Hmmmm, I am not sure about that. I heard it was a technological limitation that allowed them to display at 24, and that is why it became the standard.
You're wrong about stop motion. It actually only has to be above 9 fps to fully qualify as a film, though this is obviously at its most rudimentary point.
It may qualify as a film due to definitions or whatever reason.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EluIdiuUuA
This however is not fluid in moition. Of course it's not real "stop motion" which is a method to animate lifeless objects. I did a stop motion movie once. Fun but veeeeeeeery tiring. Took forever to do a 15sec animation.
From WIkipedia:
"Thomas Edison said that 46 frames per second was the minimum need by the visual cortex: "Anything less will strain the eye."In the mid to late 1920s, the frame rate for silent films increased to between 20 and 26 FPS."
When sound film was introduced in 1926, variations in film speed were no longer tolerated as the human ear is more sensitive to changes in audio frequency. Many theaters had shown silent films at 22 to 26 FPS which is why 24 FPS was chosen for sound. From 1927 to 1930, as various studios updated equipment, the rate of 24 FPS became standard for 35 mm sound film. At 24 FPS the film travels through the projector at a rate of 456 millimetres (18.0 in) per second. This allowed for simple two-blade shutters to give a projected series of images at 48 per second, satisfying Edison's recommendation."
So okay. It was a mixture of taking a Edison recommendation and working around it with the technical limitations of the time. Other sources also talk of the trade off between quality and film cost.
There has been lots of cases during the history of cinema where people rejected the idea of new technology. A lot of people where heavily opposed to film when they inclouded sound, or "talkies" as they where called. People thought that the cinematic experience would be ruined if they had to deal with these extra senses.
A lot of great actors and movie makers didn't managed to make the transition from silent to talkies either. Today, most people only know of Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin. Most other guys died with the silent films as it was almost a different category and way of telling stories by itself.
To a lesser degree the same held true with color film.
But what sound and color added to film was that they added in creating new tools for storytellers to tell stories in different ways, and more effectively. That made them an easy sell, and once they where in, there was really no going back to the old way. It proved to effective, too useful. Not using them would almost be limiting.
Maybe because not all actors are memorable? Just like you don't remember every actor from the 70s, every nfl player in history...? But the ones you mentioned are still remembered and beloved. So maybe it is because they were good and not the new technology? Good actors can adapt.
60 FPS is a different thing because you're talking about habits. There is not much to gain from new storytelling techniques by pushing 60 fps in movies over 24. That's the key difference here. It has remained the standard because it's what people are used to
There are not many movies made in 48/60fps. But I know one thing. Watching the Hobbit was a great experience because you had no blur during camera panning. So you could admire the beautiful set pieces even more. Also action sequences filmed with a dolly cam where much easier to follow and not just a hectic and blurry mess. I am talking about the barrel scene in the second movie here. I think something like that is a very positive effect for people who watch the movie. It was very hard to follow to blurry, fast cut battles of LOTR without getting dizzy.
Finally you are completely wrong about cinema having nothing to do with video games. Almost every good non-interactive video game story is completely modeled in cinematography, use of voice, directing, sound, lighting, blocking and so and so forth, after the way the do things in film. For the longest time it has been what a lot of developers have strived to do. To make video game stories with production values at the level of film.
It seems you are talking about cutscenes ... but I don't play cutscenes. I have to control the gameplay. I have no problem with cutscenes being pictures ,24fps with black bars or just plain text (Max Payne 1 being a glorious example of great storytelling with still frames).
But in the end I have 10+ hours of gameplay. And this is what matters. Here I have to control the character from a fixed angle (behind the shoulder or even first person). I control the camera. I have to make split second decisions and coordinate eye and hand. Playing a game at 30fps with a mouse is terrible. This is not a movie where you lean back and watch it.
And one last thing regarding the cutscenes: Even if the games have production values of film. Stories of this games often remember mindless blockbusters like Transformers. I don't see many games with high production values and great stories, memorable characters and stuff.
Well this was a long post^^ But just wanted to say how I see it.
If there are mistakes in grammar or spelling. I'm sorry, but with english being my third language and the schooltime long forgotten ... you get the drill
