I had the distinct feeling that Gandalf's magic wooden staff was actually made from magic painted foam. And I'll admit, the hyper-detailed, super-smooth look made my brain hurt for the first thirty minutes. With The Hobbit, reviewers railed and moviegoers unleashed their nerd rage online. Peter Jackson used it for the_ Hobbit_ trilogy, and there's a rumor that James Cameron is shooting _Avatar 2 _at sixty frames. I'm betting that soon we'll see more movies intentionally using the speedier, shinier frame rate. The second: Get used to that Soap Opera Effect style.
Switch your TV's version to "off" when the Soap Opera Effect rears its aggravatingly artificial head and you'll no longer suffer from the _General Hospital-_ization of films and TV. Every company has its own name for the smoothing tech-Sony calls it MotionFlow, Vizio calls it Smooth Motion, Samsung calls it Auto Motion Plus-buried in the picture-settings menu. Luckily, salvation is just a few button presses away. But it's a hell of a lot less impressive when Bullitt stops looking like a visually gritty tale of a cop bent on vengeance and starts looking like a telenovela starring smoldering newcomer Esteban McQueen. It's impressive when you consider the computing required to make that happen. Your TV is inventing new frames and inserting them between the real ones. On the flip side, you have soap operas, game shows, and _Dancing _ with the Real Housewives of Pawn Stars, usually shot at thirty to sixty frames per second-which is what those smoothing technologies are trying to mimic. We don't consciously register the tiny amount of shimmy and gauziness inherent in twenty-four frames per second, but our brains see it and think, This is quality fare.
Prime-time dramas and sitcoms like Mad Men, Arrested Development, and Game of Thrones? Also shot at that frame rate. Why? Our brains have been trained by decades of watching film shot at twenty-four frames per second.
0 kommentar(er)
