I'm only a little worried about this. When you ask the lay what "film" looks like and why video looks different, most people cannot quantify what it means (but

I'm only a little worried about this. When you ask the lay what "film" looks like and why video looks different, most people cannot quantify what it means (but can definitely tell the difference). "Film" to most people is that slow, deliberate frame advancement of 24 fps, blur and all. Take that away, and it doesn't look like "film" any more; it's just how we're collectively used to it. This reminds me of, say, Law & Order. The detectives are standing around a monitor, reviewing security tape; medium shot of the detectives, 24 fps. Full screen tape: 30 drop. Back to the detectives, 24 fps. We've all seen that before -- whenever the characters play with a consumer camera or look at a security feed, visually, a distinction is set by accelerating the frame rate. Producers know this. It just shouts "not a professionally-photographed teleplay!" in most peoples' minds now, and I think there will be resistance to rewrite that rule mentally. While I welcome dramatic entertainment that looks more like real life, I worry that culturally, we're used to 24 fps and it's going to be a begrudging transition. At least HDTV offered a noticeable improvement. Not everybody will say the same thing about more visually real entertainment; entertainment is entertainment for a reason, and we do not want to be reminded of real scenarios in most cases (it's a flight of fancy). My two cents. Will be interesting to see how this plays out, anyway. Imagine anthropologists discovering threads like this one in thousands of years: "they even quibbled over the frame rate of their time-dilated visual entertainment..."