Give it time and low frame rates will be phased out.t
No it won’t.
Give it time and low frame rates will be phased out.t
You may be correct, but you may be wrong.No it won’t.
Unfortunately, I think you're right. It's many years away and I don't know that I'll live long enough to see it (and I'm not even 40) but eventually the horrible HFR video game look will take over.You may be correct, but you may be wrong.
Time will tell. I'm sure many believe current norms are unchangeable.
Spin back a few decades, many things were ingrained and deemed standard. Now they are not.
Going on my experience, the younger the viewer, the less attached to 24 FPS they are.
The current exponents of film convention will retire and die.
The medium will be inherited by a new generation, raised on games where the clarity of a game console will migrate to film.
You could be correct, but I suspect not.
What someone likes and dislikes doesn't dictate the way things evolve, because eventually the majority will win out. I suspect a younger generation will be thinking differently in future, and they will have the say.
This guy gets it.
Umm, does that imply that others who happen to agree with OP, are somehow, Stupid? Pretty condescending statement to make.
There was at least one: Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk. But you're basically right, 5 years after The Hobbit introduced HFR and it's gone nowhere.One thing that gives me hope is that there hasn't been any movies since The Hobbit to use it so clearly few were impressed by the fake look of it. It might have changed but my understanding is that James Cameron will be shooting the Avatar sequels in HFR but I don't expect that to change any filmmaker's opinions either.
Cameron didn’t foist HFR, Jackson did.HFR is basically the massive flop 3D should have been out of the gate. The kind of flop even Jim Cameron can't salvage since he's the one who foisted it on us and by the time Avatar II emerges it'll be too little too late.
Correct.Cameron didn’t foist HFR, Jackson did.
Cameron was already talking about shooting Avatar II at 60FPS as early as 2011.Cameron didn’t foist HFR, Jackson did.
And......Cameron was already talking about shooting Avatar II at 60FPS as early as 2011.
Welcome to the 21st century where you can make a movie look the way you want it to look instead of the way it was intended to look.
But I'm glad I am able to cheerfully violate the intent of the creator to enjoy the film the way I want it to look instead of the way it was intended to look. If I can make it better than the way the creator intended, I will definitely do it. It's my home theater.
If it looks better to me and the people watching the movie with me, then it looks better.
There's a funny story about "the intent of the creator" that applies here... There was a great concert pianist named Arthur Schnabel who was famous for his performances of Beethoven Sonatas. He turned down offers to record many times explaining, "I can't make a record without thinking that somewhere someone is sitting at the kitchen table in his undershirt listening to my music while he eats a ham sandwich. I have too much respect for the greatness of Beethoven to allow that to happen."
Creators expected all kinds of things... They expected their film to be played in theaters, not in homes. They expected that the film would play uninterrupted, not pause for bathroom breaks. They expected the film to be screened from a 35mm film print, not a video disc. They expected that there would be trailers and short subjects shown before the feature. They expected the theater to be pitch black, not normal living room lighting. They never expected that we would have a remote control so we could skip back and forth in the movie.
We're free to change these things to suit our own convenience and to please ourselves. We're the audience. We bought the movie. We can do whatever we want with it. We don't have any obligation to do anything but try to enjoy the film. That's a lot easier if you please yourself, not don a hair shirt to please someone who's been dead 25 years.
However in the case of Oklahoma, turning on the interlacing is *exactly* what the creators wanted. They shot the film with a higher frame rate than normal to make the movements smooth. I'm sure they wouldn't object at all to enhancing that effect a bit on playback. The same effect can be very useful for silent films with jittery frame rates. There's nothing wrong with the tool if it's used properly.