I hear you, and you make good points. But this issue is not unique to frame rate, or even cinema. We ran into this same problem when HDR took off in still phot

I hear you, and you make good points. But this issue is not unique to frame rate, or even cinema. We ran into this same problem when HDR took off in still photography. How much of the art is the medium, and how much is the processing? I think you can argue it either way, but my point was that additional data can always lead to various interpretations later on, while less data always leads to a less-varied range of future possibilities. Speculating on what kinds of post-production work might be done, who might do it, or whether it's a good thing or not misses the point. What used to be part of the medium is now part of the process. Leonardo would have taken the picture, then painted the painting. What hung in the Louvre would have been up to him as to what he decided to release. Would the painting be worth any less if we had a fully-rendered, highly-detailed model of the studio, subject, and the artist? Not at all, but there are many derivative works we could create with that kind of data that we could never do from just a painting. Think of it in a silly way: if I see a man and draw a stick man, am I locked in forever for only remembering that man in such simple terms? Or might I want to come back and paint him? Why make me choose when the tech lets me have it both ways? I won't go into the technology/cost issues, as these things have a way of changing dramatically from year to year.