Re:Cannes Interview: Christopher Nolan on a new “unrestored”...
by twoodfin on Saturday May 19, 2018 @09:23AM
(#17107790)
I believe Kubrick would have loved the challenge of exploiting HFR. NASA cameras for Barry Lyndon and all that...
The Hobbit films were a terrible choice to introduce the tech to a mainstream audience for any number of reasons, the heavy dependence on makeup and other “artifice” for the production not least.
Re:Cannes Interview: Christopher Nolan on a new “unrestored”...
by sp332 on Saturday May 19, 2018 @09:26AM
(#17107797)
I think it's because of the motion blur. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8793346#8794004 With only 24 fps, we have come to depend on motion blur on each frame to give us motion information. It can be manipulated intentionally (like removing motion blur to make moves in a fight scene feel more abrupt), but if changes don't match what we expect it can feel weird.
Re:Cannes Interview: Christopher Nolan on a new “unrestored”...
by tgb on Saturday May 19, 2018 @09:25AM
(#17107793)
On the other hand, I feel almost nauseous every time I see a panning shot in a standard 24fps film. They look choppy to an extreme that makes me wonder how anyone let that through production but I guess it's just standard now. I would really like to see the switch to higher frame rates made for that problem alone.
A casual perusal of the reviews of the Hobbit HFR films, reveals that most people agree with this assessment.
I don't think anyone who paid extra to go and see one of the HFR showings could be labeled as "stuck in the past", but at this point I am definitely not going to advocate for 60fps in the future. Not because I am resistant to new formats but because I like movies that I watch to be "good" and higher frame rate presentations (whether by frame interpolation or by original photography) seem to be less good.