Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678
Results 71 to 74 of 74
  1. Collapse Details
    #71
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    6,283
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by roxics View Post
    Hard to imagine what that would look like. I'd have to see it in action. Part of me thinks it would pull me out of the story though. Suddenly the scene shifts from looking like what I expect a movie to look like into something more soap opera looking. Seems like it would be distracting. But I don't know.

    I'm one of the few that didn't mind the Hobbit movies at 48fps, but they were consistently that throughout the film. In 3D it felt like a really epic stage play to me. I wouldn't want to watch every movie like that, but every once in a while it's interesting.
    Understood, but that's also what people said about changing aspect ratios in a movie -- too distracting.

    1927 - Abel Gance shoots the final reel of Napoleon to be shown as three 1.33 images projected side-by-side, decades before Cinerama. The effect is quite dramatic & impressive, much like the video re-release of Ben Hur, which is pan & scan except for the letterboxed Charriot Race sequence.

    1979 - (I'm probably forgetting some examples in between.) More American Graffiti tells several intercut stories, with a Vietnam War narrative shot in 1.33 grainy 16mm reversal. This one is a little bit hokey but it does help distinguish between the stories.

    1983 - Just four years later (really two years due to production delays related to an actor's death), Doug Trumbull shot Brainstorm with most of the film in 1.85 but the "Brainstorm" VR scenes in 2.39. The film was shown in 2.39 with black borders on the side for the 1.85 material. The effect is subtle and most audiences had no idea the frame shape changed, but they did experience the heightened reality effect for which Doug was striving.

    1999 - Galaxy Quest does the same aspect ratio change for humorous effect. The earth-bound beginning was 1.85 and when they move to space the image expands to 2.39. I liken this to how the "Vertigo" dolly/zoom was so mind-bending when Hitchcock invented it in 1958 but by the time Speilberg used it in Jaws it was just another way to add emphasis to a moment.

    And then there's Christopher Nolan switching at will between IMAX and 35mm in a bunch of his films. That would take a lot to describe but my point is that used judiciously with craft and artistry, audiences have come to accept if not embrace these frame shape changes as part of the languge of cinema. Just like accepting a zoom or an edit, or where is that music coming from? Used with well I believe that it is possible to add temporal shifts to filmmaking to positive effect.
    Mitch Gross
    Cinema Product Manager
    Panasonic System Solutions Company


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #72
    Senior Member roxics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,625
    Default
    You may be right. I'd have to see it a couple times to know.
    You're right in that I barely notice the aspect changes when they happen. I've noticed it in Nolan films from time to time, but I've seen Galaxy Quest a number of times and never knew it changed ratios until you mentioned it. I'll have to see it again and be on the lookout for it.

    That said, just because one technique works doesn't mean another will. Alcohol, water and juice are all wet and fit in a glass, but only one of the three has a significantly noticeable effect.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #73
    Senior Member abreu-canedo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    675
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by agcohn View Post
    All I know is Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk looked like absolute trash to me at 120fps. If I recall correctly there was only one shot in the entire movie where I wasn't bothered by the frame-rate. Everything else looked fake (locations, sets, props, people). What may have been dramatic serious moments at 24fps were turned to comedic farce at 120fps.
    I have yet to See BLLHW, but I know that what Mitch is describing is slightly different. The difference is 120fps so that filmmakers can slide in and out of frame-rates in delivery, the same way we can slide in and out of frame rates when we shoot, and also when we alter other aspects of the capture process... like shutter angle, aspect ratio, aperture, etc. The intent is not necessarily for a filmmaker to be at 120fps at all times... unless they choose to, like Ang Lee did. I feel bad for him, because even his lead cast talked $#!+ on BLLHW. But I give it up to him for trying to experiment. Again, I still haven't been bothered to see it yet though ;)


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #74
    Senior Member Run&Gun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    2,865
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by roxics View Post
    Hard to imagine what that would look like. I'd have to see it in action. Part of me thinks it would pull me out of the story though. Suddenly the scene shifts from looking like what I expect a movie to look like into something more soap opera looking. Seems like it would be distracting. But I don't know.

    I'm one of the few that didn't mind the Hobbit movies at 48fps, but they were consistently that throughout the film. In 3D it felt like a really epic stage play to me. I wouldn't want to watch every movie like that, but every once in a while it's interesting.

    I don't like stage plays. I always feel like I'm watching something "fake" and overacted(like watching BTS of movies). It pulls me out of the story and moment.


    Quote Originally Posted by abreu-canedo View Post
    I have yet to See BLLHW, but I know that what Mitch is describing is slightly different. The difference is 120fps so that filmmakers can slide in and out of frame-rates in delivery, the same way we can slide in and out of frame rates when we shoot, and also when we alter other aspects of the capture process... like shutter angle, aspect ratio, aperture, etc. The intent is not necessarily for a filmmaker to be at 120fps at all times... unless they choose to, like Ang Lee did. I feel bad for him, because even his lead cast talked $#!+ on BLLHW. But I give it up to him for trying to experiment. Again, I still haven't been bothered to see it yet though ;)

    Yes, shooting at 120 for speed ramping or other manipulation in post is much different than shooting 120fps for playback at 120fps.

    This was a major theatrical release. I know they shot camera tests. Either no one had the balls to say up front, "Hey this looks like sh!t" or he steam rolled everyone who objected.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •