"Only last winter an extensive poll of film fans showed them relatively unsatisfied with sound pictures and desirous of once more seeing silent pictures."
I have just been, for the first time, to see and hear a picture talk. "A little late in the day," my up-to-date readers will remark, with a patronizing and contemptuous smile. "This is 1930; there isn't much news in talkies now. But better late than never."
Better late than never? Ah, no! There, my friends, you're wrong. This is one of those cases where it is most decidedly better never than late, better never than early, better never than on the stroke of time....
I bet I could find similar reaction to the introduction of color movies, colour television, GUIs for personal computers, etc. (did anybody ever critique Gutenberg for 'form over function' on his bibles?)
In all cases, we had to discover how and when to properly use new technologies. This will not be different.
Also, I expect we will eventually go beyond 48 Hz, as 48 Hz is slightly below human perception thresholds. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Flicker_fusion gives limits around 60Hz. Those are for bright lights, large areas, and peripheral. You will not normally see that with old-syle television sets and won't see it in most homes, either, but in cinemas, one can easily get there.
I think you'll be far more likely to see a split, in the same way today we have films shot in CinemaScope (2.35:1) and widescreen (1.85:1). The complement, rather than replace, one another.
48 FPS is probably analogous to 3D, rather than talkies. When the talkies came along there was a rapid transition: the big five studios were exclusively shooting talkies about two years after the Jazz Singer was released. Whereas 3D is more prevalent today, but some film-makers choose not to use it. There is not quite the same demand by the audience.
I mentioned this earlier, but I'd love to see a screening of The Hobbit with 24fps for dialog and 48fps for action.
To take it a step further, they could use an adaptive framerate. Have an algorithm (or, more likely, this being Hollywood, a person) select specific shots or pieces of shots with too much lateral movement and ratchet them up to 48fps.
http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com/pdf/Talkie_Town_USA.pdf (apologies for the low quality of the scan):
"Only last winter an extensive poll of film fans showed them relatively unsatisfied with sound pictures and desirous of once more seeing silent pictures."
We also have Aldous Huxley (http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/sound.cfm, about halfway down):
Silence is Golden
I have just been, for the first time, to see and hear a picture talk. "A little late in the day," my up-to-date readers will remark, with a patronizing and contemptuous smile. "This is 1930; there isn't much news in talkies now. But better late than never."
Better late than never? Ah, no! There, my friends, you're wrong. This is one of those cases where it is most decidedly better never than late, better never than early, better never than on the stroke of time....
I bet I could find similar reaction to the introduction of color movies, colour television, GUIs for personal computers, etc. (did anybody ever critique Gutenberg for 'form over function' on his bibles?)
In all cases, we had to discover how and when to properly use new technologies. This will not be different.
Also, I expect we will eventually go beyond 48 Hz, as 48 Hz is slightly below human perception thresholds. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Flicker_fusion gives limits around 60Hz. Those are for bright lights, large areas, and peripheral. You will not normally see that with old-syle television sets and won't see it in most homes, either, but in cinemas, one can easily get there.