for action, faster for dramatic slow motion), so why should we play back everything at a single frame rate?

As an example, one shouldn't pan edge to edge on a plate in less than about seven seconds at 24 fps, according to the ASC handbood. You can pan faster when tracking an object. You can also whip pan, which is so disorienting that you don't notice the judder. But what if you wanted to pan at a medium speed on a naked background? This would be a perfect place to switch to a fast frame rate, if only temporarily.

Rather than a technological threat, or a full-time switch, we should see this as yet another creative variable.

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

The question of whether 24fps for narrative is something that looks right to many of us because of convention or because of inherent qualities of the frame rate is a classic nature vs nurture type of question. If scientific nature vs nurture questions are anything to go by then the answer to the 24fps question will most likely be that our preference for that frame rate for narrative is both nature (inherent quality of the framerate) and nurture (convention established by seeing so many films at 24fps).

Quite aside from our conditioning I think there are many inherent qualities of lower frame rates that make them more useful for many kinds of narrative. I think this connects with a very strong thread in the visual arts where less becomes more because by offering us less information the artist allows more space for the sort of participation in the image/story that comes from us as the viewers filling in some of the missing information.

Contemporary artist Jim Campbell's work is a really good example of this. He creates super low resolution displays from arrays of LED lights. In one work an array of 1040 white LEDs is used to display home movies. There is so little resolution in these works that you find yourself hallucinating the missing detail, a fact that produces a great deal of the power we experience in viewing Campbell's work. The general point is that less information can make a work more powerful.

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

Regardless of what may please some and pain others, one thing for sure. There are going to be people, unfettered by convention or notions of limitation, who take these tools and make them do things beyond what we and the designers expect and anticipate.

Look forward to that and some good "original" story stuff in the future. It is not a bad time to be around and young enough to wait out the dust storm.