Aaron Macarthy Beards
Editorial Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2014
- Messages
- 94
- Reaction score
- 47
- Points
- 124
- Age
- 31
Until recently, I was right there with you. 24fps was just the cheapest they could get away with. But I watched Billy Lynns at 60fps, and it was horrible. I couldn't actually finish it it was so bad.I find motion to is the biggest contributor in taking me out of the movie
blurry panning,judder and loss of detail just does my nut in
If thats whats intended then they can keep it
24fps is just an excuse
they know it is not fit for purpose and changing has been under discussion for decades but no-one seems prepared to grasp this nettle
Andy
That's bit of a bold statement, considering I'd argue that the majority use motion 'enhancements' and not the other way around because they want to and prefer it. When you look on forums, this included, folk are always asking for more and not less ways of reducing blur/judder and many appear willing to trade on that.I understand that you might personally find that annoying, but that is not the case for the majority of viewers.
I find motion to is the biggest contributor in taking me out of the movie
blurry panning,judder and loss of detail just does my nut in
If thats whats intended then they can keep it
24fps is just an excuse
they know it is not fit for purpose and changing has been under discussion for decades but no-one seems prepared to grasp this nettle
Andy
Until recently, I was right there with you. 24fps was just the cheapest they could get away with. But I watched Billy Lynns at 60fps, and it was horrible. I couldn't actually finish it it was so bad.
I find motion to is the biggest contributor in taking me out of the movie
blurry panning,judder and loss of detail just does my nut in
If thats whats intended then they can keep it
24fps is just an excuse
they know it is not fit for purpose and changing has been under discussion for decades but no-one seems prepared to grasp this nettle
Andy
Andy,
24fps is far from an excuse and it is supposed to have some motion blur, it's what gives it the look of film and what the creator is looking for. We have seen that 48fps doesn't work for audiences or creatives and that the technology hasn't been adopted because it doesn't fit with what the directors want. I understand that you might personally find that annoying, but that is not the case for the majority of viewers. In your case, there are motion settings that can slightly reduce the issues you see, without adding the soap opera effect.
The fact the film is terrible probably didn't help to be fair.I've read the reviews and so haven't watched it as I don't feel I'm interested in the film. As someone who loves his 120+ fps in games and would like to see 60fps in films I guess I should try and watch it sometime ;-) but hopefully a more interesting 60fps film will come out!
I was blown away by Nolans Dunkirk on UHD, some scenes I'd say are reference and on an audible front, even without Atmos, it was so immersive, so I think he knows what he is doing.
Why would a director go to painstaking lengths to light and shoot a scene and then want to deliberately add introduce motion blur/judder which is no way natural at all? I also find it distracting - more so at the cinema as the picture is so much bigger. Once you are distracted you are effectively 'taken out' of the film which is surely not what the directors want - they want you immersed in their work?Andy,
24fps is far from an excuse and it is supposed to have some motion blur, it's what gives it the look of film and what the creator is looking for. We have seen that 48fps doesn't work for audiences or creatives and that the technology hasn't been adopted because it doesn't fit with what the directors want. I understand that you might personally find that annoying, but that is not the case for the majority of viewers. In your case, there are motion settings that can slightly reduce the issues you see, without adding the soap opera effect.
yeah multi aspect ratios especially for those with fixed size projector screens is a real pain as it spills over the edge (unless you have masking both physical and inbuilt).There were indeed some great shots, but the aspect ratio changing every few minutes got really, really annoying for me..
Few blurry bits too...
I believe this was one, if not the first live action film from Hollywood to be shot entirely digitally which had something to do with the finished presentation of it. I remember myself being disillusioned with this film as it was a period piece and it looked too clean and "modern" to be convincing.I remember watching Public Enemies (Michael Mann film) at the cinema and that looked terrible to me. Not sure what the frame rate was, but I hated it.