Tuesday, December 25, 2012

suddenly i gave a thought to, did i miss some good movie this year?

after i saw Hobbit at lido11 a couple of days ago..

stuff i think might've been good..
1. ruby sparks
2. cloud atlas
3. dredd
4. pitch perfect
5. searching for sugar man
6. argo
7. moonrise kingdom
8. holy motors
9. chronicle
10. and perhaps looper, but it could be just a poor imitation of primer

back to hobbit. comparing Hobbit imax+3d+hfr to LOTR(or my memory/impression of it) is a bit like comparing a color ansel adams to a caspar david friedrich.

or in more detail and more relevant to film making...

When you shoot film @ 24 fps, the photographic shutter does not stay open the whole 1/24 sec. time, because that will be too much motion blur and also too much exposure at, say, F2.8 for the film. Normally film is shot at shutter speeds about 1/50 sec. This means that half of the 1/24 sec. motion is NOT CAPTURED AT ALL. Film creates a stroboscopic effect, and when played back through a projector that displays 1/50 sec. worth of action for 1/24 sec., it looks eerie, artsy. 

For the soap opera look, cheap TV shows are shot with cheap video cameras which do not have light shutters. Shutter is open for the duration of the frame - 1/60 for interlaced NTSC TV. The whole action is captured with motion blur similar to film (film at 1/60 sec. shutter). The playback is absolutely realistic, cheaply realistic.


Most people can see the difference between 240 fps and speeds below that. Some people can perceive differences up to 360 fps. Note that these values are way above the frequencies that we can detect flicker -- around 75 fps.

No comments:

Post a Comment