[Enrico Lappano] “concerned now whether 29.97 fps will look a little too flat. “
Not sure I’m following/understanding the use of the word “flat”, but I’m a colorist by core offering.
If you are referring to contrast ratio, that has *almost* nothing to do with frame rate — *almost*, because MTF is affected by lens aperture and exposure time, naturally a consequence of frame rate. But if your use of the word “flat” refers to a relative smoothness of motion, because of the higher frame rate, then frankly, I have to wonder what Peter jackson is hoping to accomplish with 48 fps, in the company of other notables who are pushing for 60 fps.
Forests have been felled in the discussion of what constitutes a “film look”. Many would argue that frame rate is not specifically the main constituent. Offhand, there are probably 20 or so other optical phenomena that are more important, even discounting all the cheap tricks that plugin developers sell that have more to do with “bad” film, than actual emulsion-dye-layer media.
jPo
“I always pass on free advice — its never of any use to me” Oscar Wilde.