Had this reflection that 144hz screens where the only type of screen I knew, that was not a multiple of 60. 60 Hz - 120hz - 240hz - 360hz
And in the middle 144hz Is there a reason why all follow this 60 rule, and if so, why is 144hz here
Had this reflection that 144hz screens where the only type of screen I knew, that was not a multiple of 60. 60 Hz - 120hz - 240hz - 360hz
And in the middle 144hz Is there a reason why all follow this 60 rule, and if so, why is 144hz here
“But when I saw The Hobbit with 48fps it looked so cheap and fake!”
😑
Because it was fake. :) It’s much harder to hide actors inability to fight when you see things moving instead of blurry frame. Or poor animations when your eyes have time to see details. Watch a good fighting movie like Ong Bak or anything by Jackie Chan and you’ll be fine because they actually know how to fight. No faking needed.
Yep! Not the only issue with it, but certainly one of them.
We also have everyone associating smooth motion with soap operas because of cheap digital television cameras (IIRC).
I like higher framerates. Sweeping shots and action scenes in 24fps can be so jarring when you’re used to videogames.
Specially using modern displays, too. I don’t particularly care about cinema, but on a modern OLED panel seeing a scene shot at 24 FPS can straight up give me a headache, the stuttering motion is so bad. I’ll take 60 FPS everyday.
Staying at 24 FPS because that’s a “cinematic experience” would be like trying to develop Grand Theft Auto 5 as a SNES game because sprites are the “videogametic experience”
it did
Of course it did, Weta had no lead time at all. They had years for the original LotR trilogy. They were set up for failure.
But unfortunately it ruined the industry perception of 48fps movies for years. To the point that when the new Avatar came out last year they were like "it’s 48fps but we promise we double up frames for some scenes so it’s only 24fps for those ones, don’t worry!”
I forgot about that. It’s true I didn’t notice any problems in Avatar 2.