Yes, resolution matters, and yes, the article agrees WHAT you shoot matters.
A 1920x1080 wouldn't do as well on a 30 foot screen as 4K regardless of
frame rate (and the 60 fps you're shooting at is not shown at that rate to
movie audiences).
The article claimed that while higher frame rates wouldn't help "love
stories or crime dramas, which are story driven", it is appropriate for a
"visual effects-driven movie not dependent on star talent, and is attractive
to a very wide audience demographic. I hate the blurriness of cameras
panning at 24fps, don't you?
"When you spend $300 million on a blockbuster, the production value isn't
getting to the audiences' eyes. It's limited by the medium itself. It
doesn't matter what you pay the cast. If you simply increase frame rate, you
can tremendously increase audience impact at almost no cost. That's why
Peter Jackson is shooting The Hobbit at 48 fps and James Cameron has stated
his plans to shoot Avatar 2 and 3 at 60 fps." Full article here
<http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/douglas-trumbull-sees-a-better-film
going-future> .
Lee
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of Rieni
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 3:05 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AP] 120fps For What It's Worth
I got a "spam" today for the new Sony F65 which has 4K resolution.
Before we know it we'll be shooting and editing in 4K @ 120fps even
though the 60fps I've been shooting with with the Panasonic AF100 is
good enough already. It also depends on WHAT you shoot of course, and
what for. I think for most niches the higher 4K resolution will fill
a bigger gap than higher frame rates.
Rieni
At 30-11-2011 17:33, lmenningen wrote:
>
>
>I've often shied away from the "I want the 24fps look of movies"
>idea because, in my opinion anyway, theater movies are duller and
>blurrier than non-movie-industry videos shown on computer monitors
>or projectors.
>
>Today I got my ah-ha! I read an interview (on COW) with Douglass
>Trumbull who has been working on developing 120fps for Hollywood
>(since way back in the 80's). He says 24fps is about the max one can
>get from film economically, whereas digital "changes everything". He
>says "we had done laboratoy tests to see the impact of high-frame
>rate images on viewers" concluding that higher rates "profoundly
>increased the viewers' visual stimulation". And so they are working
>on developing cameras, projectors and screens for brighter images,
>and the editing process to accomodate it. He says "I am working with
>projector manufactors (Christie) and doing experiments with 120fps
>in 3D" and "...with IRIDAS...writing code to handle high frame rates
>so you can edit at 24fps and make it match up to 120fps."
>
>"I'm trying to demonstrate what it'll look like when you project at
>50-foot lamberts on a giant curved screen at 120fps in 3D."
>
>All this might affect Adobe Premiere and you someday!!!
>
>Lee
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Adobe-Premiere/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Adobe-Premiere/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
