Kenneth <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Most of the consumer camera technology available now (cell phones,
> low-to-midrange cameras etc) have video modes that actually don't produce much
> motion blur at all. So users, especially young ones, are beginning to get
> accustomed to a different viewing experience than 24fps film. Perhaps this is
> another reason for Jackson's thinking concerning 48fps.

I'm not completely sure that the amount of motion blur in a movie
having an effect on how "natural" or "distracting" it looks like is
completely a question of being accustomed to one or the other.

The original choice of 24 frames per second was most probably dictated
by practicality (it's about the minimum framerate that makes the movie
look fluid to the human brain, and back in the day it was hard enough
to create such cameras to be trying anything significantly higher), but
it might turn out to be a case of serendipity: Maybe it's not only just
a question of economy (ie. the minimum framerate you can get away with
so that you don't have to make your camera more complicated and thus
expensive), but it just happens to be that the motion blur that it causes
is close to *perfect* for the human brain because it might be close to
what the brain sees when you move your eyes/head around.

When you get rid of that "natural" motion blur, there's a dissonance
between what you see and what your brain normally expects to see when
things move.

Of course this is pure speculation from my part because I haven't read
any actual studies on this.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message