Just saw this link posted over at Mobius.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1452391.html
I'd been wondering for a while how this was going to work out. Without having seen what Jackson's shot it annoys me in a vague, hard to pin down sort of way. Partly that's because it's being presented by Cameron and co. as a new technolgical achievement which it isn't. 24fps was settled on as a "good enough" compromise decades ago but given enough light and film you can shoot absurd framerates and have been able to do so since forever.
Mostly though I worry that this is a decision that's being made to make 3d palatable and it's going to have an unpleasant flow on effect to the rest of cinema. I've seen a fair bit of 48 frames per second over the years and never been a fan. In theory it's better. A smoother, cleaner picture without motion blur etc. In reality it just doesn't look like film.
24fps, 35mm film is a pretty compromised format but we're used to those compromises. They're part of what we associate as being the Hollywood look and when you remove those compromises to make a better image the brain doesn't always like it. Think of the hard edges on video. Video shows crisp, clean hard edges on stationary objects while film can't because the grain keeps shifting. Video is far more accurate in this situation but we prefer to look at film. I think 24 frames is another example of that. It's the result of compromise but now we're trained to like it.
I do wonder if Jackson would be doing this if it wasn't for 3D. I still haven't been to a 3d film but I hear a lot people have trouble with headaches and fast moving scenes are hard to follow at 24fps which they are hoping will be cured at 48fps. Also hear that 3d films are brighter at 48fps but I'm sitting here trying to think of a reason for that and will put it down to marketting chutzpah until someone explains it to me.
Will be very interested to hear what everyone thinks of this as footage becomes available.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1452391.html
I'd been wondering for a while how this was going to work out. Without having seen what Jackson's shot it annoys me in a vague, hard to pin down sort of way. Partly that's because it's being presented by Cameron and co. as a new technolgical achievement which it isn't. 24fps was settled on as a "good enough" compromise decades ago but given enough light and film you can shoot absurd framerates and have been able to do so since forever.
Mostly though I worry that this is a decision that's being made to make 3d palatable and it's going to have an unpleasant flow on effect to the rest of cinema. I've seen a fair bit of 48 frames per second over the years and never been a fan. In theory it's better. A smoother, cleaner picture without motion blur etc. In reality it just doesn't look like film.
24fps, 35mm film is a pretty compromised format but we're used to those compromises. They're part of what we associate as being the Hollywood look and when you remove those compromises to make a better image the brain doesn't always like it. Think of the hard edges on video. Video shows crisp, clean hard edges on stationary objects while film can't because the grain keeps shifting. Video is far more accurate in this situation but we prefer to look at film. I think 24 frames is another example of that. It's the result of compromise but now we're trained to like it.
I do wonder if Jackson would be doing this if it wasn't for 3D. I still haven't been to a 3d film but I hear a lot people have trouble with headaches and fast moving scenes are hard to follow at 24fps which they are hoping will be cured at 48fps. Also hear that 3d films are brighter at 48fps but I'm sitting here trying to think of a reason for that and will put it down to marketting chutzpah until someone explains it to me.
Will be very interested to hear what everyone thinks of this as footage becomes available.
Comment