Sindatur wrote:
Prancer the Sith wrote:
JarodRussell wrote:
"it makes the movie look cheap" can be translated into "it makes the movie look different".
|
It's like you haven't even read any of the arguments against 48fps  |
I've read them, and the impression I get that is being said is that it no longer looks filmed, it looks too realistic with the lack of blurring, and that that also causes some folks headaches and vertigo. I can certainly understand a complaint about headaches and vertigo, but, I never thought I'd see a complaint in Film's never ending quest to look more lifelike to end up causing a complaint of too lifelike |
Headaches and vertigo caused by higher frame rate than 24fps makes no fucking sense whatsoever.
Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:
The motion blur is what gives a film its cinematic quality. High frame rate makes it appear that you are standing on a set next to the director
|
Motion blur should still be there, because the usual shutter speed is well below 1/48 seconds.