[iup=3636046]massimo[/iup] wrote:[iup=3636011]Jay Adama[/iup] wrote:[iup=3635982]massimo[/iup] wrote:[iup=3635220]Jingle Ord the Way[/iup] wrote:Just back from seeing this and I loved it! Certainly the better film out of the three and i'm a little sad to see the last of Middle Earth, Gandalf and company. I also must be the only person in the world that likes HFR and I'm pretty sure I won't see it again.
Anyway I've seen the film and now to get on with Christmas!
I love HFR. The more films in higher frame rates the better. It's daft people prefer worse quality movies.
It's not really a question of quality, the feel of 24 and 48fps are very different. HFR feels more like video and makes it look cheaper IMO.
I'd disagree. HFR is more frames and smoother motion. So for me, that is better quality. Sure, people prefer 24fps but that's all to do with how movies have looked for the last however many decades. Once people get used to higher frame rates, everything will look so much nicer.
I still think it's a personal preference, more isn't always better. I remember reading about how Sofia Coppola chose to use film rather than video on Lost In Translation:
Wikipedia wrote:Coppola said that her father, Francis Ford Coppola, tried to convince her to shoot on video, but she ultimately decided on film, describing its “fragmented, dislocated, melancholic, romantic feeling", in contrast with video, which is "more immediate, in the present".
This is pretty much how I feel. HFR, like video, makes it feel too "real" which for some things (sports, live concerts etc.) I think is a plus but for films it makes them feel less cinematic. I'd agree that it's maybe just because that' what I'm used to but when I'm presented with an alternative that I find undesirable and generally distracting then why bother "upgrading"?
In saying that, I don't see why they can't shoot everything in 48fps and put it on BDs and then let people choose to watch it in 24 or 48fps.