Quote:
Originally Posted by JD10367
Yes, I heard he screened some of the movie not too long ago and the people watching it absolutely hated it. At 48fps the image moves so quickly that it looks too realistic. Your analogy is right on: think about prime-time cop shows from a decade or two ago (filmed on film) vs. daytime soap operas (filmed on videotape). Or, think about any "Entertainment Tonight" footage you've seen of a movie being filmed, where you can see the director and lighting guys as the star runs through the scene, and they yell cut, and it's all being filmed for ET using video cameras, and you think, "Wow, that looks horribly fake and cheesy". Same thing. The human brain has been conditioned to expect a movie to look a certain way. We don't WANT it to look like we're watching it in real life, because "real life" doesn't look like film. But apparently Peter Jackson was adamant that he's not dumbing it down to traditional 24fps, and that this was the future of cinema and people would "get used to it". I'm not sure he's going to be able to stick to his guns on this, though, if the studios think it'll ruin the box office. Or maybe they'll do a 24fps release and a 48fps release. (Why not, they already have 2k and 4k, and 2D and 3D.)
|
Fascinating....
Your right, our brains have been trained that films are supposed to look a certain way. I hated the look of the Mann flick Public Enemies. I think it was shot on HD digital?
Theres something to be said fo traditional film. People want and expect to be transported out of real life for a few hours. They don't want it to look like real life.
Posted via Mobile Device