24p has a very cinematic feel whereas high frame rate films 60p/120p feel like a bad BBC production. There's something that happens when watching 24p that helps one suspend reality and get into a film. While high frame rate films makes you feel like you're watching a live stage production. And no, I'm not some old luddite. I shoot 4K/6K on a regular basis... and frequently at 60p or 120p for the purposes of slow-mo. But all footage shot at high frame rates for the cleaner shots are all ultimately brought down to 24p for their final output.
This might be only our conditioning to 35mm and 24 fps.
I clearly remember that I didn't like first the crisp and clean High-Def images
of RED and the Alexa etc.
But the cameras and image quality got better and better in the last 10 years.
Now it's sometimes hard for me to say if something was shot on film or digital,
if it's well done.
And when films use a strong grain structure like "Black Swan" etc., I suddenly feel irritated by it, because we are now used to the clean & crisp images.
At least for me, grain appears 'dirty' now.
I loved "The Hobbit" 48fps sometimes.
It's great for landscapes.
But the CGI looked fake, like in a computer game.
All in all, I was suprised by my brain's ability to adapt.
People get used to different things, if the technology is right.
Sometimes they don't, but 120 fps could still be the future.
It's maybe not right for everything or every movie.
Maybe they still need to modify the technology a little bit,
like with the early RED Camera - movies which simply looked too harsh.
I'm all for trying new ways of experiencing moving images in cinema.
Still need to see "Billy Lynn" 120fps.
But where?
reply
share