Originally Posted by DNA-1842
I thought that Peter Jackson was using 48fps because it made the 3D better, rather than simply for the 2D. I can see why it would make the 2D much better, of course.
It could well be his reason. I would think the improvement of a doubled frame rate to standard film would be just as great if not moreso, however I'm also somewhat biased on this issue:
3D to me is a gimmick. It provides a unique experience by tricking out your senses, but it also makes everything appear less solid in texture. It is not actually 3D; there is no such thing as 3D. Film is already 3D.
If film shot at 48fps really is all that I've heard (and it might not be), it seems to me that somebody could just have easily have labeled that 3D. This is just an observation though, not a complaint.