View Single Post
Old December 13th, 2012 (8:13 PM). Edited December 13th, 2012 by Archer.
Archer's Avatar
Archer Archer is offline
a.k.a: ethan.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NSW, Australia
Nature: Modest
Posts: 3,946
Originally Posted by Cassino View Post
I always thought 24FPS was terribly low. This happens to be one of the few films I would want to watch so I'll definitely look out for the 48FPS version. Seems strange to me that well-funded films can't be shot at 600FPS, which I understand to be the approximate rate of the human eye, since it can be done. I suppose film rolls would have to be absurdly large but I don't see why those should be in use anymore regardless.
Remember they have to be able to display the right framerate at the other end. There's no point filming something in such a framerate if the projectors at the movie theatre can't display anywhere near that (I daresay a lot of them can't handle 48p at the moment), nor can Blu-Ray players or TVs handle anywhere near that.

100/120 Hz I can certainly understand, but there are massive diminishing returns past that.

All of the film critics complaining about the high framerate are being ridiculous and afraid of change. Higher framerates are better in every way possible. That's not up for debate. If you're not used to it, that doesn't make it bad.

I will see the 2D 48fps version, if possible. 3D doesn't look great to my eyes, but a higher framerate certainly will. In fact, I'm MORE interested in this because of the framerate.
Reply With Quote