Philip Mayor

Well since there are sample clips of HFR footage on the Internet from companies promoting the technology then I'd have to say yes to your second question.

I would think in very rare situations certain edits might not work, but they would be rare. If there's a strobing light or effect where every other frame records this effect in 48, then it's possible a 24 version could miss it entirely. Maybe more likely would be an optically created subliminal. If a director wants a one frame image of a skull in 48fps to scare the audience subliminally then there's only a 50/50 chance that image will make it into a 24 version. So in these types of cases extra care would have to be taken. But you are absolutely right that in editing one frame can make all the difference, but one frame at 24 would be more critical than one frame at 48.

I found this interesting: "Lets think about this: a 270 degree shutter angle at 48p fps is the same as a 1/64 second shutter speed per frame. However when you remove every other frame to come up with 24p fps the shutter speed is still 1/64th of a second. Each frame will always stay at the speed you shot it. The motion blur you captured per frame is the motion blur you are stuck with and there is little you can do about it. So 24p fps at 1/64th of a second shutter speed means that the shutter is now only letting in light for 38% of the total time the camera is filming. It’s the same look you would get if you shot with a 136 degree shutter angle at 24p fps. This means that the look of the film is now more jerky than it would have been if it had just been shot using the normal 180 degree shutter rule. Its shutter speed is not 2x the frame rate where it would have looked natural, it is now higher. So what does this all mean? Jackson explained the shutter angle, “… shooting at 48 fps with a 270 degree shutter angle. This gives the 48 fps a lovely silky look, and creates a very pleasing look at 24 fps as well. In fact, our DP, Andrew Lesnie, and I prefer the look of 24 fps when it comes from a 48 fps master.” This is kind of a double talk in that what he is saying here is that he likes a super smooth 48p fps look but when it comes to 24p fps he prefers a slightly more stuttery look than the norm. My opinion is that he is simply compromising between a high frame rate for 3D and a normal looking shutter speed for 24p. If he was shooting for 3D ONLY he would likely shoot 60P 1/120 second shutter. That could never be converted to a normal looking 24p though. If he was shooting for NON 3D only he would shoot at 24p 1/48th of a second, the industry standard. I believe that is because we are in a transition from old to new technology and he is shooting with both in mind; it’s a compromise." http://www.videocandycompany.com/?p=224

That's just as true for 24fps. I asked what difficulties unique to HFR.

Why would color correction be needed for 3D? I've never heard this before.

I am wondering if anyone here has specific knowledge about the difficulties one is faced with in shooting HFR. For example, does a set require more light? Does HFR wash out color? Apparently on Hobbit they had to add extra saturation to sets, even makeup to compensate for this. Are professional camera moves harder to achieve? Is camera operating more difficult? Those are some thoughts I have that I'm trying to answer but maybe others have other ones. We've already heard that increased detail means imperfections in the sets are more noticeable, so I'm already aware of that problem. Much thanks and I'll check back regularly.