| Dreaming Of Pandora |
10-31-2010 12:08 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Human No More
(Post 107334)
wait, WHAT?
Movies have held back progress with 24fps for AGES... there is a huge difference between 24fps and a decent rate, that's why films have to have artificial motion blur that reduces quality.
I'll be REALLY happy if Avatar 2/3 finally improve quality of film :D
|
Honestly, I hate the look of 48, 72 fps in movies. Maybe I'm just set in my ways about films, I know some people love the higher fps. It might make Avatar more realistic (if done right), if not, it'll look like a documentary. I like the way movies and TV are at different frame rates (TV being 30 fps).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsprite
(Post 107372)
...Public Enemies and 2012 looked like normally-filmed movies to me. :S
|
2012, not so noticeable. Michael Mann shot Public Enemies with a Sony CineAlta F23 (same camera used in Cloverfield which gives the effect of a HD handheld camcorder) at 30 fps, which gives the movie a reality TV sort of look or one of those reconstructions you see in documentaries. 24 fps would've given the film a more artistic, cinematic look.
Overall I think the spirit of movies are kept in 24 fps. Digital film-making is definitely the way forward, but I can also see why Star Trek (2009) was shot on 35mm film with an anamorphic lens when JJ Abrams had the option of shooting it digitally. Because the lens flares, the wide field and crisp look of film can't be translated onto digitial recording. There's a certain artistry to making movies on film. Sure, it's convienient to make a film digitally but some of that cinematic look is lost in the translation.
I have solid opinions on why I prefer 24fps in movies and only the sequel to Avatar can change them.
|