Michael Brennan
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2007
- Messages
- 724
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
This discussion is about smooth versus flicker aka live video versus film motion portrayal.
There is hardly any research into audience response of flicker
versus smooth displays. I recall one US university study where
flicker versus smooth was compared and the majority of participants
regarded the smooth as being more immediate and emotionally evolving.
I do trust Doug Trumball's research.
I reckon that a modern audience will flock to "real" (+48fps)
looking movies especially sci-fi and fantasy because it is this genre, in every
shot, where the audience is challenged to believe in a fantastic world.
Film aficionados have claimed that flicker aides the suspension of
belief, but such claims were and have never been supported by any science.
The phrase "Suspension of disbelief" is a phrase more likely to have come from Kodak wordsmiths than Kodak scientists.
I recall in the early days of the f900 when 30fps was not adopted as a
frame rate for US sitcoms as it was deemed too radical a step for the
audience to accept. It was said to look too smooth, but I am not
aware of any scientific evaluation done at the time and given the cost savings of using video rather than film for 30p one can imagine that those with a vested interest in film did all they could to scupper the idea.
Our industry is not well served by science when it comes to evaluating an audience's psyscho physical response to our craft and also has trouble keeping up with the pace of our industry's technical developments.
Here is some research done in 1988 at the MIT media lab by Kimberly Foley....
http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~kimf/thesis/chap4.htm
"When asked to articulate the difference between the "film look" and the "video look", most subjects found it hard to describe. On the whole, viewers do see a difference but mass audience and experts alike have a difficult time pinpointing what that difference is."
Mike Brennan
There is hardly any research into audience response of flicker
versus smooth displays. I recall one US university study where
flicker versus smooth was compared and the majority of participants
regarded the smooth as being more immediate and emotionally evolving.
I do trust Doug Trumball's research.
I reckon that a modern audience will flock to "real" (+48fps)
looking movies especially sci-fi and fantasy because it is this genre, in every
shot, where the audience is challenged to believe in a fantastic world.
Film aficionados have claimed that flicker aides the suspension of
belief, but such claims were and have never been supported by any science.
The phrase "Suspension of disbelief" is a phrase more likely to have come from Kodak wordsmiths than Kodak scientists.
I recall in the early days of the f900 when 30fps was not adopted as a
frame rate for US sitcoms as it was deemed too radical a step for the
audience to accept. It was said to look too smooth, but I am not
aware of any scientific evaluation done at the time and given the cost savings of using video rather than film for 30p one can imagine that those with a vested interest in film did all they could to scupper the idea.
Our industry is not well served by science when it comes to evaluating an audience's psyscho physical response to our craft and also has trouble keeping up with the pace of our industry's technical developments.
Here is some research done in 1988 at the MIT media lab by Kimberly Foley....
http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~kimf/thesis/chap4.htm
"When asked to articulate the difference between the "film look" and the "video look", most subjects found it hard to describe. On the whole, viewers do see a difference but mass audience and experts alike have a difficult time pinpointing what that difference is."
Mike Brennan
