Movies at 48fps look fine to me, great even. There's something to be said for the cinematographic effect low framerate+motion blur, and there's a long history o

Movies at 48fps look fine to me, great even. There's something to be said for the cinematographic effect low framerate+motion blur, and there's a long history of chemical and digital post-processing techniques that take advantage of motion blur. However, what works to the favor of The Grand Budapest Hotel doesn't necessarily have a place in The Hobbit. Higher framerate is useful for enhancing the visual acuity of battle scenes and for immersion. These are not the primary goals of all movies, though. As graphics technology improves, I think we'll start to see some games opt to render at lower framerates. Probably not games that require split-second reaction times or any first-person games where the camera moves violently (for instance, Starcraft, Counterstrike). Games aiming for a more artistic impression, such as puzzle games (Portal, The Witness), RPGs (The Elder Scrolls), adventure games (Brothers), however, might choose to initially render at an extremely high framerate, say 240fps, and then use that data to generate true motion blur at something like 30fps. We might eventually see movies shift to such a system, where they are recorded at very high framerates and arithmetically stitched together into something more traditional. This would stand to benefit remastering efforts 50 years after the initial production when better technology becomes available. But cinema has always been slow to adopt new technology: sound, color, digital, etc.