We don't want "low frame rates". A lower frame rate is not the goal.
If films were commonly shot and released at 120FPS, then we'd see videophiles clamoring to get the hardware in-place in their homes to support that framerate.
But we're not there. Films are 24FPS. That's what the content is. That's what the filmmakers worked with for the entirety of filming, editing, post, and distribution processes.
And the process of generating an extra 96 frames every second to fill in the gaps of the actual content is simply not always very good. Sometimes, it's even pretty awful.
It seems obvious to say, but artificially multiplying a framerate by a factor of 5 inside of a TV frequently has issues.
>If films were commonly shot and released at 120FPS, then we'd see videophiles clamoring to get the hardware in-place in their homes to support that framerate.
I'm not sure that's actually the consensus opinion. Some of the complaints about frame interpolation are about specific kinds of artifacting, but many are of "the soap opera effect", and those same complaints were levied against The Hobbit, which was actually filmed at a higher frame rate.
If films were commonly shot and released at 120FPS, then we'd see videophiles clamoring to get the hardware in-place in their homes to support that framerate.
But we're not there. Films are 24FPS. That's what the content is. That's what the filmmakers worked with for the entirety of filming, editing, post, and distribution processes.
And the process of generating an extra 96 frames every second to fill in the gaps of the actual content is simply not always very good. Sometimes, it's even pretty awful.
It seems obvious to say, but artificially multiplying a framerate by a factor of 5 inside of a TV frequently has issues.