The technology to advance the HFR concept exists. Most digital movie cameras can easily be adjusted to accommodate shooting in HFRs and all Series II digital cinema projectors and servers can accommodate at least a 48fps playback. But the question remains. Does running more frames through a lens actually improve the viewing experience ?
The 35mm film standard of 24fps was developed because the studios didn't want to pay for more film that using a higher frame rate required. For example, at 48fps twice the film would be required for the same movie released in 24fps. The reason 24fps was chosen was because 16fps (the original standard of silent films) was not fast enough to support sound on film.
Hollywood proponents of a HFR standard claim that it eliminates strobing during near lens pan shots and provides a smoothness to physical movement denied to 24fps images. But some Hollywood production honchos question HFR's universal applicability. Some, like famed cinematographer, Doug Trumbull find that HFRs "look a little too vivid" and that real action in high contrast sunlight starts to "look hyper real". Trumbull's recommendation is to use HFR selectively, using it for action shots but returning the motion blur of 24fps when appropriate. " You can use HFR throughout the movie, changing frame rates for every scene, every object, every pixel, just as you would for brightness or color timing" , says Trumbull. For many viewers, HFR looks 'too real'. For others, it looks 'too much like video' and not like a regular film.
Ready For HFR
It appears that Hollywood's production folks and their content aequisition equipment are ready to accommodate high frame rates, it's just a matter of its value and need. Is a higher frame rate better? Yes. Does it make a huge difference from the viewers perspective? Probably not.
Best and Happy Movie Going
Jim Lavorato
Comments Welcomed
Join This Site Show Konversi KodeHide Konversi Kode Show EmoticonHide Emoticon