Shouldn't he have just toned down the extra lighting indoors, knowing 48FPS was going to pick up more detail?
Shouldn't he have just toned down the extra lighting indoors, knowing 48FPS was going to pick up more detail?
How does better temporal resolution (higher frame rate) enable better spacial resolution (see makeup detail)? In no or low motion, there can be no difference.
As you say, for a truly static scene there is no difference. In practise there is always noise in the picture, so even in static scenes a higher frame rate will tend to reduce noise by averaging.
Because you're not watching a single still frame - it's more like your brain is taking in an integral of visual information over time. You don't need much motion to be able to perceive a visual difference (even if it's just a 'feeling'). Eg. http://iwdrm.tumblr.com/
[I've only seen the Hobbit in 24FPS (unfortunately the 48FPS is only available in conjuction with 3D which I won't watch).]
By far the best part of the movie was New Zealand, though. I would have been happier with a 3h IMAX of NZ nature. Maybe with LOTR music.
The points about the resolution of details on props make more sense to me.