Nick Wernham
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2011
- Messages
- 317
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
- Location
- Toronto, ON
- Website
- www.innislake.com
I don't buy this. I don't think that "temporal resolution" as you describe it is as big an indicator of the quality of moving images as detail within each frame. In fact, I don't think of it as an indicator of moving images at all so much as a choice. I can see why having smoother, more fluid movement than we are used to would be a very compelling visual technique to eploy. However, there is a reason why images played back at 24fps are more pleasing to the eye than images played back at 30fps in most cases (at least as it pertains to narrative films). It is because 24fps represents a "sweet spot" between having the image look smooth and allowing for the syncing of sound and the image being disjointed enough to make your brain a bit in trying to connect the still photographs that make up the single moving image. By forcing your brain to effectively pay more attention the image winds up being more engaging.We need to shoot "normal" motion at least at 72 f/s to get the perception of images that are equally smooth in the motion and temporal sense as they are in image gradation and resolution.