On 1/6/2013 5:35 AM, Kenneth wrote:
>> I also think that it has something to do with motion blur. When you film
>> something at 24 FPS, when there's rapid movement each frame gets more
>> motion blur than if you film it at 48 FPS. Thus it makes the movie look
>> sharper, but whether that's a *good* thing is another question. "Less
>> motion blur" does not automatically mean "looks better" to the human
>> brain.
>
> Yeah, I agree completely. It's interesting that in the article you mentioned (or
> in one of its links), the film's director/cinematographer/effects supervisor all
> have the opinion that motion-blur is a *bad* thing, to be eliminated.

Actually, its bad advice for a much more specific reason. Our own eyes 
produce motion blur, and for a long time, its been "intentionally" 
introduced into some video, so that it doesn't look wrong, when viewed.

Post a reply to this message