Originally Posted by Dillster
AJ is right. More frames means less blur between each frame, which gives sharper motion and slow motion.
No, really not.
The moblur is determined by the shutter time. If you shoot 48 at 360 degrees the blur per frame is exactly the same per frame as if you shot 24 at 180 degrees (which is the standard cinematic look blur wise).
If you shoot 24 fps with the shutter at 1/500th every frame is going to be crisp as even during action.
Hobbit was shot mostly at 270 with a forward bias, which means if you drop frames and play it at 24 it's almost exactly the same blur as if it was shot natively at 24 180degrees.
The higher framerate IS the cause of the added temporal resolution and what gives a lot of people the video feeling, and the slight fast forward on some shots feeling. The blur within the frame has very little to do with it.
As for both eyes being shown simultaneously, it depends from the projection. Most projections DO NOT have concurrent double beams, and rather alternate the two with different polarizations.
There's also the discussion about how many flashes per frame a projector does (most will flash the image twice or thrice for every frame at 24), and whether it's adequate to show sufficiently frequent flashes of each frame even at 48 (which again, most projections aren't).
Lots of conjecture and mis-information, but it seems at the end of the day very few people actually have a solid idea of what shoots and projections work and how they correlate...
And there is no such thing as 24fps being what the human eye is comfortable with, let alone in stereo.
24 fps was chosen back then as the cheapest you could get away for issues related to audio recording on shoot, not even for it's visual qualities.