Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>
> I also think that it has something to do with motion blur...

I've been thinking about this in a more 'modern' context.

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.

For example, when shooting video at the US standard of 30fps (well, 29.97), in
order to get 'film-like' motion blur (or something similar, since 30fps isn't
24fps) the exposure should be 1/60 sec. That would correspond to a typical
'shutter angle' of 180-deg on a film camera. And would produce motion blur
approaching the *look* of a typical standard theater film, more or less. But
modern cameras shoot with a much higher exposure time/shutter speed--probably
1/200-sec or higher when in direct sunlight. (You can see this by examining the
video frame-by-frame.) The process seems to be completely automated on lower-end
cameras, varying the ISO and the shutter angle depending on the light levels.
(Lower light automatically produces more blur, in other words.) The result is
that there is really no 'standard' motion blur anymore. Only higher-end cameras
allow some manual variation of the ISO speed/shutter angle, to *introduce*
motion blur.

So it looks like we are all being 'weaned off' the experience of 24fps film
whether we like it or not, just by virtue of modern video technology.

Post a reply to this message