ARRI 48fps test

[Thomas Koch]

It's sort of like all the new TV's that you can buy. They automatically enable the settings to smooth out the 24, making even the best films look like TV news. Stu over at Prolost has a great post about that currently. I love 24P. Maybe it's just a shutter issue? I know that's a specific look as well, but that will get rid of those "blurry" images.

 

[ChrisLyon]

Motion blur is not something to be played with except when needed for a specific effect.

Right but if we consider Cameron or ILM to be the wielders of the weapon- which I think was the assumption I was making on that point- it would be in good hands. Cameron, as he's stated as one objective of the tests, is specifically trying to reduce stutter with panning so that would be a great example of need to "dial it in."

Going down the rabbit hole a little, I think HDRx and Magic Motion will open a pandora's box of problems related to inexperienced end users when it's released via the Scarlet program later this year (knock on wood), but as stated by Jim (or Jarred, can't remember) they think the Magic Motion default settings have a more natural feel to them than the in camera blur produced naturally by the sensor. It's a tool, and like any other it can be abused.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Not to mention that I still believe that anything that can be photographed should be photographed, not simulated, as by definition "simulating" is attempting to create the real thing. What's wrong with actually photographing the real thing if that's what you want in the first place?

Mike, I actually appreciate when the filmmaker works to get actual photography rather than FX. Just like I didn't really get very impressed with Siegfried and Roy type of magic shows - just felt like it was special effects rather than "magic", but I love watching street magicians doing sleight of hand type "magic" - it's just more magical.

So much of modern movies is overly fx'ed that I feel like I'm just watching my kid play a video game - impressive software/graphically but ultimately pretty boring pretty quickly.

Movie "magic" should be magical - however it is achieved - not just technically impressive.

 

[Shane Betts]

There was a study done way back at the birth of HD, in an effort to establish the ideal frame rates for the upcoming spec. Dramatic scenes were shot on a number of cameras at various frame rates from 100fps on down. Interesting thing that, either due to extreme cleverness or an oversight, participants were only asked for their views.

Consensus? The acting was better at 24fps! Conclusion was that, as the pinnacle of our motion picture entertainment is experienced in a cinema, and the crap appears on the TV (talking best and worst here - I know there're plenty of examples of the opposite being true), our minds just tell us that anything that reflects that cinematic experience must be superior. I think that's why we also find anamorphic reflections and distortions cool where, strictly speaking, we should object. And why we still adore film images and often strive to make our digital images more filmic.

But I guess that doesn't matter to directors who are basically making big screen computer games. The acting is not, perhaps, as important as the explosions. Problem for me is that the more this kind of thing bleeds into the cinema, the more kids will come to see it as better... Repeat that study in ten years time and 100fps hyperrealism will seem better. Hmmm.